# Morals vs Ethics Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

So I'm constantly trying to get a better understanding of how this stuff works to see if it works or not so I use you guys to offer differing opinions haha. Before I delve into my interpretation, I would like to provide a basis so we don't get confused on definitions

morals- What is right and wrong. A set of rules that separates good from bad independent of situation. Based on some sort of rational explanation. The right course of action.

ethics- What is the best course of action in the given situation, the considerate action

So Fi/Fe is related to ethics, Ti/Te is related to morals


Fi/Te draws it's morals from an objective external consensus. Logic should be something in which the competent can agree on (which is why an "expert" who knows what they are doing could be relied on by Te). Empirically sound logic sets the line of what is black/white. Fi chooses which side of this imposed line it should step on

when Te > Fi 
a person will forsake personal ethical choice in favor of imposed morals
healthy- focus on maintaining the objective at hand over personal desires (fair, focused)
unhealthy- ignoring personal desire in favor of a perceived task (doormat, ignorant)

when Fi > Te
a person will forsake imposed morals in favor of personal ethical choice
healthy- forsaking objective rules in favor of personal ethics (considerate of self/others as individuals)
unhealthy- ignoring task at hand in favor of a personal desires (selfish)

Ti/Fe creates it's morals based on subjective rationality. It plays God and decides what is right and wrong. It will act differently from it's own code if the situation involving other people demands it.

when Ti > Fe
a person will forsake ethical balance in favor of personal moral code
healthy- will not be so easily influenced by people who are whining (righteous, acts for greater good)
unhealthy- inconsiderate of others and lives by their own sense of right/wrong (they are the greater good, Godlike mentality)

when Fe>Ti
a person will forsake personal moral code for ethical balance in the situation
healthy- giving up on rules so the group can remain in harmony (considerate of something beyond themselves)
unhealthy- acting on the whims of others even if they recognize it goes against their own sense of right/wrong (servant)


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Some good points in here, you are definitely on the right track! roud:

However I'd like to correct you on few things to help you re-evaluate your statements. I don't mean to have a debate or attack, just a little something that can benefit you to know about. :tongue:



S8on said:


> Fi/Te draws it's morals from an objective external source.


Objective external source? Does that mean that Te is taking it's morals from a scientific research materials? Could you define "objective external source"?



> unhealthy- ignoring personal desire in favor of a perceived task (doormat, ignorant)


That can also be unhealthy Si, because unhealthy Te in ESTJ's and ENTJ's can be expressed through telling somebody that a certain task is of high priority and everybody must be involved to complete it. If you do not comply, the ExTJ starts to rant and yell how non-compliance proves how stupid, lazy and ignorant you are for ignoring the "obvious" benefits of being part of task's completion. Unhealthy ExTJ might also say things like how nobody gives a shit about your opinion, because this task is greater than your individual interests, it is your responsibility to participate in this, not taking part will drastically decrease your standing with that ExTJ and people in the task team, and obviously the fact that there will never be a better time to prove yourself as useful human being as deciding RIGHT NOW!!! 

Meanwhile healthy ExTJ will say that your participation is very necessary, but when you say no, they will say something like "It's very sad that you said no, but we will manage. Thanks and good bye!"



> when Fi > Te
> a person will forsake imposed morals in favor of personal ethical choice


Fi can create a meaning to imposed morals, or personificate, "humanize" or animate the otherwise harsh imposed morals. Fi doesn't necessarily forsake them.



> Ti/Fe creates it's morals based on subjective rationality. It plays God and decides what is right and wrong. It will act differently from it's own code if the situation involving other people demands it.


Subjective rationality is a good word for this, very striking way to define Ti-related processes!

Ti-user doesn't believe they are playing god. Ti-user would rather think that their actions or words make perfect sense, because in their mind they fit like a puzzle to the big picture. Everything Ti-user says or does is from that system in their mind, which provides Ti user with motivation, rationalization, reasons, goals, justifications. 

Meanwhile Te-user is more strategical and diverse (Motivation to work on a job is to earn money, and goal of working in the job is to increase their standing in the company, they justify working on a job with supporting family etc.) the Ti-user has everything connected (Motivations, goals, justifications etc. all point to earning money. That means if Ti-user finds a job that provides larger paycheck, the Ti-user's system perfectly supports quitting the old job and moving to a better one).

Ti-user doesn't do things merely out of egocentrism or on emotion, they just have connected all motivation, reasons, goals, explanations etc. as a categories that belong to a larger category (work, home, private life etc.) and when everything is connected and points to some direction, it is enough to convince Ti user in moving themselves in some direction. 

Fi-user has the same thing going on with emotions. All their personal experiences on social situations form a same kind of system, that directs their behaviour with emotional motivation. Fe is again similar to Te, as Fe is rather clustered, and approaches every situation in unique manner, not in systematic manner. 

Example: Fi and Fe user both donate 5 euros to a beggar. 

*Fi user *does it because he personally witnessed how the father of his friend used to be a decent and hard-working man, who broke up with his wife and descended into a downward spiral which led him to a rough spot. Fi user compared that person to the beggar that he just saw, and that triggered *sympathy *in him. Also, the beggar looked sad enough that Fi-user was suddenly reminded of so many other sad stories, movies and songs about hopeless people and how they end their lives in suicide one day. Next natural move was to express sympathy by donation. 

