# Sticky  Ti v Fi - A Closer Look



## Psilo

Hello again, everyone :happy: Good to be back. 

I'm unsatisfied by the descriptions of Ti and Fi that I see around in books or online. While generally the end result is somewhat correct, I know that each function goes deeper than it's external manifestation. I also want to assert that they are much more similar than they appear.

I'm not Ti, so I'm basing this on my interpretations of other people's introspection. Please correct me or elaborate. The more personal observations the better. Also, please correct me on any N bias I may be adding.

Ti is an abstract deductive reasoning process. Would it be correct to say that Ti focuses on stripping away at the superficial side of any given object/situation to find the inner and pure objective information? Ti then goes to define and ultimately fit the piece of information into an internal model of all objective information collected thus far. All done unconsciously for the most part until a particularly complex bit of information cannot fit in which case both the information and the internal construct are called into question until all inconsistencies are worked out and the puzzle is solved. The larger problems require varying amounts of time, energy, and logical processing until everything fits once again. This is how Ti can pinpoint inconsistencies from miles away, the information they received is not the proper shape or not even from the same puzzle as they understand the world to function.

Fi would then be an abstract integration process taking into account pure subjective information or 'feelings'. The internal world model is constructed less of logical systems as Ti. Fi focuses less on defining new information and more on simply understanding and then integrating it to the basic framework already in place. Like conducting and building a song one instrumental piece at a time. Fi is focused on how things work together, and dissonance is readily apparent. A distinction from the inconsistency targeting of Ti where things must fit, Fi can work with small inconsistencies as long as the bigger picture can still function as whole. 

Objectivity and subjectivity are a large separation in the functions. Fi types are very close to their inner feelings, understand them, yet the objectivity of language prevents them from expressing this portion of their being. Fi then needs to take subjective viewpoints into account in their internal world model because that is the part world they best understand and they see it to affect their worldview greatly. This is not to say they ignore objectivity, yet a danger zone for Fi (DomFi especially) is to ignore objective truth that doesn't harmonize with their subjective truth resulting in either an overly-emotional or a self-centered person (or both, depending on your perspective). Ti, on the other hand, is either does not understand it like Fi can (much like Fi has a harder time with deductive reasoning of objective qualities), or deems it irrelevant. An unbalanced Ti would be entirely disconnected with the human element leaving their world model incomplete and too rigid for that sort of information. (ironically becoming too subjective in their objectivity) 

I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.



It's a work in progress and I may not have organized my thoughts properly. Please tell me for personal view on how you use/experience these functions.


----------



## Kevinaswell

Thank you.

This was a good read.

And I'd mostly agree for sure. Nice


----------



## Sidewalk Balloonatic

Psilo said:


> This is not to say they ignore objectivity, yet a danger zone for Fi (DomFi especially) is to ignore objective truth that doesn't harmonize with their subjective truth resulting in either an overly-emotional or a self-centered person (or both, depending on your perspective).


Indeed. To be blind to either objectivity or subjectivity is an issue of perception, not judgment; either by not using it at all or using it only in servitude to the judgement.

Not that you were implying otherwise, but I think it should be mentioned that Fi is concerned with more than just rudimentary emotions. This is a common misconception as Feeling is a misleading term. Holistic Judging is what I would prefer to use.


----------



## thehigher

Nice work. I'm tempted to ask about starting a research team.....we should do it! =P 

Kevin could work on the neurology, you and nephilimazrael on the technicalities.....and me on.....well....I dunno....maybe you guys should do it haha.


----------



## Psilo

Sidewalk Balloonatic said:


> Indeed. To be blind to either objectivity or subjectivity is an issue of perception, not judgment; either by not using it at all or using it only in servitude to the judgement.
> 
> Not that you were implying otherwise, but I think it should be mentioned that Fi is concerned with more than just rudimentary emotions. This is a common misconception as Feeling is a misleading term. Holistic Judging is what I would prefer to use.


True. I tried to steer away from using the term emotion for that reason. I'd like to be able to go more in depth on the topic of feelings versus emotions. I've been thinking on it a bit. 

I like the term holistic judging.


----------



## Trope

Let me just start by saying that I quite enjoyed this article before jumping in. I agree with just about everything not directly addressed below. I especially liked your references to deductive reasoning.

--

Given your definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, it's quite clear from your article what you meant when using them. I merely wanted to expand upon and perhaps clarify a few things slightly. There are two different meanings for these terms, and, depending upon the manner in which they're applied, can make a great deal of difference.

Ti attempts to be *objective* in that it seeks to be impersonal. To naturally exclude 'irrational' human element from its calculations, for lack of a better term. However, it has also been referred to as *subjective* (by Jung himself, no less) in the sense that it is subject-oriented. That is, oriented around oneself rather than some necessarily external factor(s). It operates on the assumption that past truths were and continue to be true until they prove to be otherwise. Constantly endeavoring to build a sort of empirical house of cards. Immature INTPs and ISTPs (Ti-primary) have a great deal of trouble with not simply disregarding foreign manners of thinking, as well as the ideas resulting from such, as being inherently stupid, nonsensical, and, above all else, illogical. 

