# Is this right about Fi and Ti?



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

Ti is being used when someone is super analytical about objective things. Ti users notice all the little nuances when analyzing something objective and thats why they're so good at figuring out how things work, right?

So, then Fi would be the same thing as Ti but applied to more humanistic things like morals? An Fi user then would be pretty analytical about what makes them who they are and what makes other people who they are. They would notice all the little nuances of a person's moral's, values, character, etc. They would be good at figuring out how people work.

Is that a basic way to describe the difference?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

AimfortheBrain said:


> Ti is being used when someone is super analytical about objective things. Ti users notice all the little nuances when analyzing something objective and thats why they're so good at figuring out how things work, right?
> 
> So, then Fi would be the same thing as Ti but applied to more humanistic things like morals? An Fi user then would be pretty analytical about what makes them who they are and what makes other people who they are. They would notice all the little nuances of a person's moral's, values, character, etc. They would be good at figuring out how people work.
> 
> Is that a basic way to describe the difference?


Sort of. But Ti isn't really about objectivity. That's Te. Ti just wants internal consistency. Introverted Judgment is about depth. Depth of concept (Ti), depth of humanistic evaluation (Fi). So, for example, a Te-based theory has to generally appeal to some external objective measure to be validated (the scientific method, mathematics, efficiency standards, etc). Where Ti only has to make sense to the individual. 

So an example of this is when someone has constructed an internal framework that says MBTI types change. A Te-type has the potential to immediately jump on this and say "no they didn't because Myers and Briggs say that type is innate and here is such and such evidence to support this." The Ti-type then says "yes but in my own internal framework its perfectly plausible to imagine a situation where types can change and this is all theory anyway, who says Myers is right?" Te-type becomes infuriated and says "you can't just make up your own framework! These are the (externally set) rules! Otherwise everyone would have their own standards and no one would know which was correct!." Ti-type responds by saying "all thinking is conceptual and theoretical and the only reason you think your Te is right is because it's just accepted but what if its not?" and so on and so on. Both people are basically talking past one another at this point.

Now I should say this conversation could occur between two Ti-types or two Te-types in reality, but this was sort of an exaggerated example of the difference between Ti and Te. Introverted functions are self-referencing, by nature and so only need to be coherent within the individual. In the same way what Fi says is worthwhile or valuable only has to be worthwhile or valuable relative to the individual. The Fi-type doesn't care if it is socially recognized as such and might view adherence to social evaluations as superficial and lacking in individual expressiveness.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

LiquidLight:2014431 said:


> an example of this is when someone has constructed an internal framework that says MBTI types change. A Te-type has the potential to immediately jump on this and say "no they didn't because Myers and Briggs say that type is innate and here is such and such evidence to support this." The Ti-type then says "yes but in my own internal framework its perfectly plausible to imagine a situation where types can change and this is all theory anyway, who says Myers is right?" Te-type becomes infuriated and says "you can't just make up your own framework! These are the (externally set) rules! Otherwise everyone would have their own standards and no one would know which was correct!." Ti-type responds by saying "all thinking is conceptual and theoretical and the only reason you think your Te is right is because it's just accepted but what if its not?" and so on and so on. Both people are basically talking past one another at this point.


This is a great example. It literally made me laugh out loud. I'm... not good... at arguing with Ti-users. Maybe now I can try and be a little more patient :wink:


----------



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

@LiquidLight 
Thanks. That cleared it up even more. What about people who are inferior in one of the judging functions? For example, a dominant Fi user would technically be a Te user, but since their Te is inferior, how do they view Te? Would they think that both Te and Ti are wrong?


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

I think this stuff about Fi being morals is kinda stupid. Fi is feeling. A thinker can have plenty of morals.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

AimfortheBrain said:


> @LiquidLight
> Thanks. That cleared it up even more. What about people who are inferior in one of the judging functions? For example, a dominant Fi user would technically be a Te user, but since their Te is inferior, how do they view Te? Would they think that both Te and Ti are wrong?


No being a dominant feeling type just means that thinking is suppressed. If thinking is impersonal judgment and feeling is personal or human judgment then these two are at odds with one another. You either judge something because it has value to you, or you ignore its value and judge it impersonally. 