*Fe user *does it because he looked at the beggar and saw sadness in his eyes. His clothes were truly ragged, his shoes were wrecked and he had the look on his face as if he was losing a last ray of hope. Fe-user resonated with that background noise of desperation and pain generated by that beggar. It triggered *empathy *in him. Fe-user wanted to express it to the beggar that hope is never far gone, and the little kind gesture to the person who is about to lose hope is sure way to brighten up his day, and a little bit of happiness to this sad man is never too much, and thus donated a little bit of cash.



> If a person does not experience enough hardship, they won't use Ti as much so they won't think things throughly.


Ti is not connected to thinking in such a direct manner. I am an INFP and Ti is the weakest of my functions. Does that mean I also don't think things throughly, or haven't experienced enough hardship that would trigger Ti?


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Objective external source? Does that mean that Te is taking it's morals from a scientific research materials? Could you define "objective external source"?


I'm not as focused on how Ti and Te reach their conclusions right now. I was more focused on what it does the conclusion after it is drawn. I merely wanted to say Te morals would be not something that is created by a person. It is something that is agreed on because it will make sense to everybody. My wording is a bit off though, so I will change it.



KraChZiMan said:


> Ti-user doesn't believe they are playing god. Ti-user would rather think that their actions or words make perfect sense, because in their mind they fit like a puzzle to the big picture. Everything Ti-user says or does is from that system in their mind, which provides Ti user with motivation, rationalization, reasons, goals, justifications.


I agree a Ti-user won't think they are playing god, but often times it may look that way. I use my Fe A LOT more than the average ISTP should, so I mediate my Ti with that. That is how I try to control my competitiveness (I don't want other people hurt). My ESTP friend however justifies his behavior a lot more although his Fe tertiary is supposed to be higher up than mine at inferior. He is much less considerate than I am and is much more competitive as well (win at all costs, some people have to be martyrs). It often looks like he thinks he deserves it just because of who he is. That's why I say Ti-user plays God. In deciding what is right and wrong in their world and expecting the outer world to be that way, they essentially are.

My attempted explanations of how a person may overvalue their more dominant judging function or lack/ignore their opposite judging function is a bit undeveloped. I will develop it further.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I kind of see Fi often basing its reasoning on so-called wisdom principles, Fe on observations of ethical standards held by the status quo, Te on a combination of causality and resolving paradox between the theory claims and objective facts or claims, and Ti on various philosophies of the mind.

But that is just a quick and simple take on my views.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I changed it a bit and completely removed the "sources of unhealthy function use" tidbits I had. As for Ti/Fi and Te/Fe

Ti- subjectively understood rationality, to understand something new, you compare it to what you already know
Fi- subjectively understood ethics, to understand what is the considerate course of action, you compare it to how you've felt before

Fe- objectively understood ethics, to understand what is the considerate course of action, you base it on the consensus of others
Te- objectively understood rationality, to understand something, you base it on the consensus of others



Something interesting I want to add, the more STANDARD stories of good vs evil, the good is Ti/Fe and bad is Fi/Te. This is because the Ti/Fe is acting for a greater good (Ti) that makes use of considering others (Fe) while the evil rejects imposed standards of others (Te) in favor of their own whims (Fi).

However the more complex, interesting stories in my opinion have an antagonist who is Ti/Fe. The Ti mentality is warped so much in believing it's own truth that Fe is used only for malignant purposes. They think they are doing the world a favor with their actions (think Joker). The Fi/Te protagonist would then be simply the person who wants to uphold the general sense of justice (Te).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

S8on said:


> I changed it a bit and completely removed the "sources of unhealthy function use" tidbits I had. As for Ti/Fi and Te/Fe
> 
> Ti- subjectively understood rationality, to understand something new, you compare it to what you already know
> Fi- subjectively understood ethics, to understand what is the considerate course of action, you compare it to how you've felt before
> ...


Absolutely correct. This is why I said INFJ make the best heroes and villains. I actually made a thread about how Jung didn't like Te, and Jung and Campbell were very influential in the arts, so something like Star Wars, what is really being defeated is Te. Te is the dark side. All goodness, all righteous action, springs from inner knowledge. From introverted thought. Star Wars is totally Jungian because it is based on Campbell, who is based on Jung. All the best stories have Ti defeating Te. Guys like Vader, Luke Skywalker, bin Laden, Gandhi, Hitler, all protectors. They just have different methods.

I actually went as far to say that there is no such thing as a "bad" INFJ, because an INFJ becomes bad precisely the minute he embraces Te over Ti, and Fi over Fe. Thus, no longer making him an INFJ, but an INTJ or INFP. Ti/Fe is what drives the hero to action, Te/Fi is what tries to tempt him along the way from the real, righteous goal. The true heros are those that resist the temptation. The bad guys are interesting, because they are fallen heroes. They are fallen INFJ.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

S8on said:


> I changed it a bit and completely removed the "sources of unhealthy function use" tidbits I had. As for Ti/Fi and Te/Fe
> 
> Ti- subjectively understood rationality,* to understand something new, you compare it to what you already know*
> Fi- subjectively understood ethics, *to understand what is the considerate course of action, you compare it to how you've felt before*
> ...


Very amazing stuff! Now I can certainly agree with your whole post. 