The other question I have is about the abstractions you mention. I believe that to be primarily caused by our use of intuition. My Ti--and your Fi, for that matter--works along abstract lines because that's the sort of information we take in to be processed with our respective judging functions. Which is to say that STPs are more comfortable working along concrete lines, what with their having a natural proclivity to take in data in such a manner and therefore a great deal more practice with processing it that way. I'd like to see our resident SPs weigh in on the manner in which their internal processes operate. ISTPs and ISFPs especially.


----------



## Sidewinder

Trope said:


> The other question I have is about the abstractions you mention. I believe that to be primarily caused by our use of intuition. My Ti--and your Fi, for that matter--works along abstract lines because that's the sort of information we take in to be processed with our respective judging functions. Which is to say that STPs are more comfortable working along concrete lines, what with their having a natural proclivity to take in data in such a manner and therefore a great deal more practice with processing it that way. I'd like to see our resident SPs weigh in on the manner in which their internal processes operate. ISTPs and ISFPs especially.


I talked a little about this in the "Introverted Feeling" thread in the NF forum. Fi very much relates to how I feel about the world around me. It is activated by sights, sounds, tastes, scents, colour, line, volume, temperature, health, and the expressions, emotions, and even fashions of people around me, just to name a few triggers. It's related to mood, ambience and vibe, and to how I can adapt myself to the environment or the environment to myself. It's less about people, ideals, or ethics than an INFP might feel, although I'm of course not oblivious to any of those things.

I've come to think of Fi as firmly attached to and inseparable from Se.


----------



## Psilo

> Ti attempts to be *objective* in that it seeks to be impersonal. To naturally exclude 'irrational' human element from its calculations, for lack of a better term. However, it has also been referred to as *subjective* (by Jung himself, no less) in the sense that it is subject-oriented. That is, oriented around oneself rather than some necessarily external factor(s). It operates on the assumption that past truths were and continue to be true until they prove to be otherwise. Constantly endeavoring to build a sort of empirical house of cards. Immature INTPs and ISTPs (Ti-primary) have a great deal of trouble with not simply disregarding foreign manners of thinking, as well as the ideas resulting from such, as being inherently stupid, nonsensical, and, above all else, illogical.


Thanks. I'll have to phrase it more clearly, but I think we are on the same page. Ti is a subjective process but it seeks to use objective information, or information that can be quantified and is standard regardless of observer. Fi does not dismiss the idea of perspective and seeks to include the human element with the information it gathers. Both processes are subjective in that they depend on the person involved to interpret the data.



> The other question I have is about the abstractions you mention. I believe that to be primarily caused by our use of intuition. My Ti--and your Fi, for that matter--works along abstract lines because that's the sort of information we take in to be processed with our respective judging functions. Which is to say that STPs are more comfortable working along concrete lines, what with their having a natural proclivity to take in data in such a manner and therefore a great deal more practice with processing it that way. I'd like to see our resident SPs weigh in on the manner in which their internal processes operate. ISTPs and ISFPs especially.


As I said, I'm not sure where the intuition plays into this exactly. I was assuming that the information that would be taken with FiSe would be concrete physically, but abstractly stored and used in the mind. 

I enjoy the responses I've gotten from our isfp members. Anything that can help me separate Ne/Se from Fi is extremely helpful.


----------



## Sunless

Thanks for posting this, Psilo, it was very interesting!

I think what you talk about is mostly NFs and NTs, since Ss are less prone to building webs of abstractions. I believe Ss work more with patterns, where all the information they store is in the same level and connections are simple, like a quilt made out of patches of concrete facts. Ns, on the other hand, build complex hierarchies full of connections, and disregard the concrete.

Both ways have their pros and cons, but i think you are addressing Ns in your article


----------



## Kohtumine

I have a friend which by internet standards could pass easily as INTP, he by the way, when first presented with the MBTI theory was a self declared INTP because of a internet test he took and because of the few profiles I send him describing INTPs.

Well, I knew he was not a INTP in the first place, and so I did let him reach his conlussion basically knowing that he'd say he was an INTP just to prove something I had hypotesized long before he reached his conclussion.

INFPs like to think they are INTPs.

At least those ones who have intelligence stablished as a high value quality in a person.

The reason is simple, and I'll be using him as an example.

There's a major difference between the 2 of us that simply wouldn't pass scrutiny under anyone decent user of Ti. He's big on arts, while I'm big on sciences. And when I said big, I'm talking about our biggest motivators in life, the part which can be considered the path we will be taking in life and that thing which dominated profusely on our minds almost all the time.

Art is a subjective topic, basically it means there's no logical reason in it, it is ultimately always, without fail, every time, in all topics which concern arts, a matter of personal value. 

And there is no place like that for a thing as Ti to thrive because Ti is not only the most impresonal of all the functions, but the most anti-personal of all as it will try to get rid of all that cannot be considerated universal and absolute as logic ultimately is.

Arts is the domain of Fi, as Fi is the most personal of all the functions, it deals with one's value system, that human or abstract qualities which we can define as best or right for us. Creativity, orginality as examples of those.

So there you can actually put Fi and Ti as opposites of one another, one tries to get rid of all personal, relative and subjective values to only leave the absolute and universal while the other tries to put those values in and get rid of that that is absolute and universal, like trying to put flavor in pristine water.

Of course this doesn't mean that INFPs try to put subjetivity and personal values in everything, but just in those areas which can allow it. As INFPs will have a different value system for science, prising those things as rationality and intelligence, and ruthless absolute universal truths too, as those are considered to be "good qualities" to have in science.

