# How come Fi and Ti are so similar?



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Personally, whenever I read descriptions or have them explained to me, I find I can't see a REAL difference between Ti and Fi. I'm not sure why though, and have the same issue with Ne and Se.
I was wondering if there's any really good way to tell them apart? 
Descriptions tend to lose me after a while and seem to turn round and loop together, so they seem the same again...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

They are as different as different can get, actually. The descriptions of Fi tend to be pretty inaccurate, so this might be behind some of this (they tend to turn it into emotional thinking, while in reality, it isn't emotional and emotions underly all of the functions' abilities to be rationalized, so totally wrong in principle). Ti is the epitome of conceptual on the level of comparing and contrasting anything that looks like a broad, inherent similarity to anything else, while Fi works in the realm of meaning, not true and false binaries, so in the realm of people and evaluation, it works with what something means personally, as well as from what meaning can be derived from anything in relation to one's own self-derived sense of meaning (so, it opens up questions and often answers them with meaning - the T functions are essentially anti-meaning and about consistency, while the F functions about about inconsistency and how people deal with this). The F functions tend to work in the realm of simile/metaphor to tie meaning into the conceptual (T and F are inextricably connected), while the T functions work on a true/false, factual paradigm. F creates the explanation source, T makes sure it works (so, in terms of consistency). T is related to "what something is," F is related to "what something can become." Creativity is possible with both, but when one predominates, the other underlies it (and thus, gets repressed in it's own expression). Two Ji functions (or Pi functions) can never co-exist though, so if one manifests, the other is going to get supremely repressed (and put a person in deep trouble when their habituated preference gets threatened this way, like perhaps put a person into some kind of one-track survival mode of mental functioning, or worse).


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> They are as different as different can get, actually. The descriptions of Fi tend to be pretty inaccurate, so this might be behind some of this (they tend to turn it into emotional thinking, while in reality, it isn't emotional and emotions underly all of the functions' abilities to be rationalized, so totally wrong in principle). Ti is the epitome of conceptual on the level of comparing and contrasting anything that looks like a broad, inherent similarity to anything else, while Fi works in the realm of meaning, not true and false binaries, so in the realm of people and evaluation, it works with what something means personally, as well as from what meaning can be derived from anything in relation to one's own self-derived sense of meaning (so, it opens up questions and often answers them with meaning - the T functions are essentially anti-meaning and about consistency, while the F functions about about inconsistency and how people deal with this). The F functions tend to work in the realm of simile/metaphor to tie meaning into the conceptual (T and F are inextricably connected), while the T functions work on a true/false, factual paradigm. F creates the explanation source, T makes sure it works (so, in terms of consistency). T is related to "what something is," F is related to "what something can become." Creativity is possible with both, but when one predominates, the other underlies it (and thus, gets repressed in it's own expression). Two Ji functions (or Pi functions) can never co-exist though, so if one manifests, the other is going to get supremely repressed (and put a person in deep trouble when their habituated preference gets threatened this way, like perhaps put a person into some kind of one-track survival mode of mental functioning, or worse).


I suppose this would explain my apparent total lack of Fi - my Ti is off the charts.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> I suppose this would explain my apparent total lack of Fi - my Ti is off the charts.


That would probably make you a Ti dominant then.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

They both have a precision and intensity but are applied to different relationships within the subject. 

Fi: object-self object (value judgments)
Ti: object-object (conceptualization)

So expanding from this, Fi will develop a belief system around the self whereas Ti is divorced from the self-as-object. The question is, what does the inclusion of a self-as-object bring to the table. That is, what is a value judgment really but an assignment of worth to the central well-being of a individual or a collection of individuals. Well-being in this case can be whatever measure of sustainability or "existence" of an object. It's also arguable that any relation between the self-object and another object is one of value.

One way that Ti conceptualization divorces the relationship from the self-object is by moving away from the particulars towards the universals. This is due to particulars tending to have designations in a spatial-temporal manifold centered around the self. e.g. when one see's a particular car, that car by virtue of being seen by you exists in front of you right now. Conceptualization of the car will take it out of this spatial-temporal manifold that is in the here and now by turning it into various abstractions (parts/models/history/uses/designs/etc) where the existence or well-being of the "abstract you" in this realm is allowed to be intrinsic as a static quality (and hence 'existence' is no longer moot). i.e. the "abstract you" cannot make value judgments as it exists without form.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> That would probably make you a Ti dominant then.


I'm not Ti dominant. My Ti is just extremely developed and I'm comfortable with it.

I don't think I have auxiliary Ti. I think I have dominant Ne and sub-dominant Ti.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> I'm not Ti dominant. My Ti is just extremely developed and I'm comfortable with it.
> 
> I don't think I have auxiliary Ti. I think I have dominant Ne and sub-dominant Ti.


Psychologically, this isn't possible (you can have great abilities and such around Ti, but that's not the point of having a psychological type - you can probably be an inferior Ti type and have a well of talent there at random as well - it's not impossible, but it would be a bit freakish if it competes with the dominant). Your type is your dominant - your mental reflex "go-to" function - you either naturally habituate judgment tendencies or perception tendencies, and the rest aids this (so, Ti would still be the aid of Ne, but unless it's really well differentiated (this is pretty rare), it's not your dominant). Being comfortable with most of the conscious functions should be normal enough, considering they're ego syntonic anyhow (inferior's the issue-prone area, of course, but MBTI tends to blow up the extent to which it is rejected - there are probably plenty of aspects of it that are accepted by people toward the ego, but they'd probably be unknown to them by-and-large).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Ti and Fi are both Ji functions - introverted judging functions - and in psyche they perform the very same role - providing a counterbalance to Je and Pi - but with different value emphasis. Fi emphasizes everything that is harmonizing to the individual, while Ti will discount this element. Ti users can thus be very impersonal with themselves, they thinking may seem cold and dispassionate.

From Chapter 10 of Psychological Types by Carl Jung, Fi is akin to self-empathy, a quality that is found in deficit in Ti types:



> Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. *Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself*. This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into the extraverted functions repressed by feeling, just as introverted thinking is pitted against a primitive feeling, to which objects attach themselves with magical force, so introverted feeling is counterbalanced by a primitive thinking, whose concretism and slavery to facts passes all bounds.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Psychologically, this isn't possible (you can have great abilities and such around Ti, but that's not the point of having a psychological type - you can probably be an inferior Ti type and have a well of talent there at random as well - it's not impossible, but it would be a bit freakish if it competes with the dominant). Your type is your dominant - your mental reflex "go-to" function - you either naturally habituate judgment tendencies or perception tendencies, and the rest aids this (so, Ti would still be the aid of Ne, but unless it's really well differentiated (this is pretty rare), it's not your dominant). Being comfortable with most of the conscious functions should be normal enough, considering they're ego syntonic anyhow (inferior's the issue-prone area, of course, but MBTI tends to blow up the extent to which it is rejected - there are probably plenty of aspects of it that are accepted by people toward the ego, but they'd probably be unknown to them by-and-large).


And how does this explain the quizzes I take with stronger Ti than Ne, but I'm still clearly a dominant Ne user?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> And how does this explain the quizzes I take with stronger Ti than Ne, but I'm still clearly a dominant Ne user?


Quizzes aren't necessarily accurate. It seems like they're often just measuring how well you match certain stereotypes. But it's an entirely different matter to determine whether a particular function is dominating your conscious. ... And, if we want to get into a broader issue, whether its opposite function is characterizing your unconscious.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

gingertonic said:


> And how does this explain the quizzes I take with stronger Ti than Ne, but I'm still clearly a dominant Ne user?