Why I find it so worthy is you wrote everything I already know in shortest way possible without making mistakes. I personally would find it much more difficult to get the descriptions so much to-the-point-short, it's a kind of talent that some people have. It certainly comes in handy whenever a MBTI newcomer or someone who doesn't have the correct definitions needs this to be quoted. roud:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

S8on said:


> So I'm constantly trying to get a better understanding of how this stuff works to see if it works or not so I use you guys to offer differing opinions haha. Before I delve into my interpretation, I would like to provide a basis so we don't get confused on definitions
> 
> morals- What is right and wrong. A set of rules that separates good from bad independent of situation. Based on some sort of rational explanation. The right course of action.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you are trying to do with this. -It does seems like a useful topic. 

For someone who favors Ti, -choices are made as a matter of policy - period.
Certain lines I would not cross because without those lines I would have no structure or compass. I don't need somebody else’s compass because I don't own everyone else's behavior.



One thing I've seen as typical - ENTP's have a policy of not lying. I happen to know a somewhat religious female who I've caught in an occasional lie even though she is ENFP and worries about being a good person. She is reactionary,which isn't fair to blame on her type, but reactionary-ness in defense of one's ego is less of a problem for Ti.

Ti moral, ethical boundaries = Policies of personal management.

Fe moral ethical boundaries = Hoping to be normal and likeable

Fi moral ethical boundaries = Self esteem and guilt management.

Te - I'm still working out my understanding of Te as a whole function.

somebody in an above post is atributing Si to Ti - about comparing what is known?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Example: Fi and Fe user both donate 5 euros to a beggar.
> 
> *Fi user *does it because he personally witnessed how the father of his friend used to be a decent and hard-working man, who broke up with his wife and descended into a downward spiral which led him to a rough spot. Fi user compared that person to the beggar that he just saw, and that triggered *sympathy *in him. Also, the beggar looked sad enough that Fi-user was suddenly reminded of so many other sad stories, movies and songs about hopeless people and how they end their lives in suicide one day. Next natural move was to express sympathy by donation.
> 
> *Fe user *does it because he looked at the beggar and saw sadness in his eyes. His clothes were truly ragged, his shoes were wrecked and he had the look on his face as if he was losing a last ray of hope. Fe-user resonated with that background noise of desperation and pain generated by that beggar. It triggered *empathy *in him. Fe-user wanted to express it to the beggar that hope is never far gone, and the little kind gesture to the person who is about to lose hope is sure way to brighten up his day, and a little bit of happiness to this sad man is never too much, and thus donated a little bit of cash.


I'm sorry, but I really don't see the difference in this. Also, this all seems very Fe to me because in both scenarios there is an other-focus to one degree or another.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Absolutely correct. This is why I said INFJ make the best heroes and villains. I actually made a thread about how Jung didn't like Te, and Jung and Campbell were very influential in the arts, so something like Star Wars, what is really being defeated is Te. Te is the dark side. All goodness, all righteous action, springs from inner knowledge. From introverted thought. Star Wars is totally Jungian because it is based on Campbell, who is based on Jung. All the best stories have Ti defeating Te. Guys like Vader, Luke Skywalker, bin Laden, Gandhi, Hitler, all protectors. They just have different methods.
> 
> I actually went as far to say that there is no such thing as a "bad" INFJ, because an INFJ becomes bad precisely the minute he embraces Te over Ti, and Fi over Fe. Thus, no longer making him an INFJ, but an INTJ or INFP. Ti/Fe is what drives the hero to action, Te/Fi is what tries to tempt him along the way from the real, righteous goal. The true heros are those that resist the temptation. The bad guys are interesting, because they are fallen heroes. They are fallen INFJ.


lol. There are plenty of villainous INFJs and ENFJs, and no, they're not xNTJs in disguise. And there are plenty of Fi-Te heroes too. One of my favorite INFP main protagonists is this character:






INFP hero, ENFJ villain.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

OP, you're going to get really confused I am guessing by dividing things up like ethics ~ F and morals ~ T. I really suggest you treat morals and ethics as their own thing, and F and T as their own thing, and recognize the interplay is not clear-cut.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I'm Ti/Fe, I don't even try figuring this stuff out. My reasoning boils down to: Would I want my loved ones to find out that I did this? No? Don't do it then. If it's something I'd be ashamed of them finding out about, I shouldn't be doing it. It works.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

monemi said:


> I'm Ti/Fe, I don't even try figuring this stuff out. My reasoning boils down to: Would I want my loved ones to find out that I did this? No? Don't do it then. If it's something I'd be ashamed of them finding out about, I shouldn't be doing it. It works.


Right. I don't need a standard for other people, just a policy for my own actions. So I don't understand dividing it into general and specific, or not for my own use anyway. Morals and ethics are not two different things to me. What is legal is about a policy of how people can work and live together. What is Moral - hey people can think whatever they want, but you have to have policies (laws) that everyone understands - in a community. And you can have rules, like contracts or understandings that are unwritten in a group.If you don't agree with a group you should say something or not partcipate at all - what is important is that people understand each other and follow through with what they agree to. -Mercy may figure into something but that is a choice that is complex, not an automatic function thing.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I'm trying to create a model in which I (and hopefully others as well) can identify and in which we can draw on to better understand the differences in behaviors of people. Of course behaviors of individuals are much more complex, but this is a way to understand patterns in behaviors or the source of a certain behavior.

I understand T ~ Morals and it's not exactly a T =/= morals, but this is simply a basic guideline and how you further make sense of these basic ideas is how you would understand behavior (sorry if the model is to simple, my Ti is showing)

As for "comparing to something that we already know" being Si, I am making a claim that Ti uses it the same process in a different way. The Ti user wants information to be simplified into a more commonly understood language that can better portray the bigger picture. This is because from the bigger picture is more relatable to something other concept they already understand.