So for a Fi-dominant say ISFP, they would prefer to approach the world from the standpoint of their own personal evaluations. "What is this worth to me? How much do I like this? Does it have any value relative to me," etc. As a result looking at things from the strict, cold, impersonal and most-importantly external standpoint of Te represents the polar opposite perspective. So a person who has adapted Fi as their dominant function will see Te as about the farthest thing from who they try to be. It's not that they don't dip into Te when they need to its just the closest function to the person's shadow, a perspective that feels very 'other' or 'not me.' 

I think on these forums we're more aware of what this looks like when its the opposite situation and a person tries to only judge through impersonal standards (thinking). Then their Feeling or humane evaluative side gets suppressed. This is why Ti-doms roll their eyes at strong Fe-types because Fe would represent the most illogical approach (evaluating something based on what everyone else says is good) and Fe-doms would see Ti-types as cold and inhumane. 

All the functions work this way. Ni is opposed by Se. Ne by Si. So a person who has habituated Se as their dominant preference (ESxPs) has also suppressed their intuition. Because a person who only views the world through the concrete, physical, and tangible, in-the-moment data is also choosing to not view the world through the implied, possible or metaphysical. If you choose to go east, that also means you have chosen not to go west.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> I think this stuff about Fi being morals is kinda stupid. Fi is feeling. A thinker can have plenty of morals.


All 'morals' are related to Feeling. It's just that in a dominant Feeling type those ideals will be the guiding forces of that individual, where they will basically afterthoughts behind more conceptual approaches in thinking types.

But it would be inappropriate to say INTP or ESTJ don't have morals. They have feeling (the Socionics term _ethics_ is probably a better word) like everyone else. It's just not their dominant approach.

The corollary to this would be to say an INFJ with inferior Se can't sense. That would be preposterous. It's just that they prefer intuition to sensing as a way of guiding their ego's objectives.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

No, thaf's ridiculous. Morals are my guiding force. The whole point of religion is that you're supposed to make morals your guiding force. You don't have to be an F to be religious, or a good person.

Honestly, this F = morals stuff is just something that feelers say to help themselves feel better about their lack of objectivity.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Sort of. But Ti isn't really about objectivity. That's Te. Ti just wants internal consistency. Introverted Judgment is about depth. Depth of concept (Ti), depth of humanistic evaluation (Fi). So, for example, a Te-based theory has to generally appeal to some external objective measure to be validated (the scientific method, mathematics, efficiency standards, etc). Where Ti only has to make sense to the individual.


 Actually, "objective" is often used for Thinking in general. And then, it's also used for extraversion of a function. So there is a bit of a conflict there.

What "objective" for Thinking is trying to convey is "impersonal" or basically "technical" seems like the most unambiguous term. Feeling would be "personal", but that too is ambiguous; often used for introverted functions (as is "subjective"), so "humane" seemed to capture what Feeling is about the best.

No, it's not just ethics, but ethics would be apart of Feeling content. (Socionics threw me on that as well, because I had become so used to the common "F=valuing" definition, but "valuing" is not necessarily ethics/morality). Ethics can be looked at technically, as well. (Think of someone getting off on a crime because of a "technicality". Or debates about being technically pure based on which particular sex acts were avoided or substituted). 
It's anything relating to the effects of something on us as personal beings, where Thinking would cover just the impersonal objects themselves. As Jung said S=what it is [i.e. tangibly], N is where it's heading [conceptually], T=what it is [technically] and F=what it means to us [humane effect].


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

knittigan said:


> This is a great example. It literally made me laugh out loud. I'm... not good... at arguing with Ti-users. Maybe now I can try and be a little more patient :wink:


Same here. I am always looking at the little nuances that make something logically inconsistent, and a Te user would say that it's irrelevant. This sets my Ti off going, "but look at this one statistically unlikely use case!!!!!" That does come in handy though.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Same here. I am always looking at the little nuances that make something logically inconsistent, and a Te user would say that it's irrelevant. This sets my Ti off going, "but look at this one statistically unlikely use case!!!!!" That does come in handy though.