1) the quiz was poorly crafted
2) the answers you provided did not correspond to how you really are

If you want to understand your functional order better, you should study the functional theory in greater depth and interact more with people of related types to understand the differences between your types.

Quizzes are only for beginners.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> 1) the quiz was poorly crafted
> 2) the answers you provided did not correspond to how you really are
> 
> If you want to understand your functional order better, you should study the functional theory in greater depth and interact more with people of related types to understand the differences between your types.
> ...


thank you oh gracious knowledge-keeper

:dry:

i guess we're not at the same level here.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Sometimes i come to PerC and spend my entire time laughing, seriously. People with their one liners like the poster above, freaking funny


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Thanks for all the information on this! It seems similar in some ways still, like both are abstract and turn internalised to the extreme when unhealthy. How would you separate them in an individual?

*To all those who are starting to irritate each other, let's try and keep it nice and on topic yeah? Thanks in advance!*


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

tine said:


> Thanks for all the information on this! It seems similar in some ways still, like both are abstract and turn internalised to the extreme when unhealthy. How would you separate them in an individual?
> 
> *To all those who are starting to irritate each other, let's try and keep it nice and on topic yeah? Thanks in advance!*


#trigger warning #trigger warning

It is hard to separate them but Ti will worry less about people and more about facts and logic while Fi will worry about internal values as far as I know.
Can you have logic as an internal value?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

tine said:


> Personally, whenever I read descriptions or have them explained to me, I find I can't see a REAL difference between Ti and Fi. I'm not sure why though, and have the same issue with Ne and Se.
> I was wondering if there's any really good way to tell them apart?
> Descriptions tend to lose me after a while and seem to turn round and loop together, so they seem the same again...


The mainly left problem about my functions is also Fi/Ti, Ne is sure.

Can you relate to the wearing question whether your dominant is

a) a purely "unpersonal" subjective and abstract purpose that seeks knowledge, overlaid/joined by however-caused affinity and concerns towards people, ethics and aesthetics, but no obvious conflict between them
or 
b) a less conspicuous totally personal/self-related principle that is even somehow active while contemplating about totally "inanimate" things; seemingly seeking objective knowledge but actually seeking yourself...

[if it really is the dominant...]


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> They are as different as different can get, actually. The descriptions of Fi tend to be pretty inaccurate, so this might be behind some of this (they tend to turn it into emotional thinking, while in reality, it isn't emotional and emotions underly all of the functions' abilities to be rationalized, so totally wrong in principle). Ti is the epitome of conceptual on the level of comparing and contrasting anything that looks like a broad, inherent similarity to anything else, while Fi works in the realm of meaning, not true and false binaries, so in the realm of people and evaluation, it works with what something means personally, as well as from what meaning can be derived from anything in relation to one's own self-derived sense of meaning (so, it opens up questions and often answers them with meaning - the T functions are essentially anti-meaning and about consistency, while the F functions about about inconsistency and how people deal with this). The F functions tend to work in the realm of simile/metaphor to tie meaning into the conceptual (T and F are inextricably connected), while the T functions work on a true/false, factual paradigm. F creates the explanation source, T makes sure it works (so, in terms of consistency). T is related to "what something is," F is related to "what something can become." Creativity is possible with both, but when one predominates, the other underlies it (and thus, gets repressed in it's own expression). Two Ji functions (or Pi functions) can never co-exist though, so if one manifests, the other is going to get supremely repressed (and put a person in deep trouble when their habituated preference gets threatened this way, like perhaps put a person into some kind of one-track survival mode of mental functioning, or worse).


I don't think that Ti or Fi suppress each other though... If that was the case, I wouldn't score so high on both of them. I supress Si and Fe more than Fi for sure. My Fi is very strong and well-developed. I also think it's Ti that dichotomizes in true-false and correct-incorrect, and Fi in right-wrong and good-bad.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> 1) the quiz was poorly crafted
> 2) the answers you provided did not correspond to how you really are
> 
> If you want to understand your functional order better, you should study the functional theory in greater depth and interact more with people of related types to understand the differences between your types.
> ...


And I can tell you right away that knowing ginger well enough is that he's right in his assessment that Ti is more like sub-dominant for him than a true auxiliary, just like Fi and Ne are like sub-dominants to me rather than true auxiliaries.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think that Ti or Fi suppress each other though... If that was the case, I wouldn't score so high on both of them. I supress Si and Fe more than Fi for sure. My Fi is very strong and well-developed. I also think it's Ti that dichotomizes in true-false and correct-incorrect, and Fi in right-wrong and good-bad.


I'm finding myself completely in agreement with you again. It's contextual. (And I also suppress Si and Fe most of all).


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Hapalo said:


> #trigger warning #trigger warning
> 
> It is hard to separate them but Ti will worry less about people and more about facts and logic while Fi will worry about internal values as far as I know.
> Can you have logic as an internal value?


Haha exactly XD
I'm not sure, it's one of the things that confuses me (it was described once as 'personal logic' which sounds like a contradiction...)



Dastan said:


> The mainly left problem about my functions is also Fi/Ti, Ne is sure.
> 
> Can you relate to the wearing question whether your dominant is
> 
> ...


Oh dear me, I didn't understand the question....sorry D:


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

I mean (if you also don't really know whether your dominant function is Ti or Fi) do you also end up in trying to squeeze the things in your mind that look like Ti (logic, definitions, categorization, precision of thought...) into bigger contexts of Fi or vice-versa?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

saffron said:


> I'm finding myself completely in agreement with you again. It's contextual. (And I also suppress Si and Fe most of all).


Yes. I notice that you are more likely to suppress the function of the same type as you possess in your top stack but inverted, so for you, Fe as an Fi auxiliary for example. This is not always true, but this certainly seems to hold some merit among INTJs for example, who are often suspicious of Ti, pr Se auxiliary users would are suspicious of Se.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tine said:


> Haha exactly XD
> I'm not sure, it's one of the things that confuses me (it was described once as 'personal logic' which sounds like a contradiction...)


This of it as preferences instead of something that is always in control. If we for example were to dicsuss politics, let's say, the legalization of marijuana (because I know I have Fi values related to that subject), I am more likely to fall back on Fi than Ti. It's contextual. 

I know my opinions (see, I was even going to write feelings here) about the subject of marijuana legalization are Fi-related because there is no internal logic to them more than I think legalization is right and prohibition wrong. That's my basic stance on the issue. I can then further rationalize this stance with Ti and Te, but truth remains that at the core, it's still Fi-value based for me. 

Also, Fi always backs up Ti as a shadow dominant function. Ti isn't value-less, just that Ti has principles than values, but as with Fi, there is no external logic as to why these principles over others. They are deep down motivated by Fi. I for example value consistency very highly, and consistency is a principle that should be expressed both internally and externally. This means that a person's behavior should reflect what they think. Again, there is no underlying logic here behind this principle more than ultimately that not following it is simply an incorrect way of being, and I derive the meaning of correct-incorrect from Fi.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I know my opinions (see, I was even going to write feelings here) about the subject of marijuana legalization are Fi-related because there is no internal logic to them more than I think legalization is right and prohibition wrong. That's my basic stance on the issue. I can then further rationalize this stance with Ti and Te, but truth remains that at the core, it's still Fi-value based for me.