FearAndTrembling said:


> I actually went as far to say that there is no such thing as a "bad" INFJ, because an INFJ becomes bad precisely the minute he embraces Te over Ti, and Fi over Fe. Thus, no longer making him an INFJ, but an INTJ or INFP. Ti/Fe is what drives the hero to action, Te/Fi is what tries to tempt him along the way from the real, righteous goal. The true heros are those that resist the temptation. The bad guys are interesting, because they are fallen heroes. They are fallen INFJ.


I kinda understand what you're getting at, but I don't think they "change into an INTJ." It's just that their Ti has started seeing the world in a skewed way. For example, Che Guevara's intentions weren't necessarily evil. He just saw the evil in the world and disliked what he saw in humanity, and thus tried to change society to better humanity.

Same with the Joker in The Dark Knight. He acknowledged others might view his actions as evil but he simply understood the world in a different way. His vision of the world was that everything was a mix of grey.

In both cases, they believe they are doing the world a favor. The Fi/Te in my opinion is less likely to think this way.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I'm sorry, but I really don't see the difference in this. Also, this all seems very Fe to me because in both scenarios there is an other-focus to one degree or another.


There is not supposed to be such a large difference anyway, they are both Feeling functions and can reach to same conclusions using different processes. The main difference was being that Fi needs to see something in this beggar that triggers compassion in Fi-user. There has to be something in that beggar that Fi-user can relate to as "general overpowering desperation or sadness", the reaction of which is sympathy. If Fi-user is not triggered, then he remains numb and does not even care so much, however if Fi-user is triggered to sympathy, the reaction to help is quite immediate.

Fe-user seems to be different, as for them it is already very obvious that when beggar has to beg on the street, he is already in hopeless and desperate situation. Fe-user is much more asking "What can I do to help?" or "Does it do any good to help him at the moment?". If Fe-user finds, for example, that this person really deserves it, it triggers empathy and wish to donate or help. If Fe-user finds that this particular person can't be helped, or he does not really deserve help, Fe-user does nothing.

Another thing is that Fi works alongside with Te (Fi generates overpowering motivations and value system of personal experiences, and Te is systematic action that consumes Fi for motivation. Depending on where they are on function stack, some types -INFP, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP- need constant and direct reassurance from their value system, thus their value system is well-defined and complex, while other types -ISTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, ENTJ- gain more reassurance from their external environment and productivity of their actions, and only need reassurance from inner value system in critical situations.) 

Fe works alongside with Ti. (Ti generates a set of principles and arguments, draws conclusions, that motivate the person on their own right, while Fe interacts with environment and collects information about people and circumstances. Depending on their place on function stack, some types -INTP, ENTP, ISTP, ESTP- have well-defined system of principles that are not easily compromised and expressed actively through perceiving function. They need to constantly assert their logical value system to others, while other types -INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, ESFJ- engage more actively with environment, which leads to more circumstancial logical value system, and link their well-being with how purposeful or proper is their emotional environment. They only occasionally assert their logical principles, mainly in the critical situations.)


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Example: Fi and Fe user both donate 5 euros to a beggar.
> 
> *Fi user *does it because he personally witnessed how the father of his friend used to be a decent and hard-working man, who broke up with his wife and descended into a downward spiral which led him to a rough spot. Fi user compared that person to the beggar that he just saw, and that triggered *sympathy *in him. Also, the beggar looked sad enough that Fi-user was suddenly reminded of so many other sad stories, movies and songs about hopeless people and how they end their lives in suicide one day. Next natural move was to express sympathy by donation.
> 
> *Fe user *does it because he looked at the beggar and saw sadness in his eyes. His clothes were truly ragged, his shoes were wrecked and he had the look on his face as if he was losing a last ray of hope. Fe-user resonated with that background noise of desperation and pain generated by that beggar. It triggered *empathy *in him. Fe-user wanted to express it to the beggar that hope is never far gone, and the little kind gesture to the person who is about to lose hope is sure way to brighten up his day, and a little bit of happiness to this sad man is never too much, and thus donated a little bit of cash.


This seems overly complicated to me.

As a Fi user, it's more like this at its most basic level: ''I have an urge to help because I think it's the right thing to do''. That's enough. 

I don't think much about it. It's just an inner trigger that can be hard to ignore. Your description seems more Fe-ish than anything.