The Fi as I said has a value system, which will put different values based on the area ones is talking about, while for the INTP, the logic, is all that matters, in just everything there is. If an area of knowledge is from its nature subjective and personal, we just will not make an effort to contribute in it.

Questions or clarifications, leave your post down here, I'll be sure to reply it.

Hope it helps :bored:


----------



## Kokos

> So there you can actually put Fi and Ti as opposites of one another, one tries to get rid of all personal, relative and subjective values to only leave the absolute and universal while the other tries to put those values in and get rid of that that is absolute and universal, like trying to put flavor in pristine water.


I think this is a very good point !

When i was studying in electronics, i hated the raw objective mathematical theory of everything with a passion, especially because indeed i think i couldn't put a part of myself in such abstract and meaningless work.

However, when i was working on a personal project and that i had to use those theories as tools to reach my goal, i suddenly found a fond interest in them.


Art can be something taken very logically though, there is a logic behind why, for example, a picture work and another doesn't. And indeed on that logic structure go the subjective values and motivations of the artist; but they are nothing without that structure.


edit: i also noticed something funny during a discussion with my INTP friend; we were in the car on the highway when i spotted a nice Porsche behind us : " Woaw look at that car, how much could this possibly cost ? must be something like 90 000 euros." my friend : "Goddammit stop doing that, you don't even know how much that car cost, why do you make random guesses like that ?" ; "I don't know, maybe because when i can't have an answer i like to create myself one in the meantime."

:tongue:


----------



## whisperycat

> Arts is the domain of Fi


Fi is a judging function. Ti is a judging function. What has the judging got to do with art? It is the the perceiving function which drives artistic creation. There is no reason at all why an INTP can't be artistic. Michaelangelo was INTP. He was also artistic. 

In the same way INFPs can be technical. Again, it is the capacity to abstract, to intuit and see patterns, derived from the N perceiving function, which enables INFPs to be technical.


----------



## Kohtumine

whisperycat said:


> Fi is a judging function. Ti is a judging function. What has the judging got to do with art?


Art is a form of self-expression, Ti user don't have anything about themselves to express, literary science or documentary films only, and that kind of thing, if you consider that art anyway. I don't.



> It is the the perceiving function which drives artistic creation.


Ne (in my case) drives artistic creation? How is that? I use Ne to gather information, not to do something about it, Ti is the one who will do something about it, don't get your point of Ne having anything to do with artistic *creation* (perception, I can understand tho).



> There is no reason at all why an INTP can't be artistic. Michaelangelo was INTP. He was also artistic.


You can't be typed _before _MBTI theory, and then claim afterwards you're an artistic INTP, something which from the beginning would have make you a non INTP.

That's how it works, first the personality and then the pigeonholing, not the other way around.



> In the same way INFPs can be technical. Again, it is the capacity to abstract, to intuit and see patterns, derived from the N perceiving function, which enables INFPs to be technical.


Yes they can be, but as I said because a system of values will take precedence and determine what's better in this area, it can pass through as "technical", well in fact it is, but the core, the reason behind it all is a system of values that changes according to what is being talked about, not an absolute, all permeating logic, like those of Ti predominant users.


----------



## whisperycat

Hi Tlatoani

I think what I'm trying to say is that when I look into my own self and try to monitor the creative process, it seems to me that artistic creation starts with perception. Until a person has perceived something, they can't draw it, or carve it, or sing it, or act it, or dance it. First there is the perception, then there follows the artistic rendering of that perception. Judging doesn't come into it, not until the artist has to make a decision about their art. Do I like this? Is it good? That's when the judging functions kick in. It just isn't the case that Fi is arty and Ti isn't. Again, look at Michaelangelo, one of the greatest genius ever to live. He was a mechanic, an engineer, a visionary, an architect, a mathematician and an artist of amazing skill. Because he was an INTP he was able to use his art to support intuitive leaps, to design and draw things that didn't actually exist in his 'real world'. Like helicopters, and submarines, and flying machines. S artists rarely draw things that don't exist. They draw you beautiful, photographically accurate renditions of things you can see and touch in the real world. How can they not? Thaty is the world they perceive. Why would they depict something else?

Look at the Artisans, an entire temperament of types - the SPs. What unites the artisan types is their extraverted Sensing perception, whether in dominant or secondary place. The work of S artists is usually closer to reality, in look, or feel, or form. They enjoy using tools. They will sculpt and carve and cut cloth, they manipulate things they can interact with through their extraverted sensing. N artists on the other hand tend to produce abstract art. How can they not? All they can know of the world is what they get through their perception. Judging makes decisions, it doesn't capture information. Judging processes the data presented by Perception, that's why I think it has to drive the art style. Without perception to provide the raw imagery, the raw symbology, the raw data, art can't happen. Blind people don't paint.

INTP artists - INTP Forum


----------



## Peege

Kokos said:


> I think this is a very good point !
> 
> When i was studying in electronics, i hated the raw objective mathematical theory of everything with a passion, especially because indeed i think i couldn't put a part of myself in such abstract and meaningless work.
> 
> However, when i was working on a personal project and that i had to use those theories as tools to reach my goal, i suddenly found a fond interest in them.