Honestly, I have no idea how you would know this. Frankly, as an Fi type, I don't think that's Fi, because it isn't self-rationalized (what you seem to be implying here is that you just know, but that wouldn't come from any function until it is rationalized - it's just you using your brain somehow, likely fairly unconsciously). Fi is not that...how do I put it nicely...stupid (like mindlessly holding views). If it is Fi, than surely, I'm not in the least bit surprised that that funtion would be completely unconscious in you anyhow if you're a Ti dominant (holding to objective values oriented toward issues of the outside world would be Fe, which I think this sounds more like, frankly, although likely very poorly rationalized - Fi is more esoteric in the values department - usually concerned with stuff that can be derived from ideals of the individual, rather than stuff that can be experienced). I have no idea what the fetishy obsession with claiming to use Fi is with the Ti types, but I'd bet my life's savings to actually notice this rare phenomenon of ego rationalization in any of the ones I know IRL beyond something like demon complex (sort of like the examples in a certain post around here called "Heinous Use of Fi in XNTPs" or something to that effect).


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Two questions: first, what is sub-dominance? Naive guess would be it appears next to Dom, but does not exhibit the interplay of Dom-aux.

Second, so is this theory of suppressing the inverse of a top stack function for instance why an INFJ may suppress Fi? I think I do use Fi, probably like you say as a shadow to my Ti, which honestly is at least as well-developed as Fe for me, but I am naturally suspicious of it and at the core unsettled by it.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> holding to objective values oriented toward issues of the outside world would be Fe, which I think this sounds more like, frankly, although likely very poorly rationalized - Fi is more esoteric in the values department - usually concerned with stuff that can be derived from ideals of the individual


Just because Fi was cited as the source of something relevant to the external does not mean the motivation for that was not an esoteric value derived from an individual ideal. For instance, the sense in which I value consistency is almost certainly one of the most Fi things in me, but it often translates to imply things about the external world.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Hapalo said:


> #trigger warning #trigger warning
> 
> It is hard to separate them but Ti will worry less about people and more about facts and logic while Fi will worry about internal values as far as I know.
> Can you have logic as an internal value?


Since all the introverted functions are subjective, we could ask ourself how much weight Ti Ni and Si carry in terms of logic. It wouldn't make sense that only the value system wouldn't be logical while other subjective functions are. Food for thought.

I think @cyamitide made it clear on page 2 the differences between these two functions.


Ti and Fi are both Ji functions - introverted judging functions -* and in psyche they perform the very same role - providing a counterbalance to Je and Pi - but with different value emphasis*

I'm no expert here that's for sure, although i think it's clear in terms of motivation how these two functions differ from the other. One is based on facts and principal, the other based on morals and values. The methods and processes for both functions can look the same, because they are both playing a roll of personalizing data for themselves. The motivation is where you see the difference.( object vs values. I can't explain this as well as others here, although the concept just doesn't seem that hard to understand. I think people over think it wayy to much only confusing themselves even more.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think that Ti or Fi suppress each other though... If that was the case, I wouldn't score so high on both of them. I supress Si and Fe more than Fi for sure. My Fi is very strong and well-developed. I also think it's Ti that dichotomizes in true-false and correct-incorrect, and Fi in right-wrong and good-bad.


You're either not a Ti dominant, or you clearly have no idea what Fi really is (you're probably mistaking Fe for Fi - Fe would be the more objective "right/wrong" function, while Fi would be the one that's rarely stimulated toward establishing judgments in a conclusive fashion (it operates in a more investigative way).


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Since all the introverted functions are subjective, we could ask ourself how much weight Ti Ni and Si carry in terms of logic. *It wouldn't make sense that only the value system wouldn't be logical while other subjective functions are*. Food for thought.


Why not? Are people not irrational? Are people supposed to make sense? Explain further.



MuChApArAdOx said:


> I think people over think it wayy to much only confusing themselves even more.


Perhaps...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> You're either not a Ti dominant, or you clearly have no idea what Fi really is (you're probably mistaking Fe for Fi - Fe would be the more objective "right/wrong" function, while Fi would be the one that's rarely stimulated toward establishing judgments in a conclusive fashion (it operates in a more investigative way).


No, I am not. I think we simply adhere to different theories. I don't think the functions necessarily oppose each other. If that was the case, I wouldn't really want to use Te either as a Ti dom. It simply depends on the individual. 

Also, why do you think Fe would be more about right and wrong than Fi would? Fe is more likely to simply align with the opinions of others. Both of these opinions can be right or wrong. The difference is simply where the opinion of what is right or wrong comes from - your own personal judgement or because you agree with others?

I want to add that I think it's a little funny you cite yourself as being the example of an Fi user, when your Fi is poorly developed... Just because you have it in your MBTI function stack it doesn't mean that it must be used well. So yes, I take your personal experiences and identify Fi with a grain of salt, as I am not sure you fully understand Fi either considering the poor use you've exhibited thus far.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Two questions: first, what is sub-dominance? Naive guess would be it appears next to Dom, but does not exhibit the interplay of Dom-aux.
> 
> Second, so is this theory of suppressing the inverse of a top stack function for instance why an INFJ may suppress Fi? I think I do use Fi, probably like you say as a shadow to my Ti, which honestly is at least as well-developed as Fe for me, but I am naturally suspicious of it and at the core unsettled by it.


Think of it more as the ability to temporarily switch dominant function with the auxiliary, so the auxiliary becomes dominant even if just for a brief moment. This occurs when the auxiliary is very well-developed. I can for example appear more ENTP-ish because my Ne is very strong, and ginger can appear INTP-ish because ginger has strong Ti.

And yes, this is what I mean in the latter of your post. I do utilize Te quite a bit and I am comfortable using it and I can switch to Te mode, but I am still suspicious of Te because I think Te is limited in its perception of reality. Ti is much more comfortable, definitely. Ti simply makes more sense to me. I would say my Te is perhaps around the same level of development as my Ne, maybe a bit lower, but when I fall back on Te is much more contextual. 

I prefer Ti if I can. And I agree with you that Fi is simply just the ability to rationalize an opinion in the sense of how it relates to you. In the end the legalization of marijuana is right to me because it allows for personal freedom (and that's probably as close as you can get to a personal universally held value as you can get, aka Fi) and systematic use is nowhere near as damaging to society as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol (and please explain to me how this would be Fe instead of Te logic since the underlying principle here is based on efficiency). 

But if you remove all those external justifications - it still boils down to what you think is right or wrong. I would simply say that expressing opinions is exertion of judgement, but one can judge without openly rationalize or express them. A lot of our thoughts do indeed occur unconsciously.

I mean, in the end, if you break one of my Ti principles (quite easy to do), I just think it's that - wrong. You just don't do it, and that applies to myself as well. I would say that's very much Fi in the shadow again, because I don't derive such values based on anyone else but myself. They are my personal principles of how to think and behave. Fi acts pretty much the same, but it deals with subjects rather than objects.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Fe is more likely to simply align with the opinions of others. Both of these opinions can be right or wrong. The difference is simply where the opinion of what is right or wrong comes from - your own personal judgement or because you agree with others?


Totally untrue. Both F functions are indirectly related to having one's OWN opinions, but they're about the *ways *that people rationalize them. Also, the introverted functions are subjective in how they draw conclusions from mental content while the extraverted functions are objective in how they draw conclusions from mental content (so, they reference the outside world rather than their own content to affirm their conclusions). So no, it's not that simple. Just establishing something as right and wrong with a lack of subjective consideration for the process of how you did it would reflect an extraverted judging function, not an introverted one. So what you're presenting supposedly as Fi in yourself sounds more like Fe to me, since you seem to have 100% no awareness of the variables of the process behind the conclusion. It's more like, you felt something was right/wrong, and the way you went about justifying this to yourself was impersonal in reference, if you ever even justified it at all (functions have nothing to do with the conclusions themselves). If you never rationalized it, then, this probably had nothing to do with functions at all and might've represented some kind of unconscious complex you have. If it was Fi, then it probably represented the fact that the Fi rationalization process is basically totally unconscious in you (or as unconscious as unconscious can get with functions).