It's obviously a bit more than that when you actually ask ''why''. For a Fi dom especially, (I would probably depend more on Te ''language'' for myself though because it is more natural) because it remains a rational function. So the reasoning will mostly be linked to personal values.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> There is not supposed to be such a large difference anyway, they are both Feeling functions and can reach to same conclusions using different processes. The main difference was being that Fi needs to see something in this beggar that triggers compassion in Fi-user. There has to be something in that beggar that Fi-user can relate to as "general overpowering desperation or sadness", the reaction of which is sympathy. If Fi-user is not triggered, then he remains numb and does not even care so much, however if Fi-user is triggered to sympathy, the reaction to help is quite immediate.
> 
> Fe-user seems to be different, as for them it is already very obvious that when beggar has to beg on the street, he is already in hopeless and desperate situation. Fe-user is much more asking "What can I do to help?" or "Does it do any good to help him at the moment?". If Fe-user finds, for example, that this person really deserves it, it triggers empathy and wish to donate or help. If Fe-user finds that this particular person can't be helped, or he does not really deserve help, Fe-user does nothing.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what Fi is. Fi doesn't need such an external emotional trigger to compare to other people. That's not what Fi does. That's Fe. You aren't showing how the processes differ in how the Fi type reaches moral conclusions based on personal evaluation of what is good or bad. I don't need to compare to people I've known to feel sympathy, nor do I need to study how sad they seem. That's Fe being object focused or other oriented. Fi is what I think and what I feel and what I find important. Fi would go, but it felt right to give the guy the money because I would appreciate it too in that situation. Fi must always introject itself into the object. It can't see the object itself. Fi would reason that the man makes me feel really bad and I don't like to feel bad so I give them money. It felt like the better thing to do. That's Fi. This over complicated mess you describe here is not Fi.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what Fi is. Fi doesn't need such an external emotional trigger to compare to other people. That's not what Fi does. That's Fe. You aren't showing how the processes differ in how the Fi type reaches moral conclusions based on personal evaluation of what is good or bad. I don't need to compare to people I've known to feel sympathy, nor do I need to study how sad they seem. That's Fe being object focused or other oriented. Fi is what I think and what I feel and what I find important. Fi would go, but it felt right to give the guy the money because I would appreciate it too in that situation. Fi must always introject itself into the object. It can't see the object itself. Fi would reason that the man makes me feel really bad and I don't like to feel bad so I give them money. It felt like the better thing to do. That's Fi. This over complicated mess you describe here is not Fi.


The problem is that I understand it, I just couldn't explain it. It's helpful you threw in some comments on this, clarified some things for me.

I make one more attempt and shorten it up as much as possible: Fi-user has already defined system of what they are willing to accept and what not, what they appreciate, what they despise etc. based on "perceived lessons" gained from personal experiences. When Fi-user recognizes what's going on, they will know how to react or what is "ought to be done".

Fe does not have a value system. Fe is very circumstancial compared to Fi and solves every social interaction or situation in slightly unique manner. 

Fi-user unconsciously works like a staircase, Fe-user unconsciously works like an elevator. 

Beggar-example was to illustrate: Fi-user relates to how something makes him feel, but Fe-user relates to how he feels about something. Fi perceives how they feel in this environment, Fe perceives how the environment feels like. Fi feels more independently, Fe feels in response to something.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> The problem is that I understand it, I just couldn't explain it. It's helpful you threw in some comments on this, clarified some things for me.
> 
> I make one more attempt and shorten it up as much as possible: Fi-user has already defined system of what they are willing to accept and what not, what they appreciate, what they despise etc. based on "perceived lessons" gained from personal experiences. When Fi-user recognizes what's going on, they will know how to react or what is "ought to be done".
> 
> ...


No, still not getting it. Your Fi is Ti dom using Fe. Did you consider being Ti dom?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

1.) What does an ambivert's stack look like?

2.) I use a lot of Ti and Te in decision making


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Fi-user unconsciously works like a staircase, Fe-user unconsciously works like an elevator.


I'm not sure I get that metaphor. 

And I don't think it's necessarily that Fe can't have a value system. It'll just be based more on how other people feel, unlike Fi which is focused on the self. Not sure I can explain it better than it already has been explained though.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, still not getting it. Your Fi is Ti dom using Fe. Did you consider being Ti dom?


There was a time where I seriously considered if I was ENFP, but I did some research and found out it does not apply to me. Ever before and after I have never considered any other types for myself. I am well familiar with all 16, it's just that only INFP suits me.

Same story with being Ti-dom - doesn't make sense. Intertype relations, type descriptions, several tests, some type-specific stereotypical examples etc. all point to me being INFP. 

Anyways, I am quite sure my last post is as correct as it can be. Socionics theory has mentioned that following functions use same places in the brain:

Se = Ne
Si = Ni
Te = Fe
Ti = Fi

Meaning that if Se is engaged, Ne shuts off etc. 

You related my story with Ti, but Fi and Ti are both introverted judging functions. Why can't they possess some degree of similarities? Doesn't introverted judging functions have value systems, one being logical, structured, the another relatively unstructured and subjective?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> I'm not sure I get that metaphor.
> 
> And I don't think it's necessarily that Fe can't have a value system. It'll just be based more on how other people feel, unlike Fi which is focused on the self. Not sure I can explain it better than it already has been explained though.


Te and Fe can't possess any value systems, extroverted functions can not introspect.

It's true indeed, that's how Fe and Fi externally look like.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Te and Fe can't possess any value systems, extroverted functions can not introspect.
> 
> It's true indeed, that's how Fe and Fi externally look like.


Fe-users, I meant. 

As opposed to how they internally look?

The reason your story doesn't work as an example of Fi is because it still focuses outside of itself. Instead of putting themselves in the place of the beggar, they relate the beggar to other people. The object is replaced with another object. Fi doesn't need to relate it to another experience that way as long as they can personally feel with the beggar.



> Beggar-example was to illustrate: Fi-user relates to how something makes him feel, but Fe-user relates to how he feels about something. Fi perceives how they feel in this environment, Fe perceives how the environment feels like. Fi feels more independently, Fe feels in response to something.


