# Te vs. Fe in Ni-doms



## Trophycase (Dec 7, 2012)

Hey all!

Can someone clarify the key differences and characteristics of how Te and Fe manifest themselves, especially in Ni-doms?

More specifically, how does these extroverted functions process information provided by Ni, and extrovert them, and what are the differences?


----------



## Sedem (Mar 16, 2012)

awwwww, nobody's responded to this yet? I'd really like to hear what people have to say about it. If it's already been covered before, can some kind soul redirect me?

>threadbump<


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

*Ni - Te:* Ni pulls in information, understanding and creating patterns. Te applies the information according to external systems. 

*Ni - Fe:* Ni pulls in information, understanding and creating patterns. Fe applies the information according to external beliefs and values.

So an Ni - Te would be inclined to seek and apply impersonal, objective information. While a Ni - Fe would be inclined to seek and apply humane, philanthropic information. 

That's my 2_¢_.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JSRS01 said:


> *Ni - Te:* Ni pulls in information, understanding and creating patterns. Te applies the information according to external systems.
> 
> *Ni - Fe:* Ni pulls in information, understanding and creating patterns. Fe applies the information according to external beliefs and values.
> 
> ...


What does external beliefs and values mean though?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

myjazz said:


> What does external beliefs and values mean though?


Beliefs and values meaning: What is right and what is wrong, what is socially acceptable and what is not socially acceptable, how one should or should not act, etc. All of which are derived from a collective point of view. 



An example:

Fe - Stealing is wrong because everyone feels it is wrong.
Fi - Stealing is wrong because I feel it is wrong.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

From my understanding, Ni's tends to think/meditate on the issues he/she is seeking to solve by creating internal images or by "flashes" of insight, or those "in the shower" moments.

So when you have an Ni-Fe (with Fe being concerned with actively solving world issues) You get the "insightful humanitarian" type such as a Jesus Christ, Ghandi or MLK.

When you have an Ni-Te (With Te being concerned with actively finding logical solutions to problems and creating external order) You get the prototypical "mad scientist", such as Nikola Tesla or Steve Jobs...


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JSRS01 said:


> An example:
> 
> Fe - Stealing is wrong because everyone feels it is wrong.
> Fi - Stealing is wrong because I feel it is wrong.


How would Te-Ti point of view be on same example?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

To Jung, these types probably wouldn't be pure Te/Fe types since they don't lead with these functions - I doubt these types are, unless perhaps they are handling their sensation (Se). They might give the extraverted orientation an edge, but I don't know that this would really mean anything about them in terms of thinking/feeling. The auxiliary functions don't really have consequences for a person. I doubt these functions would be particularly differentiated in these types, although this kind of comes down to the individual. The only differences between INFJs and INTJs at all would be which one they give an edge, either thinking or feeling. That's literally about it. You might never really know for sure, unless either the person is really obviously differentiated (which isn't very constant for an aux. - sort of depends on the situation and angle you're looking at it), or if the person just kind of hints at it in various ways. Their teritaries probably wouldn't look abnormal at all (and they aren't abnormal like an inferior at all - when you read about what an inferior really is, to compare the two is an absurd comparison) - they might even get mistaken for the person's auxilary, dominant, who knows - that's why Marie Von Franz adivised looking for a person's inferior function in order to type them, because through the conscious ones, it's often quite difficult to know, since the person can usually deal with the upper 3 pretty quickly and efficiently.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dom and aux. DO NOT have to work together for the dom to work - there have been professional articles written that have acknowledged this misconception. The dom can work with any of them. The aux. is just a function that's usually quite well-developed (in favor of the dominant), according to Jung. That's about all he actually says about it. INTJs and INFJs, fundamentally, are the same type (Ni doms with inferior Se - the auxes wouldn't really change up their issues or approaches (or even world-views) at all - it's just which one gets consciously emphasized that counts, that's literally it - more of a psychological thing than anything that you can summarize in platitudes). They can both be evaluative and technical (type isn't saying you can't "be" anything anyway, that's totally the wrong way of looking at it) - it's just the one that gets played up that is (usually) the auxiliary. You're not your type every moment of the day or your life (another huge misconception spread by misinformation).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Steve Jobs was not an INTJ - probably an ENTP. And no, INTJ might have absolutely nothing to do with being a "mad scientist" (it's probably possible to get an inferior thinking type who is this). That's what I mean by "silly platitudes." To Jung, you can certainly get Te dom humanitarians as well - once again, you'd have to even define what is meant by "humanitarian" to begin with to really make any sense of calling INFJs "humanitarians." Last I've heard, MLK was an extravert. Being a feeler does not necessarily mean having a strong moral complex - that's entirely it's own issue. Feeling is just evaluation (likes/dislikes, good/bad, etc.).