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Hapalo said:


> Why not? Are people not irrational? Are people supposed to make sense? Explain further.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps...


Ug, functions make my head hurt some days. I will try and make it clearer 

Are they rational, well yes it their own right. We can't label one subjective function as being more illogica/logical than another because of the subjectivity that surrounds each one is equal. Subjective is subjective. One is not more logical than the other, each is again equally subjective. Now that doesn't mean we can't find logic within that subjectivity, i believe we can, but....that includes all the introverted functions, not only the ones we pick and choose to believe can/are logical. That would be like saying that all the external functions are objective, except for one { Te }, is that the one we should choose  

We rely on our closest objective function to widen our scope, now we have more information and data to work with. This leads us to discovering logical findings that we subjectively accept.

Yes people are both rational and irrational. We can discover both logical/illogical faculties in introverted/extroverted functions, including Fi since that was the source of topic here.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> No, I am not. I think we simply adhere to different theories. I don't think the functions necessarily oppose each other. If that was the case, I wouldn't really want to use Te either as a Ti dom. It simply depends on the individual.
> 
> Also, why do you think Fe would be more about right and wrong than Fi would? Fe is more likely to simply align with the opinions of others. Both of these opinions can be right or wrong. The difference is simply where the opinion of what is right or wrong comes from - your own personal judgement or because you agree with others?
> 
> I want to add that I think it's a little funny you cite yourself as being the example of an Fi user, when your Fi is poorly developed... Just because you have it in your MBTI function stack it doesn't mean that it must be used well. So yes, I take your personal experiences and identify Fi with a grain of salt, as I am not sure you fully understand Fi either considering the poor use you've exhibited thus far.


If one really wanted more clear examples of how Fe and Fi work at their strongest, go learn from the ExFJs and IxFPs. Someone with a higher preference for thinking, and perceiving dominants probably wouldn't be the best examples on which to base your understanding of the feeling functions in the first place. The best place to start is at its strongest. So using the INTJ as a prime example for the Fi user and the INTP as the prime example for the Fe user would be flawed, in my humble opinion. The order in which one utilizes their functions changes how each of the feeling functions manifests itself in a person. For this reason I think the Fi dominant is the best example of how Fi manifests itself at maximum capacity. But the observation of auxiliary, tertiary and inferior Fi/Fe users could be used as another way to expand one's understanding of the feeling functions, and how they manifest themselves outside of Te dominant position. 

As for Fe and Fi in determination of what is right and wrong, it would be inaccurate for one to project how the function manifests itself in them to be the norm for everyone else in their respective type and other people who share that common function. So just because one Fi user isn't as heavily focused on what is right and wrong does not mean the same rule of thumb is applicable to the rest of the Fi user population. Fi and Fe can be utilized to determine what is wrong or right, but Fe is more of an objective determination of values based on external systems of belief and the application of said values in regards to their behavior and such. Fi on the other hand seems to be more relevant to what the individual has determined to be wrong or right but doesn't operate in objective and systematic sense that Fe does, and can be based on how the user reacts to something they have observed.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> Both F functions are indirectly related to having one's OWN opinions, but they're about the ways that people rationalize them. Also, the introverted functions are subjective in how they draw conclusions from mental content while the extraverted functions are objective in how they draw conclusions from mental content (so, they reference the outside world rather than their own content


Well, here is how I am thinking of it. The reasoning/judging functions will take principles or ideals and actually make conclusions. The perceiving ones do not reason.

Where Ti uses principles of the individual to form a system, Te manipulates the external. I think the way F reasons is not logic-based, that is key, but I think what they are concerned with reasoning about/with are distinct. I think the so-called arrows one draws using a feeling function are different in nature. Like achieving harmony between friends by taking into account who they are requires reasoning, and the input may be objective, but the arrow drawn is not quite logical. The input to Fi is not objective, on the other hand, nor is the reasoning logical.

By logical, I mean in the sense of formal reasoning.

The point is logical is not the same as objective, and feeling not the same as subjective. Feeling is a rational functional, but I could not call it logical without redefining logical.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@LeaT


> and systematic use is nowhere near as damaging to society as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol


This is the clue!
You had to peek! 
You couldn't decide in isolation in your own mind what *your* *opinion* was, without dragging in society.

This reminds me of an episode lately when I did an action and was confronted with it, told to stop basically.
I knew I hadn't broken any rules, so *I felt in no danger* of punishment.
So I was like FUCK OFF! You don't own me! I do what I damn well pleases!
This was a stranger btw, so I also knew there was *no social consequences for me.*

Fi is like this: 
The world puts me in painful circumstances, so I align my judgements to lessen the pain inflicted.
I'm always thinking about the worth of a judgement from my own central point of view.
Is it worth the pain to make that judgement? Would another judgement lead to lesser pain?
What I perceive as pain is highly relative, and is wholly dependent on what i believe about the world.
What meaning does the information to me have?
So from that perspective I have two choices, I either judge from the already established meaning.
Or I shift the meaning so that new paths open up, pain is interpreted as pleasure as it seems
to be the least painful path from my perspective.
I guess you could say that I'm always scanning for the least painful path.

Fe seems totally different, Fe needs an outside validation of the values held, 
it isn't enough that it stops your pain, it should be *the least painful path for the group.*
Fe inferiors seem to me, to think that if they only conceptualize the idea of freedom etc
and for example validate that in the big picture (Ne) that society will not suffer they have somehow used Fi.
Logically arriving at such a conclusion would not be Fi. It would be a good emulation of Fi, *that got the same result
from an external obervers frame*, but it wouldn't be about finding the path of less pain for you, as you are still
looking outwards to the group *wondering about if your choice increases the groups pain.*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Totally untrue. Both F functions are indirectly related to having one's OWN opinions, but they're about the *ways *that people rationalize them. Also, the introverted functions are subjective in how they draw conclusions from mental content while the extraverted functions are objective in how they draw conclusions from mental content (so, they reference the outside world rather than their own content to affirm their conclusions). So no, it's not that simple. Just establishing something as right and wrong with a lack of subjective consideration for the process of how you did it would reflect an extraverted judging function, not an introverted one. So what you're presenting supposedly as Fi in yourself sounds more like Fe to me, since you seem to have 100% no awareness of the variables of the process behind the conclusion. It's more like, you felt something was right/wrong, and the way you went about justifying this to yourself was impersonal in reference, if you ever even justified it at all (functions have nothing to do with the conclusions themselves). If you never rationalized it, then, this probably had nothing to do with functions at all and might've represented some kind of unconscious complex you have. If it was Fi, then it probably represented the fact that the Fi rationalization process is basically totally unconscious in you (or as unconscious as unconscious can get with functions).


You're really splitting hairs. I don't see what you say really contradicts the statement you quoted. It seems to actually agree with what I said. 