And this differentiation feels more nitpicky than clearing up much.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> There was a time where I seriously considered if I was ENFP, but I did some research and found out it does not apply to me. Ever before and after I have never considered any other types for myself. I am well familiar with all 16, it's just that only INFP suits me.
> 
> Same story with being Ti-dom - doesn't make sense. Intertype relations, type descriptions, several tests, some type-specific stereotypical examples etc. all point to me being INFP.
> 
> ...


If that's true then why do you need to make Fi so complicated and why does all your attempts to describe Fi sound like Fe? And the more you describe it the less relatable it becomes. Look, even @Nonsense gets it despite considering being an ISFJ but you don't. You don't find that strange? Your logic is nitpicking categories like sympathy vs empathy. No, that's not the feeling function. It's rational in dominant position but it rationalizes ethics and values, not logical categories that you do. It would rationalize worth. Especially in the case of Fi-Te, it would rationalize what is the better ethical outcome: is it better to give the beggar a dime? Food? Support a help shelter? Campaign to improve the social situation in the city as a whole? Those are examples of Fi with Te. Not that my uncle once had it bad so the beggar must feel like that too. As Nonsense mentioned, that's replacing one object with another object. Fi doesn't do that. I already explained that Fi would introject itself. How would it feel like if I were a beggar on the street? What would I prefer to happen to me? 

Ti and Fi may both be Ji and share such a similarity, but what kind of conclusions they reach and how they reach them are very different since they deal with two completely opposite realities, one being thinking and another feeling. The outcome of an Fi dom should never look like Ti-Fe since they lead with Fi. And you don't understand socionics it seems. The one IE we never really replace with anything is the base or dominant. There's a reason Beebe calls the function of the same attitude but opposite preference the demon function. 

It's a little strange if an Fi dom can't describe their own dominant internal process without overcomplicating it and then you think you "got it right"? @OrangeAppled has provided various very insightful descriptions of Fi on this forum and all very relatable to me. You haven't. I think you should reconsider yourself a possible INTP because your thinking doesn't seem to line up with the Fi-Te function-set. Your Fi descriptions and definitions just make no sense.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> I'm not sure I get that metaphor.
> 
> And I don't think it's necessarily that Fe can't have a value system. It'll just be based more on how other people feel, unlike Fi which is focused on the self. Not sure I can explain it better than it already has been explained though.


*Fi* - is ethics of relation. How the self relates to everything around. The resulting values system is derived from this and as such it is personal. This is more about what the self likes and how it relates, values. A Fi user doesn't feel what others feel, it feels what it would feel in the place of the other person and as such the Fi user's answer depends on the self.

*Fe* - is ethics of emotions. Its main concern is with external relationships, how others are feeling, how others are affected and how to affect these and the group. For this reason Fe users


> recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.


Feelers have both strong Fi and Fe, just that one is not a preference. Strong and valued vs Strong and undervalued.

Fi - self-object relationship. The state of the self in relation to the object.

Fe - object-object relationship. The state of the object.

:| I find that its much simpler to explain Fi & Te then Fe and Ti.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> If that's true then why do you need to make Fi so complicated and why does all your attempts to describe Fi sound like Fe? And the more you describe it the less relatable it becomes. Look, even @_Nonsense_ gets it despite considering being an ISFJ but you don't. You don't find that strange? Your logic is nitpicking categories like sympathy vs empathy. No, that's not the feeling function. It's rational in dominant position but it rationalizes ethics and values, not logical categories that you do. It would rationalize worth. Especially in the case of Fi-Te, it would rationalize what is the better ethical outcome: is it better to give the beggar a dime? Food? Support a help shelter? Campaign to improve the social situation in the city as a whole? Those are examples of Fi with Te. Not that my uncle once had it bad so the beggar must feel like that too. As Nonsense mentioned, that's replacing one object with another object. Fi doesn't do that. I already explained that Fi would introject itself. How would it feel like if I were a beggar on the street? What would I prefer to happen to me?
> 
> Ti and Fi may both be Ji and share such a similarity, but what kind of conclusions they reach and how they reach them are very different since they deal with two completely opposite realities, one being thinking and another feeling. The outcome of an Fi dom should never look like Ti-Fe since they lead with Fi. And you don't understand socionics it seems. The one IE we never really replace with anything is the base or dominant. There's a reason Beebe calls the function of the same attitude but opposite preference the demon function.
> 
> It's a little strange if an Fi dom can't describe their own dominant internal process without overcomplicating it and then you think you "got it right"? @_OrangeAppled_ has provided various very insightful descriptions of Fi on this forum and all very relatable to me. You haven't. I think you should reconsider yourself a possible INTP because your thinking doesn't seem to line up with the Fi-Te function-set. Your Fi descriptions and definitions just make no sense.



Just because I don't know how to explain Fi you type me as INTP? I am too intrigued by this to keep going with the debate. Sorry guys, but I have to retreat and keep reading about cognitive functions and socionics for a little while, because this thread has got me little confused about the theory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Te and Fe can't possess any value systems, extroverted functions can not introspect.
> 
> It's true indeed, that's how Fe and Fi externally look like.