I think the same sort of thing happened with me and my science background. I've always enjoyed the broader understanding of the world from science, especially all the weirder stuff and astronomical stuff that seems more metaphysical or fantastical than real, but have had trouble connecting with the math and grittier details of the theory, especially for basic mechanics and whatnot. Then, once I finally had some research to work on on my own, I finally was able to begin to care about some of it. The fact that I can do and actively enjoy some parts of science has made me wonder if I might be an intp instead, but then I remember that I hate proofs and can barely follow other people's math or logic. Once I have the conclusions, though, I can use those larger ideas to try to pull everything together. Thank god for mathematica...

Probably doesn't hurt that my research involves basically making small bolts of lightning. Kind of hits on the inner "oooh...pretty..." vibe.


----------



## Functianalyst

]Thanks Psilo, I was about to paste Jung's recap of the introverted rational functions, but your descriptions seem better. Several things that I appreciate and agree on is although they are both subjective, Ti deludes itself into believing they are objective. Also that is a great comparison that Ti being deductive and Fi integrative. I must disagree on principal that contrary to MBTI, Ti both start from the same pont because they are introverted judging functions. I would argue that contrary to MBTI Ti unbalanced does not disconnected with the human element, with it's own internal moral code and values. This could lead to a disconnect with the human element but that would lead to going external. Many times even those closest to Ti dominant types are unaware they are going through an unbalanced phase. That tells me the unbalanced or shadow of ITPs is not Fe, but instead Fi, in particularly since if you truly think about it one can Ti-Fe although it would appear awkward, but one cannot Ti-Fi since we can only introvert and/or extravert one function at a time. Again a great thread.


----------



## Alice in Wonderland

Tis generally wonder "why?" and "how?" while Fis typically wonder "what if?"scenarios, which is why Tis generally make good problem solvers and Fis good artists.


----------



## Nexus6

Alice in Wonderland said:


> Tis generally wonder "why?" and "how?" while Fis typically wonder "what if?"scenarios, which is why Tis generally make good problem solvers and Fis good artists.


There are Ts who are excellent artists as well, but I can see where being an "F" would give one an advantage for the abstract representation of "feelings" whereas the T artist would probably give a more abstract representation of concepts or ideas.


----------



## madhatter

I would have to disagree with the statement that the major difference between Ti and Fi is the arts and science. I am a dominant Ti, and I have always enjoyed and been skilled at both the arts and science. I think that the arts appealed to my Se and the sciences to my Ti. 



whisperycat said:


> S artists rarely draw things that don't exist. They draw you beautiful, photographically accurate renditions of things you can see and touch in the real world. How can they not? That is the world they perceive. Why would they depict something else?....What unites the artisan types is their extraverted Sensing perception, whether in dominant or secondary place. The work of S artists is usually closer to reality, in look, or feel, or form. They enjoy using tools. They will sculpt and carve and cut cloth, they manipulate things they can interact with through their extraverted sensing.


I definitely identify with this! My drawings are usually of the natural world...mostly landscapes. Within that medium, I can do a little inventing; but I need that foundation, that connection with the concrete world.


----------



## Marco Antonio

ti systematic approach is ruled by reliability of consistent frameworks.
fi's belief system is dependant of existential agreement with identity.


----------



## Weeds32

Hello everyone. I am brand new to these personality type identifiers, and also (obviously) to this site. Being new to these classifications/concepts/theories...etc., I have a number of questions and thoughts on all of this, and I would appreciate any feedback you can offer. 

I will list the various thoughts and questions seperately, and when responding please just make reference to the part (A,B,C,...) that you are commenting on. Hopefully, this will be a lot of fun. Haha.

*While writing this my mind was all over the place on tangents and such, so these questions may not be expressed as clearly as they could be. So I hope you can see the what I am getting at and just take it from there.


A) Aren't these classifications based on preferences? If so, what would make them inherently mutually exclusive? 
I had some trouble trying to classify myself (before taking the test) partially because I felt that descriptions of both INFP and INTP described aspects of my thought process equally. So being that I am an INFP, and therefore Fi dominant, why could I not also be Ti? Using Psilo's analogy (wonderful post by the way) from above couldn't you use the Ti process to see if you had a puzzle peice (new information) that fit, so found to be free of inconsistencies... you could then add this puzzle peice (which would magically transform into a violinist) to the orchestra you are conducting... This process would serve to audition the new musicians to see if they can play with the proficiency required, or at least check that their instrument is in tune, before you add them to the Unified Theory Orchestra? So you would be both Fi and Ti, while accurately testing INFP because you simply prefer Fi over Ti?

B) Existentialism
Ok, so if INFP's are subjective, and INTP's are objective, can only the INFP's be existentialists? If existentialists, such as prominent INFP Kiekegaard, believe the existance is inherently absurd and meaningless, and therefore one must assign value to their life subjectively, how can purely objective individuals define themselves subjectively? 


C) I read somewhere in my personality type cram session that one aspect of Ni is trying to synthesize sound axioms into paradoxes. However, as a Ne, I do this constantly and it seems that this would be a natural extention of the Ne process. Thoughts? (I know this is off topic, but thought I would throw it out there anyway.)
My favorite that I wrestle to a stalemate regularly is if "the unexamined life is not worth living" and "ignorance is bliss" how could you have a happy and meaningful life?

I am going to end it there because it is obvious even to me that this is all over the place, and surely riddled with spelling errors, haha. Hopefully we can get something out of this. Thank you.