And I don't see what rationalization_ per se _has got to do with anything? We don't need to consciously rationalize every thought, action and belief externally for us to feel or think a certain way. It doesn't prove any specific function. (A bit too heavy on the Te aren't you, if you think this must be true in all instances?) I can't really rationalize Ti either as a Ti dom (it's the primary way I think but I can't even begin to explain *how* I think), for your information because that's what functions are - they simply reflect a certain way of thinking. It ultimately boils down to this: either it makes sense to me or it doesn't make any fucking sense. And that's all there is to it. The only way you will ever see Ti is how I express this feeling of making sense at best, assuming I'm not in Te mode which happens if you piss me off, and you are kind of very close on doing that right now with that attitude of yours. It's annoying like a clusterfuck. 

You will not necessarily see Fi in any of my analyses if I have to start to rationalize because I use _other_ functions to organize, and specifically _argue_, for my cases. More importantly, I prefer relying on Ti and Te when doing so, with Ne and Si. This doesn't fucking change whether I identify that the underlying reasons or causes might be because of Fi or something else. 

And what do you mean about unconscious complex? The way you go on talking about things sounds kind of funny. People have morals and a sense of what's right and wrong, there has not be logical explanation for those more than we simply think a certain way about those things. It doesn't make it into a "complex". I am beginning to suspect the person who is having a bit of a complex is you, because you can't seem to think outside the system and see that people must think exactly like you, which is probably because your dominant Je function (probably Te) is basically making it impossible for you to even start to get an idea of how Ji works above inferior/shadow. 

I also still disagree with your explanation of Fe and Fi. I never referenced to people - I referenced to systems. What's logical and efficient. That's Te, not Fe. There is no right or wrong or even incorrect or correct when we talk about health benefits, or tax cutting, or what else have you that I can could pull from my ass to explain why marijuana is better than say, tobacco. The initial rationalization is internal, not external, regardless of what you seem to think. Ti is not concerned with what's right or wrong, I can tell you that much. It's only concerned about true-false and correct-incorrect when in dominant and I suspect auxiliary position, but I don't think there is any correct-incorrect way when it comes to the legalization of marijuana more than how to implement a legalized system and make it work. That's how Ti would work on such a case, but if I am to argue for the legalization of it, I will primarily rely on Ni and Te, not Ne and Ti, _because I am arguing inside an existing system_.

Ultimately I don't care so much for the people and how that would benefit anyone. No, I simply find it convenient for various reasons. Internally, it makes sense to me to legalize marijuana. If you deny that this must be an internal judging function at work, then you need to chill that Te of yours if it blinds you so much that you can't even see how a Ji function works in actuality, which I actually suspect is the case here. 

Fuck, I am not sure why I even bother.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> This is the clue!
> You had to peek!
> ...


See, I am not concerned about people _per se,_ that's the thing. And wouldn't you need Te and Se to express that anyway? An internal judgement means nothing if you can't express it externally and you need external functions for that (and I think I just figured out why Fi dom/aux users with poor Te write so weirdly like they do like the post I quoted - you can't seem to make proper paragraphs). And I never said freedom for society to choose in a big picture sense. That's something you came up with derived on what I wrote. I can either go with the law in this case and say that since the law has prohibited marijuana in most countries, it's wrong (I still fail to see how this is Fe as it does not concern people but systems) since you are forcing me to ultimately rationalize this to you, meaning I can't just say, it makes sense to me since it leads us nowhere. 

I want to make this clear - it is not about suffering. Society does not suffer less or more if marijuana is legalized. It is not even about benefits in the end. It's about (in)_convenience_. It's about what makes sense logically, personally. It makes no sense to allow something like tobacco and alcohol but ban marijuana which is the same thing. I suppose it boils down to consistency - to again, act how you think. To indeed, stay true to yourself. This became a roundabout way of saying this, but I ultimately hold it that I project my personal thinking onto others. You should definitely know me well enough to realize I don't claim to use Fe this much and it I would be so blind-sided to say it's Fi. 




> So from that perspective I have two choices, I either judge from the already established meaning.
> Or I shift the meaning so that new paths open up, pain is interpreted as pleasure as it seems
> to be the least painful path from my perspective.
> I guess you could say that I'm always scanning for the least painful path.


Aside the obvious Se in this statement, I don't see the difference? You are clearly not referring to Te here more than in the first sentence, but I fail to see the difference of what you are saying in the last two differences to what you are trying to say how I think?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yeah, bottom line, telling someone whether or not they use Ji or Pi is bound to be messy, and often unfounded, because you're ultimately playing a detective game and spotting _signs_ of something. 



> You couldn't decide in isolation in your own mind what *your* *opinion* was, without dragging in society.


I may be naive, but this is really confusing to me; is the only legitimate way for it to be "your opinion" if you formed it before born, without looking at the external? Who is to say anything can actually be completely theirs? 

I say again, my understanding is Fi does reason (formally, it is a rational function), but what is fed into the reasoning process consists of internal ideals. Even if those ideals were formed by watching a traumatic experience external, and aim at minimizing such issues, it can still be Fi. I think the goals of Fe and Fi can be congruent, but the difference is that Fe is directly concerned with manipulating the environment (of which the individual is a subset), whilst Fi is not concerned with this, although their behaviors may well wind up doing so. 

I want to say that Fi can form its ideals based on whatever parameters it wants, but the bottom line is when you USE Fi, you're not referencing/manipulating the environment so much as something deep inside to arrive at the conclusion. 

Je manipulates/reasons using factors of the environment as a starting point. What the nature of reasoning or manipulation is determines if it is Fe or Te. Ji reasons using principles or ideals existing in the person. If the conclusions follow formal logic, even if the principles are subjective, it is T. A reasoning step that does not fit into any formal framework probably can't be T. 

I think what I'm learning is that saying "This was an instance of Ti" is just bound to rile up someone or the other. Instead, one could say (for the really nitpicky) "this as a complete process involved X amount of Fe, Y amount of Ti, etc etc" and then point to specifically which was used where. The individual's fixations/preference and the size of X or Y or whatever would then correlate with their cognitive stackups. 



> so *I felt in no danger* of punishment.


One good instance of where I see one shouldn't ignore enneagram-like issues. Ultimately, one does not have to be Mahatma Gandhi to use Fi


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

hornet said:


> @LeaT
> 
> This is the clue!
> You had to peek!
> ...


First of all I don't relate to Fi being all about avoiding pain, or for that matter, your general description of Fi. Not to say that it's not Fi, it's just not my experience as a Fi aux. I may think _fuck off _ and such, but saying it doesn't usually align with my values unless someone has pushed against my boundaries intensely and repeatedly and then I usually don't give a shit about the consequences (and caring about the consequences seems like a Fe perspective though you could argue Te). 

And I think most well rounded people back up their feelings with some amount logic (if they're able to), and it's not a sign that the origin was not value driven. It's a sign that it works to give as much weight (logical analysis) to your opinion as you can if you fully believe it's of value and should be at least considered by a society that values analysis. My values: Freedom, decency, consideration, openmindedness, honesty, integrity. I don't have some big internal thought process regarding Fi unless it's a uniquely complex scenario. It's fairly automatic in most cases. And Te conveys my feelings most of the time so they're muted and matter of fact. 
@LeaT I think you do understand and use Fi. There's the theory as it was expressed, and the theory as it's interpreted. Big difference. Prefer and suppress are not black and white but by degrees.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

hornet said:


> To access you shadow kinda means that you uproot every guiding post and lose contact with reality.
> You don't seem to me to have gone down that path and I can see no evidence of you tring to
> nitpick etichal constructs in any way. All I see are a very strong Ti with a theory that allows for Fi.
> You have in essence put a new label on what we call emulation. You emulate Fi getting the same result and


I just want to add that even if someone disagrees I am Ni dom and says I am Si dom, I use a LOT of both. However, I do identify with your idea of one or the other possibly ending up like a slave. I have learned that I cannot take things in as they are without exercising an introverted function, period, and at this point it is like a weapon where I get frustrated at my Ni failures. It is more rapid to use on a lot of endeavors that are otherwise unnatural to me. I am Se inferior, so for whatever reason I have learned Si use gets me out of tight spots I am not good with. It is probably from awareness of my Se inferiority.