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

myjazz said:


> How would Te-Ti point of view be on same example?


You're asking for a logical justification of a moral principle, in which the principle is no longer a moral; but a reasoning of cost-benefit. Which, quite frankly, is difficult to create an example for, but I'll try anyway:

*

Te *- If I was poor($100) and I had the opportunity to steal $10,000 I would. If I was rich($20,000) and I had the opportunity to steal $10,000 I would not.

*Ti* - If I thought I was poor(x) and I had the opportunity to steal $10,000 I would. If I thought I was rich(x) and I had the opportunity to steal $10,000 I would not.

*Cost: *
-Getting caught.
-Incarceration. 
-Criminal.

*Benefit:*
-$10,000

Te is externally based. So poor/rich would be defined by the external world. 
I.e. Poor = $100, rich = $20,000.

Ti is internally based. So the definition of poor/rich would be derived from within.
I.e. Poor = x, rich = x (X = subjectively defined value)


Basically Te defines rich and poor externally, while Ti defines rich and poor internally. And then justifies action based on a cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I actually don't agree with Jung/whomever if they say that there isn't a differentiation between Thinking and Feeling Ni types. I've never met someone who was Ni dominant and used both Te and Fe clearly well, and in the way that both INFJ and INTJ use Fe and Te, respectively. Te and Fe are opposing forms of judgment, and I do not believe it is realistically possible to use both to the strength of the auxiliary function. I believe even an INFJ who has Ti second "strongest" or an INTJ with Fi do not use these functions in the same way that they use Fe and Te, respectively, despite being "stronger" in them. 

I think the best way to differentiate between INFJ and INTJ is to reference the interfunctional necessity of the person's tertiary, which is introverted judging for both types. In my experience, Ji functions tend to involve what we could call the "statics" of a judgment - if that's ethical (Fi), it's "this is for/against my values," and if it's logical it's "this is the framework, reference, or model" (Ti). INTJ do not need frameworks - a vision pops into their head (Ni) and they use what they see happening, factually, around them (Te) to justify their perception, whether it's logically consistent or not (Ti). INFJ do not need a personal moral code (Fi) - they are more interested in the dynamics of the people and ethics around them (Fe) to justify their perception, whether it's consistent with a personal set of morals (Fi) or not. 

The tertiary, then, rounds out both. If an INTJ is constantly using objective facts to support his/her unorthodox perceptions, it makes sense to need an individual sense of ethical judgment (Fi) to allow for a sense that the INTJ is judging objectively, and with personal character. If an INFJ is constantly using the societal "rights and wrongs" and cues around them to support his/her unorthodox perceptions, it makes sense to need a subjective logical model/framework (Ti) to situate their Feeling judgments, so their catalyzing others and lead of change/ideals has sound structural organization to support it. 

See how different these two types actually are when you observe what they do beyond perceiving in their usual ways? Obviously, these are hard to pinpoint in people because they are subtle, but if you spend enough time with them and watch their motivations carefully, it can be noticed quite poignantly.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Just the fact that INTJs are normally uber-introverts and INFJs trending towards ambiversion, or at least behave in an extroverted manner much of the time, suggests to me that they aren't exactly that similar.


----------



## The Antique Beast (Nov 11, 2012)

INFJs do not have personal moral codes. 

That's what makes us dangerous.

All joking aside, let me try my hand at this. I was watching a TV show with an INTJ friend of mine, and later on we compared what we learned; she was hyper-aware of objects in every scene, which characters are right or left-handed, inconsistencies (Ni-Te). I was hyper-aware of character disposition, expressions, motives (Ni-Fe).