----------



## intrasearching

This is a very good point about Ti:


> ...Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit.


I have, however, experienced some "subjective defensiveness" with my ideas in the past. I will always listen to a person's point, and nowadays if someone disputes something I find to be generally valid, like personality theory, I will tell them that it is good to be skeptical. When I was younger, however (16 maybe), I would become somewhat defensive of the MBTI and enneagram in dispute. It wasn't so much that they were destroying some security-providing intellectual system, but that I believed they were not looking at it objectively because it simply seemed silly, like astrology or something along those lines. I believe that if one looks deeper at personality theory, not dismissing it outright, they will find some valid applications. However I can see how there are certain minds that do not see the application and validity of personality theory because they are different from mine (not a value judgment, just a difference).


----------



## Up and Away

I think this might have been a great thread, but recently we've really been trying to define more of the words we are using in our descriptions, and this description is pretty outdated I think. I'll definitely come here and write up a thorough description of where I'm getting confused due to lots of language not being defined and there being no consensus on how these words are defined, in the future.


----------



## Psilo

Souled In said:


> I think this might have been a great thread, but recently we've really been trying to define more of the words we are using in our descriptions, and this description is pretty outdated I think. I'll definitely come here and write up a thorough description of where I'm getting confused due to lots of language not being defined and there being no consensus on how these words are defined, in the future.


To be honest, I haven't read this thread probably in two years. I don't remember what it says or if I still agree with it. XD


----------



## Up and Away

Psilo said:


> To be honest, I haven't read this thread probably in two years. I don't remember what it says or if I still agree with it. XD


Yeah its so old! But its thorough and insightful thats for sure haha.

Someone should comprise a list of definitions that we use, and define them based on how theorists describe them, esp jung.

That would be bad ass...


----------



## robespierre

Good to know


----------



## TaylorS

coder25 said:


> Can someone please give a real life example of these two functions in play ?
> 
> Both INTP and INFP fit me. I analyze things all the time. I'm also quite emotional but I never show it in public.
> The dominative cognitive function for these two types are at opposite ends though.


Jungian Feeling is NOT about emotion, it is about evaluation: judgments of good, bad, beautiful, ugly, etc.

Ti = conceptualization based on a personal "logic"
Fi = evaluation based on personal preferences

Compared with...

Te = conceptualization based on publically accepted facts
Fe = evaluation based on social norms


----------



## Empty

Sure. But personal preference can be the very basis for what is rational and what is irrational.

Do you see where I am going with this?

These definitions are far too flawed, simple, almost childish.


----------



## Wake

Trope said:


> Immature INTPs and ISTPs (Ti-primary) have a great deal of trouble with not simply disregarding foreign manners of thinking, as well as the ideas resulting from such, as being inherently stupid, nonsensical, and, above all else, illogical.


Hear that ISTPs? Due to the theory itself you are considered lesser in ability to think and reason. JCFs has its place securely in my signature along with other figments of the imagination.


----------



## Trope

Wake said:


> Hear that ISTPs? Due to the theory itself you are considered lesser in ability to think and reason. JCFs has its place securely in my signature along with other figments of the imagination.


What a cute little flame-baiter you are. 

The takeaway from the post you so weakly attempted to strawman wasn't that a person's personality type or functions is apt to make them "lesser in ability". Rather, that no teenager is the Übermensch they convince themselves they've successfully propped themselves up as. Much less yourself. I simply saw fit to delineate one of the common issues seen in the relevant sub-group. 

Also, before you respond, do us both a favor and save your furrowed brow and wagging finger for those lucky few who care to stick around long enough to explain things slowly. Threads and posts made in the past 12 months might be a good starting place.


----------



## myexplodingcat

Fi isn't actually so airy-fairy. It just uses its own criteria for rational decisions--body language, impressions of people, the sense that something doesn't look right, its own morals--and those criteria aren't usually easily quantified by logic very well, if at all. There's not really "evidence" for those. They just are.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> It just uses its own criteria for rational decisions--body language, impressions of people, the sense that something doesn't look right, its own morals--and those criteria aren't usually easily quantified by logic very well, if at all. There's not really "evidence" for those. They just are.


Same goes with Fe.


----------



## drowninthefear

Kohtumine said:


> Art is a subjective topic, basically it means there's no logical reason in it, it is ultimately always, without fail, every time, in all topics which concern arts, a matter of personal value.
> 
> And there is no place like that for a thing as Ti to thrive because Ti is not only the most impresonal of all the functions, but the most anti-personal of all as it will try to get rid of all that cannot be considerated universal and absolute as logic ultimately is.
> 
> Arts is the domain of Fi, as Fi is the most personal of all the functions, it deals with one's value system, that human or abstract qualities which we can define as best or right for us. Creativity, orginality as examples of those.





Kohtumine said:


> Art is a form of self-expression, Ti user don't have anything about themselves to express, literary science or documentary films only, and that kind of thing, if you consider that art anyway. I don't.


That would suggest Te judgement rather than Ti.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> That would suggest Te judgement rather than Ti.


Not really, because Te users also use Fi all the time. I even know EXTJs that write poetry or involve themselves in art of some form as a form of self-expression. I agree with @Kohtumine that the whole "self-expression" side of art is more in the domain of Fi (I mean, of course Fe users could like it, but I know some who actually like to express the views of other's feelings through art rather than their own, while the higher Ti users tend to be rather experimental with it, but it's almost never is a personal statement of their feelings and values - one INTP I knows likes to sort of socially-experiment in her art (maybe an inferior Fe release of doing things she would be less secure about doing around others) and draws her imaginary friend a lot. The Fe users I know don't seem to be as focused on art as a form of self-expression.