Who knows, maybe a self-aware Fe inferior may tap into the Fi ability, realizing he or she uses Ti very effectively, and that being extra aware of one more introverted function may just help?

Well to be clear, the Si may be unconscious, but I am definitely aware it happens a lot. It gives me hunches in situations where Ni is ineffective. I view it as, I cannot bear to take something as is without much exhaustion, so I can at least learn to recall it quickly using the subjective impressions I associated to it, when my actual talents need not apply.

I also wonder if people with a lot of fears or tap into some functions a lot more than others.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> years, so...need I say more.


 @JungyesMBTIno

You may possibly be brilliant, but remember philosophers study stuff for years, inventing and solving phantom problems, and are still clueless on how to resolve fundamental questions. New ideas come unexpectedly. I personally have respect for experience, but I do not respect dismissiveness.

Also, communication barriers are crazy with this sort of thing. Instead of stating someone is ignorant, why not clarify? Otherwise, why bother? They are not going to accept ignorance if not convinced. And you may just discover they are not ignorant.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Fi could incorporate some values from outside but that would be the same thing as using Fe. That's how there's a direct conflict there.

Similarly, Ti could incorporate some logical facts from outside, such as the laws of physics or various scientific theories, but that would be the same thing as using Te. Another direct conflict.

In either case, the function and its shadow rely on each other and exist in a balance (you can't have all of one without having none of the other).

I think the most observable difference can be seen in the reactions between an ExTP and an ExFP when something disturbs them or hurts their feelings. Usually the ExTP looks like they're thinking hard and then expresses things with Fe style and including emotive language or tone, while the ExFP looks sad/hurt on the inside and then expresses things with Te style. If the J types are opposite, no balance is required, which is why Ti works very well with Fe and Fi works very well with Te (if the higher P function is developed).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

LeaT said:


> @_hornet_, I see the problem more clearly, you adhere to Beebee whereas I think Beebee is a load of bull  I went through his model and I can't identify with it at all on any level really. I also fail to see its applicability in real life. It's just trying to put people into boxes, almost worse than the MBTI, and I think it presents a too simplified model of reality.


Heh this reminds me of the NLP saying, "The map is not the territory."
It always depends on what the purpose of the model is.
To me the static four function model is great for a lot of purposes and I don't see any immediate way that
your model will be of imediate use to me. It may be more correct in a sense, but if you can't apply it
it loses it's value to me. It is like having a basic roadmap with streetnames and important places.
Sure it isn't really correct as a lot of detail are missing, but it may be much more useful for
finding your way in a new city than say a satelite picture of the same city.
No matter the level of detail the picture incorporates the utility is lost.



> And yes, between us communication is hard but I don't think it's because of your Fi. I think the real problem is the entire combination of SeNiFiTe that's part of your dominant cognitive make-up. I have a lot of Fi friends and for some reason I tend to draw NFPs to me. I do prefer NFPs, they are more "open-minded" due to Ne. Not to say SFPs can't be, but the SeNi creates a much more rigid model and a need to see what things are here and now. It doesn't allow for possibilities as Ne dominance or auxiliary use does. Our clash occurs much more on an intuitive-sensor level than Ji/Je.


yes i'm aware that the Ne/Se sissue exist and it is not a small one. It is kinda why I wanna stear towards
clasifying Se objects, since a large part of my time is spent interacting with them. Having useful labels on those
Se objects is very useful for me.
I don't really put as much weight on the Ne part as I can always charm them with my Ni.
But only because I have such an easy time with my Ni.



> My entire point is that we can befriend, like and understand people of any type. They don't have to share our functions. If your model is correct, then the socionics model of interaction complementary types would be true as well but again, it simplifies the human cognitive experience. We are not our types. Types simply fit us. In actuality I identify myself more as an TiNeFi type, and the socionics tests and other cognitive tests I've taken would also identify this.


I actually have an INTP friend and we get along great, we talk about self-growth or play games.
Mostly games. XD
But I agree any type can befriend any type, knowing the most common miscommunications helps considerably.



> Would you say with that the definitions of Fi used in cognitive tests is reliable at all?


I would have to see the serverside code for that test to answer that.
But from the questions I've seen I can hardly see how they can be very correct.
If we struggle with typing manually how can that script figure out that stuff from a static model,
much more static than MBTI would ever be.



> As for the sports scenario, the more you practice using a function, the more comfortable you will become at using it eventually, and it will drain you less. Think of it as becoming adept at doing a craft. A person might try to play the trumpet and will at first find it hard and annoying, maybe even frustrating, before they get the blowing technique right, and are able to coordinate their fingers to create the right pitch. However, once you become proficient at doing something, you will feel more comfortable at doing it. I'm comfortable at using Se but only in specific scenarios such as being at a theme park where riding carousels actually energize me, or when I play video games and I must use Se as well if I am interested at winning the game at all. If I try to look for underlying symbolism I can't play the game if it's real-time at least. I have no time to think about those things when I play as I must focus on the here and now. I wouldn't say Si is involved more than creating patterns of past games that can be useful when becoming proficient at what you're doing. When I play a moba game like LoL, I can for example tell when to fall back or when to attack an opponent. This is thanks to past experience that has allowed me to create a pattern to ease my understanding of the game while I'm playing. I can run Ne scenarios based on these and make fast judgements, but I must still use Se in order to pay attention to what's going on around me. I need to constantly look at the mini-map for example, and spot my allies' positions and see what they are doing, just like I need to focus on the environment itself so I can spot a possible enemy/keep an eye on the enemy while I try to focus last-hitting creep while I push a lane. And I must also pay attention to the chat box in case someone writes important information like an enemy is missing. This would all be Se data rather than Si to me. I also notice the switching between SiNe and SeNi quite easily too, because when I go into SiNe mode, I focus a lot on one thing, for example my opponent, and I keep forgetting to say, check the mini-map as often.


I see what you are saying, and I have been thinking that I might be true from a subjective perspective that the functions
are accessible more than the model allows. So maybe your model would be a more balansed view on oneself...
However since one doesn't have a subjective perspective on others, the detailed model becomes useless.
That is when the 4 function model performs best. Most people are sheep who live boring undifferentiated lives anyhow.
It doesn't take much to pin them into a MBTI box. And when you have done that you have the possibility to deal with
their antics.
So maybe it is more useful to have one theory for looking at ones own psychie and one for everyone else.
However if you focus on the MBTI type that is yours and really hone the functions that accompany the type,
that is when you start to become more than just an average joe. As you are polishing your strenghts.
However there is something to be said for shooring up ones weaknesses too, but you shouldn't try to
become a master of a weakness as it will be a waste of time. I thik that is the main opposition from the
heavy Te users, they have this major goal orientation, and everything that is not immediately useful is rejected.



> So in actuality, I think real life just requires more complexity than the MBTI model allows. I need to have an SeNi idea of the game, just like I need to run SiNe scenarios and judge it all with Ti and also with Te, e.g. knowing the rules and knowing how to use the rules in your favor. There's also the Fi and Fe aspect involved in trying to communicate with your team.