It is irrelevant :wink:

Also, nice name change!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> No, thaf's ridiculous. Morals are my guiding force. The whole point of religion is that you're supposed to make morals your guiding force. You don't have to be an F to be religious, or a good person.
> 
> Honestly, this F = morals stuff is just something that feelers say to help themselves feel better about their lack of objectivity.


Well, actually, I think the inferior function is waaaaayyyyyy underestimated by the theories out there, and I believe that it is the inferior function that has the most power over the dominant function (I'm not the only person to say this either), since it is farther from conscious control. I highly doubt it's unconscious in most people, as the theories try to say, but just closer to being unconscious. If it were truly unconscious, I think most people would be severely insecure or mentally ill, considering that the dominant function absolutely needs the inferior function to function at all (J functions operate in tandem, while P functions operate in tandem). However, I would like clarification about whether or not it is actually the *function* that is unconscious or just the perspective that is unconscious (e.g. as an Ni dom, would this mean that the idea of living in the moment _for pleasure_ is unconscious, although I consciously use Se to satisfy all that my Ni perspective desires)? But from what you're saying here, I wouldn't be surprised if you're referring to what drives you (religion?) from the inferior Fe perspective, since the inferior function is the ultimate driving force of the dominant that is much-needed and often much appreciated by the dominant. Your second comment sounds like a projection though, since they are most likely *naturally* interested in human morality, etc. than thinkers are (like, they "live and breathe" it, while thinkers might appreciate it, but don't evaluate situations through the natural "lens" of morality much). Feelers with a low thinking preference might appreciate logic, but they don't evaluate the world through it much, unless absolutely necessary to sustain the dominant preference, which can be often, but it's not a comfortable way of thinking on a typical day to day basis (inferior function).


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> No, thaf's ridiculous. Morals are my guiding force. The whole point of religion is that you're supposed to make morals your guiding force. You don't have to be an F to be religious, or a good person.
> 
> Honestly, this F = morals stuff is just something that feelers say to help themselves feel better about their lack of objectivity.


Completely incorrect. F does _in fact_ refer to value/moral judgements. Objectivity refers to extroverted functions, and subjectivity refers to introverted functions. Adhering to shared ("objective") morals such as religion is Fe, adhering to personal (subjective) values is Fi. "Feelers" don't have any less objectivity than anyone else. Also, all judging (F/T) functions are rational, and perceiving functions (N/S) are irrational. Nowhere does emotionality come into the picture. Anything else you need made clear?


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@_Spades_ 

Jung uses the word "values" with reference to thinking and feeling functions. The only time he uses the word "ethics" or "ethical" are where he says that introverted perceivers lack the "ethics of reason," and where in relation to Extraverted Thinking, he states that the thinker's lack of feeling can allow the the thinker's ethical ideals to become distorted by an ultimate (logical) goal:




Psychological Types Chapter 10 said:


> Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance
> 
> the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.​





JungYesMBTINo said:


> But from what you're saying here, I wouldn't be surprised if you're referring to what drives you (religion?) from the inferior Fe perspective, since the inferior function is the ultimate driving force of the dominant that is much-needed and often much appreciated by the dominant. Your second comment sounds like a projection though, since they are most likely *naturally* interested in human morality, etc. than thinkers are (like, they "live and breathe" it, while thinkers might appreciate it, but don't evaluate situations through the natural "lens" of morality much).


Jung says that religion involves a good bit of thinking.



Psychological Types said:


> Primordial images are, of course, *just as much idea* as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are
> just as much feeling-values as* they are significant as ideas*.