----------



## drowninthefear

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Not really, because Te users also use Fi all the time. I even know EXTJs that write poetry or involve themselves in art of some form as a form of self-expression. I agree with @Kohtumine that the whole "self-expression" side of art is more in the domain of Fi (I mean, of course Fe users could like it, but I know some who actually like to express the views of other's feelings through art rather than their own, while the higher Ti users tend to be rather experimental with it, but it's almost never is a personal statement of their feelings and values - one INTP I knows likes to sort of socially-experiment in her art (maybe an inferior Fe release of doing things she would be less secure about doing around others) and draws her imaginary friend a lot. The Fe users I know don't seem to be as focused on art as a form of self-expression.


I was referring to 'if it has no use in the real world, then it's useless' Te judgement.

Art is indeed subjective; it is what you make it. It can be seen as both a form of self-expression and communication, among other things. A Ti user may not use art to express feelings or values but they could certainly use art as way of expressing thoughts or ideas. Sure there are more practical ways of doing so, like writing for instance, but a lot of people consider writing an art form as well.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> A Ti user may not use art to express feelings or values but they could certainly use art as way of expressing thoughts or ideas. Sure there are more practical ways of doing so, like writing for instance, but a lot of people consider writing an art form as well.


Yes...I basically said or implied all of this in my last post...sans being more clear about the role of Ti (or Te for that matter) in art.


----------



## Playful Proxy

Kohtumine said:


> I have a friend which by internet standards could pass easily as INTP, he by the way, when first presented with the MBTI theory was a self declared INTP because of a internet test he took and because of the few profiles I send him describing INTPs.
> 
> Well, I knew he was not a INTP in the first place, and so I did let him reach his conlussion basically knowing that he'd say he was an INTP just to prove something I had hypotesized long before he reached his conclussion.
> 
> INFPs like to think they are INTPs.
> 
> At least those ones who have intelligence stablished as a high value quality in a person.
> 
> The reason is simple, and I'll be using him as an example.
> 
> There's a major difference between the 2 of us that simply wouldn't pass scrutiny under anyone decent user of Ti. He's big on arts, while I'm big on sciences. And when I said big, I'm talking about our biggest motivators in life, the part which can be considered the path we will be taking in life and that thing which dominated profusely on our minds almost all the time.
> 
> Art is a subjective topic, basically it means there's no logical reason in it, it is ultimately always, without fail, every time, in all topics which concern arts, a matter of personal value.
> 
> And there is no place like that for a thing as Ti to thrive because Ti is not only the most impresonal of all the functions, but the most anti-personal of all as it will try to get rid of all that cannot be considerated universal and absolute as logic ultimately is.
> 
> Arts is the domain of Fi, as Fi is the most personal of all the functions, it deals with one's value system, that human or abstract qualities which we can define as best or right for us. Creativity, orginality as examples of those.
> 
> So there you can actually put Fi and Ti as opposites of one another, one tries to get rid of all personal, relative and subjective values to only leave the absolute and universal while the other tries to put those values in and get rid of that that is absolute and universal, like trying to put flavor in pristine water.
> 
> Of course this doesn't mean that INFPs try to put subjetivity and personal values in everything, but just in those areas which can allow it. As INFPs will have a different value system for science, prising those things as rationality and intelligence, and ruthless absolute universal truths too, as those are considered to be "good qualities" to have in science.
> 
> The Fi as I said has a value system, which will put different values based on the area ones is talking about, while for the INTP, the logic, is all that matters, in just everything there is. If an area of knowledge is from its nature subjective and personal, we just will not make an effort to contribute in it.
> 
> Questions or clarifications, leave your post down here, I'll be sure to reply it.
> 
> Hope it helps :bored:


Can you more specifically define 'art'? I took drawing for quite some years and to this day, I enjoy a bit of it. My style tends to be a bit more realistic as opposed to abstract, but I would not pin the label Fi on someone simply because they are good at art. I am planning on going into IT as a career with a degree in Computer Science so the logic is definitely there (I just prefer not to sit at a desk with a cheeseburger for 8 hours a day writing thousands of lines of code).


----------



## whisperycat

azrinsani said:


> great explanation about ti and fi,
> 
> Looking at functions, how is it that someone can have Ti and Fi borderline?
> 
> My friend is INFP with a 51%F vs 49%T...
> 
> In INFP, Ti and Fi are 2 demon functions to each other


I don't understand why this happens either but it does re-occur as a cognitive function or personality test result again and again. The test result is only an expression of the measured preference of each function. There are so many system variables here. Any test can only reflect the assumptions of the test designer. MBTI attempts to measure preferences for particular cognitive functions. So it's validity as a test is reliant on the definition of each function, being correct. And we know how that works. Socionics V MBTI V Keirsey, everyone has a different definition for what actually defines Fi, or Ti. So if a test result says 51%F vs 49%T then maybe the test's definitions are not accurate, and even if they are spot on, the test's design could make or break an accurate result. Certainly you can take away that your judging function is introverted which means your perception is extraverted. It would be interesting to know your S v N ratio, to see whether any balancing compensation was going on there.