I'll tell you the difference between Fe and Fi from the bar last week. Guy hitting on a bartender. Total heart on his sleeve. Very good natured, true romantic. Not even drunk. I don't know what his problem was. Anyway, it is making this woman very uncomfortable. So I step in and defuse the situation that makes nobody lose face. That's what Fe does. That is my value system. I try rearrange existing, individual emotions into the most harmonious whole. That is what we do. We juggle everybody else's feelings, and we mediate. We are mediators. We aren't consistent because we live in a changing world of different personalities. So it may seem we change with the wind, but we don't. Fe has very strong value systems. It is just that we care deeply about our environment. If the environment is disturbed, we are disturbed. Why do you think so many Fe users are drawn to political action and are revolutionaries and are fighting the system? We have a value system, but we are also sensitive to conflict, so let most things slide. Like the classic INFJ Gandhi said: "I pride myself on my yielding nature in small matters." But we don't yield in large matters.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Just because I don't know how to explain Fi you type me as INTP? I am too intrigued by this to keep going with the debate. Sorry guys, but I have to retreat and keep reading about cognitive functions and socionics for a little while, because this thread has got me little confused about the theory.


No, I think INTP seems likely because your thinking doesn't seem to match an INFP, but my impression was reinforced when you couldn't offer a viable description of Fi that didn't sound like Fe at some level. This is something I've been thinking way before you made these posts by the way. It just reinforced my previous conclusion. I would definitely look into LII in socionics too, because EII makes no sense for you either.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, I think INTP seems likely because your thinking doesn't seem to match an INFP, but my impression was reinforced when you couldn't offer a viable description of Fi that didn't sound like Fe at some level. This is something I've been thinking way before you made these posts by the way. It just reinforced my previous conclusion. I would definitely look into LII in socionics too, because EII makes no sense for you either.


I don't know about that, psychology is like a religion in this forum. Everyone interprets cognitive functions like they want, same goes with types. This makes even clinging the theory seem pointless. Some people say one, the other say another, and there is no authority that tells who is right about what. Psychology =/= science, and honestly, I don't really care what is true and what is not, when everything is so fucking subjective.

It could also be that I may leave different impression on this forum than I actually am in real life. 

Yes I looked up LII description, read up about LII's cognitive functions, but what is described there is not just me, and end of story. I don't care if somebody does not like my opinions, I am not a rocket scientist that if I make a wrong calculation, the rocket will explode in the skies. After all, there are people on this forum that type Nicki Minaj as INTJ, according to the very same theory, but each interpreting it in it's own way, as if the jung's theory had just as much double meanings as the holy bible.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> I don't know about that, psychology is like a religion in this forum. Everyone interprets cognitive functions like they want, same goes with types. This makes even clinging the theory seem pointless. Some people say one, the other say another, and there is no authority that tells who is right about what. Psychology =/= science, and honestly, I don't really care what is true and what is not, when everything is so fucking subjective.


Then your opinion is also useless. 



> It could also be that I may leave different impression on this forum than I actually am in real life.


I don't care about people's RL. Their cognition doesn't change. 



> Yes I looked up LII description, read up about LII's cognitive functions, but what is described there is not just me, and end of story. I don't care if somebody does not like my opinions, I am not a rocket scientist that if I make a wrong calculation, the rocket will explode in the skies. After all, there are people on this forum that type Nicki Minaj as INTJ, according to the very same theory, but each interpreting it in it's own way, as if the jung's theory had just as much double meanings as the holy bible.


Why described, why not operate?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Then your opinion is also useless.
> 
> I don't care about people's RL. Their cognition doesn't change.
> 
> Why described, why not operate?


Oh wow, it's getting personal. So much fun :laughing:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

S8on said:


> I'm trying to create a model in which I (and hopefully others as well) can identify and in which we can draw on to better understand the differences in behaviors of people. Of course behaviors of individuals are much more complex, but this is a way to understand patterns in behaviors or the source of a certain behavior.
> 
> I understand T ~ Morals and it's not exactly a T =/= morals, but this is simply a basic guideline and how you further make sense of these basic ideas is how you would understand behavior (sorry if the model is to simple, my Ti is showing)
> 
> ...


Absolutely get the Ti thing you are saying about wanting the "broad strokes" that we can re-use, in order to understand things. I'm doing something similar to you here? http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174436-fi-fe-revisited.html

But have trouble figuring a Te perspective about how ones actions effect another person or group? Maybe Te will always choose default to Fi (as option A or B), or else decide the other's perspective to be irrelevant (the other option)?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Absolutely get the Ti thing you are saying about wanting the "broad strokes" that we can re-use, in order to understand things. I'm doing something similar to you here? http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174436-fi-fe-revisited.html
> 
> But have trouble figuring a Te perspective about how ones actions effect another person or group? Maybe Te will always choose default to Fi (as option A or B), or else decide the other's perspective to be irrelevant (the other option)?


Te seeks external logical outcomes. If I do this, then this happens. If I tell a person they're a dick, they will likely be upset. Te sees behavior as external logical qualities, whereas Fe does so in terms of value. That's the only difference.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@*ephemereality*So My Ti summary of policy - in line with my subjective ongoing understanding of my responsibilities, would contrast with the Te approach of if A then B - directed only at the situation at hand?

I don't understand the Fe value comment? I tend to think Fi's are oblivious to other people, not in the sense of being mean or anything, just filtering eveything through there own standards - even Te's doing this much more than they know they do it.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @*ephemereality*So My Ti summary of policy - in line with my subjective ongoing understanding of my responsibilities, would contrast with the Te approach of if A then B - directed only at the situation at hand?
> 
> I don't understand the Fe value comment? I tend to think Fi's are oblivious to other people, not in the sense of being mean or anything, just filtering eveything through there own standards - even Te's doing this much more than they know they do it.