The error we run into is when we say that Feeling = Values. That is just silly. The truer statement is that Feeling = EMOTIONAL values, e.g. being nice. Thinking favors logical or impersonal values, e.g. truth.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Jung uses the word "values" with reference to thinking and feeling functions. The only time he uses the word "ethics" or "ethical" are where he says that introverted perceivers lack the "ethics of reason," and where in relation to Extraverted Thinking, he states that the thinker's lack of feeling can allow the the thinker's ethical ideals to become distorted by an ultimate (logical) goal:


Probably to emphasize the form of "reasoning" that Ts and Fs "value" most. Thinkers value logical reasoning (which is impersonal, but can certainly be influenced by personal bias and/or positively backed up to support their F functions) when making important decisions and feelers value ethically congruent reasoning (which is personal and can be backed up by their T functions to be rational in important situations). Both are capable of T/F, but the *rationales* behind the logical interests of Fs, for instance, will probably derive from some personal values system, while the *rationales* of feeling interests in T types will probably derive from some kind of logical reasoning/outlook that T types prefer. Emotions create value around either type of judgement, but the F functions are values-reasoning systems from either the perspective of the similar values or others or the individualistic values of the self.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno

I think the purported association between morality and F has mostly to do with the fact that most of morality requires some emotion to carry out. Unless you are a theist who thinks that God will reward you for every good deed, or something similar, then there will often be times when logically, you could probably get away with wrongdoing without any practical consequences -- so that the only thing really holding you back would be the emotional desire (F) not to engage in it.

But morality itself is not feeling. In the examples cited by Jung of distorted morality in Extraverted Thinkers -- e.g., scientists falsifying their results to support a theory -- the scientist is still acting on an allegedly moral basis. The scientist logically assumes that "the ends justifeth the means" (Jung's words). "Justify" is a moral word. This hypothetical thinker doesn't have feelings holding him back, so his logic can lead him to extreme (and most of us would agree, false) morals.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I think the purported association between morality and F has mostly to do with the fact that most of morality requires some emotion to carry out. Unless you are a theist who thinks that God will reward you for every good deed, or something similar, then there will often be times when logically, you could probably get away with wrongdoing without any practical consequences -- so that the only thing really holding you back would be the emotional desire (F) not to engage in it.
> 
> But morality itself is not feeling. In the examples cited by Jung of distorted morality in Extraverted Thinkers -- e.g., scientists falsifying their results to support a theory -- the scientist is still acting on an allegedly moral basis. The scientist logically assumes that "the ends justifeth the means" (Jung's words). "Justify" is a moral word. This hypothetical thinker doesn't have feelings holding him back, so his logic can lead him to extreme (and most of us would agree, false) morals.


It seems like from this entire post, you view the idea of morality much through the lens of dominant Ti, which means that your concept is hardly universal, unlike that of the average Fi or Fe dom. It seems to me that you logically filter what makes sense to you from a moral context and call it morality in some logical framework of yours. It might benefit you, but it probably wouldn't benefit humanity at large, since your idea of it is so rooted in individualistic conceptual thinking, which isn't a type of ethically congruent thinking on its own. The F functions are strongly associated with human emotion, but they aren't emotions, just rational ways that are specially equipped to deal with emotion and the subjectivity of their minds and the minds of others, etc. Religion is in the realm of feeling, since much of it is rooted in these humanistic dynamics that F types are well-equipped to deal with. Of course, Ts can be religious, since everyone has an F function. It helps people deal with the F realm of existence over the T realm, which no types are excluded from benefitting from.



> In the examples cited by Jung of distorted morality in Extraverted Thinkers -- e.g., scientists falsifying their results to support a theory -- the scientist is still acting on an allegedly moral basis. The scientist logically assumes that "the ends justifeth the means" (Jung's words). "Justify" is a moral word. This hypothetical thinker doesn't have feelings holding him back, so his logic can lead him to extreme (and most of us would agree, false) morals.


This scientist in the example would not be setting a "moral" example for others, since it is self-centered only, I agree. Morality, as exemplified by the F types, has a strong "others" focus and is about setting positive examples for others, whether it be focused toward maintaing ethics among groups (Fe) or personal ethics (Fi). Either way, both would be setting positive examples for humanity to strive for at best (if it weren't, I guess it would constitute immorality). I tend to think that feelers are sort of the living "embodiments of morality or immorality" so-to-speak (yes, this sounds cheesy, but that's just it - the concept of morality is extremely hard to intellectualize, thus the more emotional realm is better equipped for dealing with "embodying" it, I guess - if it could be intellectualized, it wouldn't be in the F realm at all, it would be in the T realm - intellectual thought can certainly justify it's necessity, but it cannot be understood through only thinking (Jungian thinking) at all. I don't think I can go much farther in explaining this, since it is so in the realm of F reasoning.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