I see what you mean, but i can't say I'm ready to accept it unless i can see it manifested in Se-mode.
As that is where I feel i need stuff like this, not just to have the most unassilable theory logically speaking.
The simplicity of the four function model is it's greatest strenght in my opinion, as it makes it easy to remember and deploy.
The rate of error is acceptable in terms of how much results it gives. For every fail, it gives me 10 successes.
As opposed to before MBTI where for every 10 fail there was one success.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Also @hornet, on matters like this, I find authority itself is hard to work with, because the words of the authority often are still open to interpretation. What is a value, ideal, principle? What is physics and what is not? I tend to be interested in the interpretation producing the clearest and most descriptive theory. And at times, it is best to just go with some limited definition and accept having to clarify what may or may not apply. Arguing what should be the definition is hard, because there are different notionsof "should"... So I prefer to stick to figuring out what is actually meant using potentially conflicting language than arguing what the language rules should be.

Also, LOL about people are sheep and fit into MBTI box.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

bearotter said:


> I just want to add that even if someone disagrees I am Ni dom and says I am Si dom, I use a LOT of both. However, I do identify with your idea of one or the other possibly ending up like a slave. I have learned that I cannot take things in as they are without exercising an introverted function, period, and at this point it is like a weapon where I get frustrated at my Ni failures. It is more rapid to use on a lot of endeavors that are otherwise unnatural to me. I am Se inferior, so for whatever reason I have learned Si use gets me out of tight spots I am not good with. It is probably from awareness of my Se inferiority.
> 
> Who knows, maybe a self-aware Fe inferior may tap into the Fi ability, realizing he or she uses Ti very effectively, and that being extra aware of one more introverted function may just help?
> 
> ...


Yes and as I've told @LeaT it is just a model, and only holds as long as the model was design to hold.
MBTI was a job allocation system for females under the war, and isn't about exploring yourself.
It is about rapidly sorting people from what they apear to mainfest the most.
Hence what they are the most skilled with. So it works to deal with others especially strangers
qickly and effectively, as even a mistype givs you a way to approach the problem that you didnt have.
The more you do it the fewer mistypes.

I'm willing to accept the model if it proves more useful in exploring my inner world.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

bearotter said:


> Also @_hornet_, on matters like this, I find authority itself is hard to work with, because the words of the authority often are still open to interpretation. What is a value, ideal, principle? What is physics and what is not? I tend to be interested in the interpretation producing the clearest and most descriptive theory. And at times, it is best to just go with some limited definition and accept having to clarify what may or may not apply. Arguing what should be the definition is hard, because there are different notionsof "should"... So I prefer to stick to figuring out what is actually meant using potentially conflicting language than arguing what the language rules should be.


But remember if you are seeking authority you are also looking for a result.
Authorities are useless if they don't give results.
That should be the main criteria for making them autorities in the first place.
But some overlook this and look to authorities that have no results.
In other words a scam.

if you don't want a tangible result, but look for something different like essence 
or whatever, you don't need an authority, but they may be nice as trailblazers.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

At least as of now, I am doing this stuff for my understanding, certainly for no result. I find it a nice exercise that can get me to see things in a few different ways, so I may deepen understanding.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Fe = right and wrong (dictated by a system of people)
Fi = good and bad (dictated by internal system about people)

Te = right and wrong (dictated by rule system)
Ti = correct and incorrect (dictated by internal system with rules)

Fe and Te are about what is perceived as right and wrong in an external system. A classic example is Te being a law-abider (very conscious of the rules/laws), the Fe user being a great host/ess (very conscious of the rules of social interaction). These are influenced by all external stimuli (family, friends, TV, trends, reading, study etc.)

Fi and Ti are more subjective than that. They relate everything to a personal system (not to say Te and Fe types don't have pretty unique-looking systems, they're just made up from the external world). Fi and Ti are based on what the person personally judges something to be, that will not always fit with a group consensus. Fe and Te types are more likely to be able to agree of certain principles if they've grown up in the same society (i.e. murder is wrong/against the law), whereas Fi and Ti types could've grown up in the same area and come to their own conclusions, not influenced much by external sources (i.e. murder isn't so bad/isn't so illogical if...). (Murder's probably a poor example. I'm not saying Fi/Ti users are going to condone murder, just their views may not be as set.)

Something I said on this in another thread:


> Fi can, in particular, be mistaken for Thinking - Fe is the sort of stereotype for Feeling.
> 
> Fi can not take others' feeling into account if they disagree with the principles of the Fi user (Fi is used to create a bunch of 'good and  bad'-type things). Ti users can even appear more courteous because of their Fe (inferior for Ti dominants), which can pop up and make them more aware (sometimes wrongly) of how people perceive them. Fi dominants use Te as their inferior, which can appear in sticking very closely to the 'rules', especially when they can't make a moral decision on something (a good example is Rick (ISFP) from The Walking Dead, who eventually starts using his inferior Te to manage instead of Fi - "This isn't a democracy" etc.).
> However, Ti dominants with poorly developed Fe can be oblivious to others' emotional cues and therefore end up offending people, or thinking it's fine to say their opinion even when it will cause offence.


Oh, also, Ti/Fi types are more likely to come across as unsure, while Fe/Te types more certain (hence the J/P functions being distinguished as J=comes to judgement, P=sits on the fence - in the most basic, stereotypical way).


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm not really willing to throw myself into this firefight, but let me try too.

I recall reading somewhere that functions, when their attitute is set to introversion, tend to be subjective, while the opposite was true for the extraversion attitude. I'm using wiktionary (not the best dictionary ever, but anyway) to provide a basis for the definition of these two terms associated with both Ji, which are *subjective* and Je, which are *objective*.

The first definitions according to these dictionary entries are: 

1. Subjective - Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects
2. Objective - Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality

That is, introverted functions have the tendency to withdraw the experience to the object to one's interpretation of it, while extroverted functions have the tendendcy to retain the experience on the object and form an interpretation from it. While this isn't rocket science, it's something that is crucial to the understanding of Judging functions.

I've seen a very good example of these differences in this thread. It's a good example because it illustrates what i'm trying to put up. In this example, the Introverted Thinker takes the characteristics of good system to make a new one according to his own logic. He applies subjectivity to remove the traits from the systems and analyze them and then applies subjectivity again to check for consistency and apply the system. On the other hand, the Extroverted thinker analyzes how the systems have fared in real life and then chooses the one that yielded the best results. He uses objectivity to analyze how the traits worked in the object and then uses objectivity again to apply the one with the best consistency in the object.

It's up to debate, but one could put in a simplistic way that Feeling functions focus on ethics, while Thinking functions focus on logic. Ethics can be described as _'system of moral principles, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions, the goodness or badness of motives and the ends of such actions.'_ I want to make sure that you note that this definition does not include people in any time. Similarly, logic can be described as '_the system or principles of reasoning that can be applied to any branch of knowledge or study, which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference._'.

From this, we can apply that Ji and Je apply ethics or logic from either a subjective or objective lens. That is, withdrawing judgement from the object and placing it on the mind or retaining judgment from the object while placing it on itself. I'm making this up right as I type, but based on the reasoning so far, I could say that the functions could be described as following.

*Introverted Feeling (Fi)*: Withdraws the experience from the subject, applying a system of moral principles with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions, goodness or badness of motives and the end of such actions according to the owner's subjective judgment.