In essence, both INFJ and INTJ are very "it is what it is", but each type sees different aspects of the same picture.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

As I said before, auxiliary functions (tert. in MBTI - it's not really a universal paradigm) usually have nothing to do with anything about the person, other than what the person plays up. This stuff about INTJs being informational and INFJs having "values codes" (frankly, I think that concept of values codes is made up - I don't think anyone programs themselves through values to respond to situations, that's kind of silly - codification of anything is more-or-less thinking - after all, you can't predict in advance that that a situation is going to support evaluative premises you hold before it happens - evaluation is what you bring to the room, not what's somehow already there in advance), is all pretty much a superficial lie. I think both types will be informational, largely because of inferior sensation - thinking is just using conceptual logic and feeling is just evaluation. Objectivity is, in my estimation from reading Jung, more of an extraverted perception thing (Ne/Se - I mean, duh, the tangible is probably the most objective thing there is) (thinking, as "valid" as it is, can be used in ABSOLUTELY subjective, biased ways - that's often what gets mistaken for FEELING in dominant FEELING TYPES - it's really their "thinking" that's what famously makes these types come off as "subjective" or "over sensitive" "prone to personal bias," etc.).


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Steve Jobs was not an INTJ - probably an ENTP. And no, INTJ might have absolutely nothing to do with being a "mad scientist" (it's probably possible to get an inferior thinking type who is this). That's what I mean by "silly platitudes." To Jung, you can certainly get Te dom humanitarians as well - once again, you'd have to even define what is meant by "humanitarian" to begin with to really make any sense of calling INFJs "humanitarians." Last I've heard, MLK was an extravert. Being a feeler does not necessarily mean having a strong moral complex - that's entirely it's own issue. Feeling is just evaluation (likes/dislikes, good/bad, etc.).


 Yes, I know Steve Jobs was probably an extrovert, but I just didn't know who else to choose from right then in there because it was sort of a hurried post. And the reason I use use words descriptions such as "humanitarian" or "mad scientist" is because my #1 goal when I post things is to paint a clear picture for the reader, not to appeal to scientific or theoretic exactitude. And no, MLK was not necessarily an extrovert, just because one is a public speaker does not make one so. So keep all these things in mind the next time you decide to nit pick at my posts.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

SuperNova85 said:


> Yes, I know Steve Jobs was probably an extrovert, but I just didn't know who else to choose from right then in there because it was sort of a hurried post. And the reason I use use words descriptions such as "humanitarian" or "mad scientist" is because my #1 goal when I post things is to paint a clear picture for the reader, not to appeal to scientific or theoretic exactitude. And no, MLK was not necessarily an extrovert, just because one is a public speaker does not make one so. So keep all these things in mind the next time you decide to nit pick at my posts.