On a side note, I don't think that the F functions = morality, but they are the best equipped to deal with these issues. This is like how the T functions don't = intellectual, but they are the best equipped to deal with the intellectual realm. Ultimately, I.Q. and E.Q. would probably play into how well Ts and Fs can function in these realms of reasoning, which are not type-related (I.Q. and E.Q). Fs can use their T functions well and like doing so, but this isn't how they naturally think about the world/process information, while Ts can use their F functions well and like doing so, but this isn't how they naturally think about the world/process information.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

In my mind, the perceiving function casts a net and Ti/Fi pulls out what isn't useful. To borrow @Eric B's definitions, Ti would lean more towards extracting technical considerations and Fi would lean more towards extracting humane considerations, but it isn't all or nothing it's a leaning. I'm (as a Fi user) not going to discard all of the technical/impersonal information. I might need that in certain pursuits. I just tend to focus more on the humane. 

A Ti user may well be more ethical than a Fi user and a Fi user may be more logical than a Ti user depending on the original net and all of the other variables. This isn't a straight dichotomy. What you extract (or subtract) depends on the user.


----------



## Lackjester (Aug 16, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> All the functions work this way. Ni is opposed by Se. Ne by Si. So a person who has habituated Se as their dominant preference (ESxPs) has also suppressed their intuition. Because a person who only views the world through the concrete, physical, and tangible, in-the-moment data is also choosing to not view the world through the implied, possible or metaphysical. If you choose to go east, that also means you have chosen not to go west.


Could someone have both abnormally high Ni and Ne at the expense of Se and Si?


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Revenant said:


> I certainly understand where you are coming from, however I tend to look beyond the life of one person, and see the lives of many others. I also don't blame you for only reading my conclusion; I am rather long-winded some times--but I explained further how the theft would not simply save one life, but potentially ruin (or kill) many others in the long run. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is what I believe.


Do you by any chance work for a major pharmaceutical manufacturer? 

You're putting, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of value on intellectual property or entrepreneurial rights. That way of thinking requires civil servants to protect the entrepreneur from the masses (and protect his "property," teach him, run libraries, provide him with drinking water so that he can survive to add whatever asset he can to society, put out fires in his neighborhood etc..) who may simply shoot him in the head and steal it all for their own profit. Civil service jobs pay crap (and aren't valued in a free market). So in order for this entrepreneur to make his fortune he must depend on others being altruistic. And he wants to exploit his small contribution for enormous gain? If that's all that drives him then he's more of a menace to society. We're all going to die anyways, I rather not die of thirst while there was an opportunist selling water to the highest bidder right next to me. Would you honestly?

But this thread is veering off course.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

saffron said:


> The hippy guy is the Ti user.


 The hippy guy is not a Ti user...clear Te usage. He's all about external efficiency and universal logic. "The number one critter that kills the most people in North America is the Honey Bee." He uses external facts and data(measurable) as a basis for his decisions.

Dave is also a very clear example of Ti and Se working together. He practically quotes some of the stuff I've seen written about Ti saying, "The point is, how dangerous is it in my mind? I'm the one takin the risk so in my mind it has to be worth the reward." Then he goes on and uses Ti and Se to figure out the best way to get the honey, which is why he starts naming off items they're carrying(Se) and starts thinking about how they can be used to aid him in his mission to get the honey(Ti).


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

xReBoRN7 said:


> The hippy guy is not a Ti user...clear Te usage. He's all about external efficiency and universal logic. "The number one critter that kills the most people in North America is the Honey Bee." He uses external facts and data(measurable) as a basis for his decisions.
> 
> Dave is also a very clear example of Ti and Se working together. He practically quotes some of the stuff I've seen written about Ti saying, "The point is, how dangerous is it in my mind? I'm the one takin the risk so in my mind it has to be worth the reward." Then he goes on and uses Ti and Se to figure out the best way to get the honey, which is why he starts naming off items they're carrying(Se) and starts thinking about how they can be used to aid him in his mission to get the honey(Ti).