Te vs Fe
Te is an objective interpretation of something objective
Fe is an objective interpretation of something subjective

Te- this action causes this event, Fi how would I personally be affected

Fe- this action causes people to feel this way, Ti what would my reasoning be

Ti vs Fi
Ti is a subjective interpretation of something objective
Fi is a subjective interpretation of something subjective


So Te/Fi understanding of how actions affect people would be with
Te- how do these actions generally affect people (objective analysis of objective effect)
Fi- how would I personally be affected by those actions (subjective analysis of subjective effect)

Fi isn't oblivious to people. It's just considering what other people would want based on what the Fi-user personally wants.


does this help?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

No - This action *causes* this person to feel this way is not the same as This person places a priority on A,B,C, this influences how I word or handle a situation. Sounds like a technicality but it isnt. I'm not responsible for how other people feel. I am responsible for my choices.

I understand what you are saying but maybe I just have trouble relating to it that way? Fi IS oblivious because most of the time they don't even know that what they *would* want may have nothing to do with the person and situation at hand.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> No - This action *causes* this person to feel this way is not the same as This person places a priority on A,B,C, this influences how I word or handle a situation. Sounds like a technicality but it isnt. I'm not responsible for how other people feel. I am responsible for my choices.
> 
> I understand what you are saying but maybe I just have trouble relating to it that way? Fi IS oblivious because most of the time they don't even know that what they *would* want may have nothing to do with the person and situation at hand.


Your wording is a bit weird for the first part. I don't really understand it lol. I think there is some kind of mix up between personal use of Te and interpersonal use of Te.

As for the second part, how about a better way of saying it is that the Fi-user isn't trying to be oblivious. If they can relate to the person correctly, then they don't end up oblivious and have a deeper understanding of the other person. If they relate incorrectly, then yes they end up oblivious.

The thing is if the Fi user may understand that feelings (subjective) are understood subjectively which means they accept they can't completely understand other individuals. However they also know they don't have to understand other people to help them.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

We are both using Ti are we not? Fe means you have some understanding of the person, yes the person has their own subjectivity and one is limited in knowing the depths of it if you are not inside that person. But Fi assumes this person is unknowable or simply not the Fi's problem. That's not to say Ti belives they are responsible for the other person, just that the other person is knowable through Fe - to some extent, enough to deal with that person on that person's terms, or choose to walk away, or negotiate. - or choose to contribute helpfulness according to that persons idea of help.

Fi's opperate from what they imagine about people based on their own (Fi's) feelings. And they go so far as to imagine that other people have imaginings about *them* based on priorities not held by the actual other persons. Imagining what others imagine about you -based on a private internal sense of self - is oblivious, not mean spirited or ill intentioned but oblivious just the same..

Maybe someone can clarify for me about interpersonal use of Te?


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> We are both using Ti are we not?


We are both using Ti, so our ideas come out as how we INDIVIDUALLY processed the ideas lol, It's the same thing with Fi and people



Old Intern said:


> Fi assumes this person is unknowable or simply not the Fi's problem


Your interpretations are correct in what the function represents is for the most part correct. Fi assumes other people are unknowable, but why Te exists, to assess the situation at hand. Fi is just the base of how the person tries to understand other people. This however, DOES NOT mean that Fi assumes it is not their problem.



Old Intern said:


> And they go so far as to imagine that other people have imaginings about them based on priorities not held by the actual other persons. Imagining what others imagine about you -based on a private internal sense of self - is oblivious, not mean spirited or ill intentioned but oblivious just the same.


Yes, this is true. I just feel like we aren't representing the other functions equally negatively lol. For example, Fe may be ignorant of somebody else's "private internal sense of self" since they are merely comparing them to a consensus of the norm.



Old Intern said:


> Maybe someone can clarify for me about interpersonal use of Te?


Interpersonal Te simply means you are trying to understand the situation as is. Not the deeper context of it. That's why (in my opinion) Fi/Te given an immediate situation, are more quick to empathize. They assess the situation as is, then relate it to how they were in that situation.

Fe also doesn't imply understanding. Fe just means you are trying to understand other's feelings feelings as they are. This is my base for saying Ti/Fe will tend to sympathize more. They are trying to understand the feelings of another for what they are, and then interpret the deeper context of these feelings.


----------



## meghanenfj (Dec 21, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Example: Fi and Fe user both donate 5 euros to a beggar.
> 
> *Fi user *does it because he personally witnessed how the father of his friend used to be a decent and hard-working man, who broke up with his wife and descended into a downward spiral which led him to a rough spot. Fi user compared that person to the beggar that he just saw, and that triggered *sympathy *in him. Also, the beggar looked sad enough that Fi-user was suddenly reminded of so many other sad stories, movies and songs about hopeless people and how they end their lives in suicide one day. Next natural move was to express sympathy by donation.
> 
> *Fe user *does it because he looked at the beggar and saw sadness in his eyes. His clothes were truly ragged, his shoes were wrecked and he had the look on his face as if he was losing a last ray of hope. Fe-user resonated with that background noise of desperation and pain generated by that beggar. It triggered *empathy *in him. Fe-user wanted to express it to the beggar that hope is never far gone, and the little kind gesture to the person who is about to lose hope is sure way to brighten up his day, and a little bit of happiness to this sad man is never too much, and thus donated a little bit of cash.



LOVE this comparison!!! Speaks such truth as an Fe user myself


----------