Well, the problem is that you were not presenting a clear picture - stereotypes are never a clear picture - that's pretty much the roadblock to understanding that goes on here and gives people unrealistic ideas and really isn't fair to people who actually want to learn about this stuff. There are a lot of people who cling to stereotypes on the internet, due to the mythology that crops up all over the place that really just doesn't have a basis in reality (really, somebody please try to describe an "evil scientist" they know - no one can do it). No offense, but if you've been researching this stuff long enough, these issues become quite clear and are quite clearly problematic.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think I'm starting to really get on board with Jung about how it wouldn't be clear whether or not the auxiliary function of these types is actually purely extraverted or not, largely because these types are introverted to begin with (Ni doms), their most natural mode of operation is going to come from a self-referencing standpoint, so even the aux., whatever it may be, is still going to be heavily directed toward the aims of the self enough that it might be tough to notice any specific kind of differentiation - I don't think they would really be that clearly differentiated with their aux. in most cases IRL - the only way you might have some idea of this would come from looking at the thinking of the INFJ and the feeling of the INTJ - even noticing any real differences in emphasis on thinking/feeling is often going to be rough, because these types can go both ways in fairly normal ways anyway - unless the person is highly differentiated there, I doubt drawing conclusions is an easy matter, and frankly, it wouldn't really have any effect on anything about the conscious tendencies of the person - it's just kind of a trivial matter. I think it would come down to the individuals, basically. You might get some INTJs who are just a lot more clearly Te than others, and you would know it when you analyze it, basically (by "more Te," I'm talking about where their influences for conceptualization come from - most of the time, it will probably just come from thinking in general - they might often show flip-flopping tendencies between Ti/Te in ways that aren't really clearly anything other than an indication of a thinking preference - in fact get INFJs and INTJs who look almost exactly alike, save for mild differences in the edges they give to their thinking/feeling - I would say as a relative comparison, INTJs are going to be more concerned with a broader scope of thinking (Te-ish) than INFJs, who might have more of the philosophical streak going on (Ti-ish) that's less inclusive of practical considerations - same with feeling, but it's not really that big a deal, nor really that striking about them and probably rarely ever fully differentiated, unless maybe toward their inferior, which is extraverted and might need greater influence from better developed extraverted functions). I'm of the belief that the tertiary will be more oriented toward the same orientation of the dominant - it makes sense, although even there, I can see these types still showing flexibility. I can see where it's certainly possible for INTJs to have a lot of Ti influence and INFJs Fi influence, etc. Just wouldn't really matter much, since these types don't lead by the guidance of their feelings or the codification products of their thoughts - they don't reach their peak of functioning that way - those play very much a minority component in these types - they're NOT the introverted versions of ENTJs and ENFJs (that's where I take issue with MBTI's J/P designations, because they put too much weight on the auxiliaries of these types, which might be fine for work force placement (the original intent of MBTI, I'm not making this up), but in the scheme of their personalities and how they handle personal business, really wouldn't be significant for these types). I mean, I don't really think I've ever met an INTJ who really even gives their logical deductions that much weight in making decisions, nor INFJs who give their feelings that much weight in making decisions (unless maybe they're developing these perspectives more) - most of the conscious lives of these types will revolve around intuition. The tertiary functions of these types are, frankly, normal-looking in terms of adaptability - I've never really seen any that aren't - I've never met INFJs who find thinking "offensive, boring, narcissistic, etc" - the strange stuff you get with inferior T types quite often - I've never met INTJs who find feeling "like, eww, sickly sappy, hard to take seriously, makes you a pathetic, superficial, manipulative, bitchy cretin" stuff that you get quite often with inferior F types (yea, these types can be pretty hostile toward feelings IRL - it's quite recognizeable once you pick up on it with many of these types, although more like a quirk in their personality at the surface).


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, the problem is that you were not presenting a clear picture - stereotypes are never a clear picture - that's pretty much the roadblock to understanding that goes on here and gives people unrealistic ideas and really isn't fair to people who actually want to learn about this stuff. There are a lot of people who cling to stereotypes on the internet, due to the mythology that crops up all over the place that really just doesn't have a basis in reality (really, somebody please try to describe an "evil scientist" they know - no one can do it). No offense, but if you've been researching this stuff long enough, these issues become quite clear and are quite clearly problematic.


 Evil?? Really?? I did not say "evil scientist" I said mad scientist which is usually viewed as a good thing, and once again, I could care less what _you_ believe to be a stereotype or mythology or whatever word you want to use to describe to way I tried to get my point across, my goal was to answer the question the best way I could _to the OP_, now if the OP or anyone else desires to research this topic deeper, he/she is free to do so. I don't know it all, nor do I pretend to, but I don't see how my post "obstructed" one to seek deeper knowledge on this subject...
This is my last post in this "discussion"...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

SuperNova85 said:


> Evil?? Really?? I did not say "evil scientist" I said mad scientist which is usually viewed as a good thing, and once again, I could care less what _you_ believe to be a stereotype or mythology or whatever word you want to use to describe to way I tried to get my point across, my goal was to answer the question the best way I could _to the OP_, now if the OP or anyone else desires to research this topic deeper, he/she is free to do so. I don't know it all, nor do I pretend to, but I don't see how my post "obstructed" one to seek deeper knowledge on this subject...
> This is my last post in this "discussion"...


Well, if you can't see that you were talking about stereotypes, I can't really help you.


----------