I took that out of my post pretty much immediately because I had doubts. I still have doubts. I don't watch the show and don't know the overall tendencies and was thinking that the Ti user would err towards cautious rather than plow ahead with an agenda. I can see your point though. Did you see the part where the assumed Ti user was wrong in how it played out in the next video? I mean thankfully no great harm so.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

saffron said:


> Do you by any chance work for a major pharmaceutical manufacturer?


Yes! My name is doctor Heinz! 



saffron said:


> You're putting, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of value on intellectual property or entrepreneurial rights. That way of thinking requires civil servants to protect the entrepreneur from the masses (and protect his "property," teach him, run libraries, provide him with drinking water so that he can survive to add whatever asset he can to society, put out fires in his neighborhood etc..) who may simply shoot him in the head and steal it all for their own profit.


My intent was not to imply anything about an entrepreneur needing anything from anyone else. In fact, so long as a basic and fair judiciary system exists in a given country, a creative person (artist, entrepreneur, composer, etc.) can feel free to produce after considering all other risks. If risks involve violence from others, the creative individual will have to find a way around that; to arm themselves, pay for protection, etc. The only thing which should protect _anyone's_ rights is the law which should severely punish anyone who inhibits the freedom of others. That _includes_ the entrepreneur, but certainly does not extend any further benefit to him or her.



saffron said:


> Civil service jobs pay crap (and aren't valued in a free market). So in order for this entrepreneur to make his fortune he must depend on others being altruistic.


I don't follow this line of reasoning, do you mind explaining further?



saffron said:


> And he wants to exploit his small contribution for enormous gain? If that's all that drives him then he's more of a menace to society. We're all going to die anyways, I rather not die of thirst while there was an opportunist selling water to the highest bidder right next to me. Would you honestly?


Sorry my Ti and your Fi seem to be colliding  How do you mean he/she wants to exploit for gain? I don't follow this either, but am interested in understanding what you have to say.

Perhaps as an Fi user, you see the direct result of the creative person's endeavors--a person providing water to others--which does not provide equal distribution? While my Ti identifies with the indirect result of the creator's business: selling the water to those who can pay for it allows for the water-seller to continue selling his/her water (they can go buy more to bring back and sell), at the same time provides those who are "strong survivors" (who overcame their obstacles and strove to make enough money to buy the water) over those who did not try to overcome their obstacles. (And yes, this would also include the very small percentage of people who _could not_ overcome their obstacles for whatever reason.) To the Ti, the end result is _more water_ and _more benefit_ to society; if the business person were to give away his/her water equally, then once the water ran out it was no more, and could no longer be obtained.



saffron said:


> But this thread is veering off course.


My initial response was about the moral foundations, and how Ti and Fi (or really any judging function) exists when considering morals. After (an)other active voice inquired further, I went further, but tried to keep the basic idea around the "what are morals," so that one can discern the use of Ti and Fi when examining them. (You are _still _right; the subject has taken a side road!) The initial question was:



AimfortheBrain said:


> [...] So, then Fi would be the same thing as Ti but applied to more humanistic things like morals? An Fi user then would be pretty analytical about what makes them who they are and what makes other people who they are. They would notice all the little nuances of a person's moral's, values, character, etc.[...] Is that a basic way to describe the difference?


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

@Revenant I'm going to try to keep this short. While I do think it is somewhat elucidating to see in practice how the different functions lead us to focus on specific areas of information, I don't want to turn this into a debate thread.

I realize you weren't implying the entrepreneur needs anything from anyone else I was making the point that all members of society (including the entrepreneur) benefit from say a firefighter who is willing to forego a high financial payoff (not to mention risk his/her life) to serve the community (the firefighter is one example, their is a laundry list more). I was juxtaposing that with the "cure-finding" entrepreneur who may not actually have "survived" were it not for the benevolence of others who seeks only to make a _huge profit_ when he is able to help or repay society simply because he knows that it involves desperate people and some will be able to pay - of course maybe not the firefighter etc.. The numbers matter. There is profit and then there is complete ingratitude and opportunism. Eventually, society always turns on the latter.

And I'm checking out of this debate.


----------