*Extroverted Feeling (Fe)*: Retains the experience on the subject, applying a system of moral principles with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions, goodness or badness of motives and the end of such actions according to any verifiable criteria.

*Introverted Thinking (Ti)*: Withdraws the experience from the subject, investigating the principles governing correct or reliable inference and applying it to the object according to the owner's subjective judgment.

*Extroverted Thinking (Te)*: Retains the experience on the subject, investigating the principles governing correct or reliable inference and applying it to the object according to any verifiable criteria.

From these definitions, Te's verifiable criteria could be anything that can be measured (e.g. Time, lenght, money consumed, etc.), while Fe's verifiable criteria could be any moral system (e.g. Church, society, groups or even a frakenstein made from these). The whole difference between Fe and Fi, is again, the subjectivity of the latter. While the object (in this case, a moral system) can be the same for both, Fi will yet subject it to it's own judgment, rejecting or accepting it. 

But one should remember that functions walk in pairs. Fe can check with Ti to verify if these moral values make 'logical sense', while Te can check with Fi if their logic inference has any moral value. And the opposite can be taken as true.

One problem that I have been noticing is that people often reference themselves as example. Given the subjectivity of Ji functions, it will be bound to create discussions that revolve around one's interpretation of a given function. As a disclaimer, I want to raise the information that I'm no typology expert and my reasoning may (and probably is) faulty, but I hope that I have made some sense.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Thanks to those who are trying to help! To those of you arguing, please try to stop nitpicking at each other and just agree to disagree if you can't put a good point across, the thread's getting a bit unravelled.

My main problem is the use of Fi/Ti with Se (either dom or aux) as I don't see how it would work. I also don't really get how Fi 'good and bad' and Ti 'right and wrong' differ from each other still, are there any good examples?
(I find examples are useful, especially from life or film).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

bearotter said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_
> 
> You may possibly be brilliant, but remember philosophers study stuff for years, inventing and solving phantom problems, and are still clueless on how to resolve fundamental questions. New ideas come unexpectedly. I personally have respect for experience, but I do not respect dismissiveness.
> 
> Also, communication barriers are crazy with this sort of thing. Instead of stating someone is ignorant, why not clarify? Otherwise, why bother? They are not going to accept ignorance if not convinced. And you may just discover they are not ignorant.


Yeah, that was not the best post I could've made - definitely not. I just thought this guy was trying to attack my credibility through typist attacks (blaming my Te for me having messed up ways of communication or whatever - whether or not that's true, I'm certainly not flaunting that side of myself on purpose, so he had no right to go there) and wanted to keep this objective. His questions aren't bad (seems like some people are quick to beat themselves up over not getting stuff around here or thinking they don't)...maybe he just needs to ask more of them. I do think there's a lot of philosophical potential in this stuff, really - so many directions this stuff can be taken in - I was trying to avoid this, largely because he and I are clearly arguing from very different standpoints, where he's arguing from one, but accepting that he's an Fi type from the more clinical premises, which I was challenging him from. It honestly is a mess to talk about this stuff online, since the information is wildly chaotic and disorganized on MBTI. I think we're all ignorant on this stuff here...it totally depends on the positions form which we argue, which I bet everyone here has at least a slightly different view or way of thinking about this stuff, since it can't be removed from theory anyway.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

tine said:


> Thanks to those who are trying to help! To those of you arguing, please try to stop nitpicking at each other and just agree to disagree if you can't put a good point across, the thread's getting a bit unravelled.
> 
> My main problem is the use of Fi/Ti with Se (either dom or aux) as I don't see how it would work. I also don't really get how *Fi 'good and bad' and Ti 'right and wrong'* differ from each other still, are there any good examples?
> (I find examples are useful, especially from life or film).


No, no, 'Fi= right and wrong, Ti = correct and incorrect'.

Se-wise: It would be to do with immediate perception and judgement of the environment. Fi/Ti dominants tend to already have their 'systems' and use Se purely to gather information to put through them, whereas Se dominants are more focused on gathering the information, then judging it through Fi or Ti. (Hence why Se users seem quicker to act than Ti/Fi, because they're just gathering initially, not judging - Ti/Fi hesitates because it wants a judgement before it acts.)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

tine said:


> Thanks to those who are trying to help! To those of you arguing, please try to stop nitpicking at each other and just agree to disagree if you can't put a good point across, the thread's getting a bit unravelled.
> 
> My main problem is the use of Fi/Ti with Se (either dom or aux) as I don't see how it would work. I also don't really get how Fi 'good and bad' and Ti 'right and wrong' differ from each other still, are there any good examples?
> (I find examples are useful, especially from life or film).


Heh and I thought we where getting in such good progress on the understanding! XD

This one is a good example I guess.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

hornet said:


> Heh and I thought we where getting in such good progress on the understanding! XD
> 
> This one is a good example I guess.


Haha I love that film. What functions were in that clip?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

tine said:


> Thanks to those who are trying to help! To those of you arguing, please try to stop nitpicking at each other and just agree to disagree if you can't put a good point across, the thread's getting a bit unravelled.
> 
> My main problem is the use of Fi/Ti with Se (either dom or aux) as I don't see how it would work. I also don't really get how Fi 'good and bad' and Ti 'right and wrong' differ from each other still, are there any good examples?
> (I find examples are useful, especially from life or film).


You might be over thinking it. Is it possible you could look at the subjective/objective attitude instead of the behaviour. When you get caught up in the behaviour it clouds your vision of the concept, process and so on. The behaviours can only be seen once you understand the foundation from the subjectivity is stems from.

Fi-Fe is valued based so you will feel a strong sense of good or bad. While Ti like Te will give you a strong sense of wrong or right.

I don't think it can be explained any clearer than that.

They mean different things. For ex: _bad_ is not the same as _wrong_, nor is_ good_ the same as_ right_.

Bad
Good
attaches emotions. I feel this good because {} I feel bad because {}

Right
Wrong
attaches thoughts. I think this to be right/wrong ( not feel )

This may not be a good example, but...i'm trying to make it simple for you to understand. The best examples were already given here, very accurate and clear to understand.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I think the guy who didn't wanted to tip was some sort of Ti-user.

-I'm not tipping because society says I should.
-You have to tip here but you don't have to at mcdonald's even if it's the same service
-I don't need to tip because she already has a wage
-The government doesn't tax tips and that's fucked up.

I don't know. Just a guess.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

tine said:


> Haha I love that film. What functions were in that clip?


Well Steve Buscemi has Fi based values, I would say ISFP.
Chris Penn is some sort of Fe type ESTP or ENFJ, as he is very Se too.
The guy who said "you don't have any idea what you are talking about" use Si and some Te I guess, ESTJ is a good guess.

It really comes down to the "I make my own rules" vs "do what is externally expected"
In the end he tips since the guy who paid demanded it, but it was an exception, and stated that way.
Very Fi to have thought out so much reasoning to back up internal values.
Notice how Penn is like pinging the others to apply social pressure to make the deviant Fi user comply.
it is hard to point it out specifically, but you get the picture I hope.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Herp said:


> I think the guy who didn't wanted to tip was some sort of Ti-user.
> 
> -I'm not tipping because society says I should.
> -You have to tip here but you don't have to at mcdonald's even if it's the same service
> ...


All of this could be said for Fi also. We can take on the exact same attitude using these examples. Personal judgement is the correlation.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> All of this could be said for Fi also. We can take on the exact same attitude using these examples. Personal judgement is the correlation.


Good point. I probably projected my dominant on the character.


----------