----------



## possiBri

I think I had a sort of breakthrough after reading something in a different forum:



Spades said:


> S and N are perceiving functions, the majority of thinking probably happens in the T and F functions, when we actually start to make sense of our perceptions.


I have been forgetting that Fi still requires thinking, and not just gut reaction (which may exist, but it would make sense that a judging function would discern by way of thought). So, Fi users can you please confirm or deny this "description? This also might make more sense for extroverted perceivers, as that is what I am more familiar with.

Fi thinks "how would I feel if that happened to me" — focus on emotional response
Ti thinks "what would I do if that happened to me" — focus on logical response (I don't feel this is the right phrasing, but I can't think of another word, except tangible, and that doesn't really work either)


Yes? No? Feel free to shoot me down.


----------



## Spades

Whoo~ glad I got you...thinking =P


possiBri said:


> Fi thinks "how would I feel if that happened to me" — focus on emotional response
> Ti thinks "what would I do if that happened to me" — focus on logical response (I don't feel this is the right phrasing, but I can't think of another word, except tangible, and that doesn't really work either)


I don't think that's quite right though. T is logical analysis, F is evaluation. This would translate to:

Fi: How does this align with my values?
Ti: How does this align with my framework?
Fe: How does this align with the group's values?
Te: How does this align with the group's standards?


----------



## possiBri

Spades said:


> Whoo~ glad I got you...thinking =P
> 
> 
> I don't think that's quite right though. T is logical analysis, F is evaluation. This would translate to:
> 
> Fi: How does this align with my values?
> Ti: How does this align with my framework?
> Fe: How does this align with the group's values?
> Te: How does this align with the group's standards?


Awesome! Thank you... that seems much more accurate to me as well. +1 for adding the extroverted judging functions =]

Also, I can totally see myself as the Ti/Fe, which is always extra helpful for me to really understand something, so thanks!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> INFPs like to think they are INTPs.


This is like an epidemic at this forum and across the internet for some reason, even though the two types are pretty different, due to the vastly different judging function configuration they have (Ti-Fe in INTPs, Fi-Te in INFPs). There's no way dominant feelers should so easily mistake themselves for dominant thinkers and vice-versa. I rarely ever see this happen between Te doms and Fe doms.


----------



## Spades

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is like an epidemic at this forum and across the internet for some reason, even though the two types are pretty different, due to the vastly different judging function configuration they have (Ti-Fe in INTPs, Fi-Te in INFPs). There's no way dominant feelers should so easily mistake themselves for dominant thinkers and vice-versa. I rarely ever see this happen between Te doms and Fe doms.


Don't know the context of your response, but yes, INTP and INFP mix themselves up quite often. Emotional INTP's think they are INFP's and calm INFP's think they are INTP's. If one would only remove themselves from the emotionality bias (untruth), then you're right, it _should_ be very easy to distinguish whether one uses a personal value system or a personal logical framework.


----------



## drowninthefear

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yes...I basically said or implied all of this in my last post...sans being more clear about the role of Ti (or Te for that matter) in art





> The Fe users I know don't seem to be as focused on art as a form of self-expression.





> Ti user don't have anything about themselves to express


In my reply to you, I meant self-expression in general- not only art- as an expression of ones ideas for Ti (and inferior Fe) or values for Fi (inferior Te) since Kohtumine was referring to INFP and INTP. 

Also, regarding: "_I was referring to 'if it has no use in the real world, then it's useless' Te judgement_," I should have stated that it suggested Se↔Ti judgement (which I was mistaking for Te, my bad), solely on the issues of practicality and disfavor of abstract qualities.


----------



## Kynx

whisperycat said:


> I read somewhere that a good way of differentiating Fi is to be aware of what happens when you put something in your mouth. You know whether you like it or not in a millisecond. That instantaneous connection between received information and a subjective judgement is probably Fi at work.
> 
> I've read also that even though Fi is a judging function it can often feel like perception, I agree with that. The word 'Feeler' creates all sorts of incorrect assumptions. It's not about emotional feeling, Fi is an endless flowing river of concurrent, instantaneous subjective judgements in a million different shades of ... errr .... 'feeling'.


Finally! I was hoping to find a post about this. Can you remember where you read it by any chance?


----------



## Kynx

possiBri said:


> I think I had a sort of breakthrough after reading something in a different forum:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been forgetting that Fi still requires thinking, and not just gut reaction (which may exist, but it would make sense that a judging function would discern by way of thought). So, Fi users can you please confirm or deny this "description? This also might make more sense for extroverted perceivers, as that is what I am more familiar with.
> 
> Fi thinks "how would I feel if that happened to me" — focus on emotional response
> Ti thinks "what would I do if that happened to me" — focus on logical response (I don't feel this is the right phrasing, but I can't think of another word, except tangible, and that doesn't really work either)
> 
> 
> Yes? No? Feel free to shoot me down.


Fi is thinking, just using different data and aligning it to a different system. In a way, (best I can explain at the moment) I evaluate information by feeling it. If it feels right, it goes in to a system of feeling values. If it doesn't feel right I stop and try to figure out what's wrong with that information. 

The system of feeling values isn't something that I've consciously decided on from preferences, beliefs and likes/dislikes, they’re separate factors. It's a system that I trust to guide me on what will work and what won't, if somethings missing or doesn't fit. If there's inconsistencies in feeling tones, I feel unsettled because somethings not right with the information. That's what is meant by the whole inner vs outer harmony thing. 

Fi picks up on people being fake and insincere because the objective information received from the other person is out of sync with the subjective feeling tones within.


----------



## Portal

Kohtumine said:


> Art is a form of self-expression, Ti user don't have anything about themselves to express, literary science or documentary films only, and that kind of thing, if you consider that art anyway. I don't.


There are more than one form of art. (i.e realism, surrealism, cubism, cartoon, etc.) They can do realism or something more toward the realistic nature I would imagine. I think art is a terrible example though, you should have use something like music maybe? Then again music can be logical as well but to be able to play it requires Feeling function. Whether it's Fi or Fe you need to feel it to play it.


----------



## Doctorjuice

Great post! Very accurate on Ti, and it really helped me understand Fi better.


----------



## NingenExp

Is it so nuts to be overanalytical and obsessed even with the tiniest detail of my belief system and being a Fi dominant user? I want to find an harmonious truth. Does that sound Ti-Fe or Fi-Te? I have always perceived life complex and with a lot of factors playing in the game. Everything is relative and subjective. I want to take all of those factors and look for patterns to understand broadly me and others and life dynamics. I want to be true to myself and I have a strong combination of self-awareness and self-analysis. Does that sounds more Ti or more Fi? I recognize I put a lot of effort in making things fit in my system. Adding and rearranging things inside my head. My head is like a box. I want to keep everything inside of that box and when something feels outside of it, I simply (not always simple) resize the box. Of course with every new experience, there's something outside of the box and it drives me crazy for a moment (sometimes a very long one). I feel the need to keep it all inside. I am misunderstanding it? Does that means Ti? Or Fi? Definately I am Ji dominant, I believe. Ask questions if you want too...

Edit: Reading further, I think Ti seriously


----------



## NingenExp

Spades said:


> Fi: How does this align with my values?
> Ti: How does this align with my framework?
> Fe: How does this align with the group's values?
> Te: How does this align with the group's standards?


Ti-Fe definately. Thanks for this huge help.


----------



## greenfairy026

accidental double post


----------



## greenfairy026

Slightly off the subject, but:



Neurasthenia said:


> This is a very good point about Ti:
> 
> I have, however, experienced some "subjective defensiveness" with my ideas in the past. I will always listen to a person's point, and nowadays if someone disputes something I find to be generally valid, like personality theory, I will tell them that it is good to be skeptical. When I was younger, however (16 maybe), I would become somewhat defensive of the MBTI and enneagram in dispute. It wasn't so much that they were destroying some security-providing intellectual system, but that I believed they were not looking at it objectively because it *simply seemed silly, like astrology or something along those lines*. I believe that if one looks deeper at personality theory, not dismissing it outright, they will find some valid applications. However I can see how there are certain minds that do not see the application and validity of personality theory because they are different from mine (not a value judgment, just a difference).


I could essentially say this exact post, but on the subject of astrology. I have some subjective defensiveness about astrology because I study and practice it, and people dismiss it outright without looking at it objectively and deeply. The thing is, astrology essentially *is* typology and personality theory; it works with the same principles and in the same ways. But, like you, I agree it is a good idea to be skeptical, and I can see how to someone who knows little about it it could seem on the surface to be silly.


----------



## greenfairy026

Spades said:


> Don't know the context of your response, but yes, INTP and INFP mix themselves up quite often. Emotional INTP's think they are INFP's and calm INFP's think they are INTP's. If one would only remove themselves from the emotionality bias (untruth), then you're right, it _should_ be very easy to distinguish whether one uses a personal value system or a personal logical framework.


Who's to say someone can't have a logical, impersonal system of what is, and incorporate their values into it? I don't really understand how these are exclusive. It is logical to have values. Everyone does. Everyone's values are important to them, by the definition of the word. We can't completely remove the human element from anything having to do with humans, or else we wouldn't be being logical. (Human activity has a human element.) All people, F or T, want to be happy and live in a beautiful world. Being concerned with these things does not make a person Fi. I think the keyword is dominant. Which can mean what do you do most often, but it can also mean what has the final say and in what situations. If you are in a situation of deciding what will make you happy, like what you want to order in a restaurant, there is no real way to use Ti. You pretty much have to use Fi. But feeling is always within the context of reason, such as asking yourself whether the dish is healthy or within your price range. If you are in a situation which requires thinking, such as climbing a rock face, value judgments and emotions have nothing to do with it. If you let your fear get the best of you, you are in trouble. But this is still within the context of overall happiness; you wouldn't choose to climb a rock if you didn't get satisfaction out of it. 

I think there are several defining factors, and they are often not what people think.

One is how we respond to life. Everyone has preferences and likes and dislikes. But I think the distinction between Fi and Ti is the degree of analysis and the kind of analysis. An Fi user will evaluate a situation according to how it makes them feel and what their intuition tells them, and often leave it at that. They may casually wonder why or how, or what impersonal category does it belong in, but it is not their driving force. A Ti user will evaluate the situation with their intuition and notice how they feel about it, but their first instinct and driving force is to analyze. They want to know how this situation/thing/person/idea fits in with every other. If they can't put something into a category or get an immediate answer to a question, they are uncomfortable and driven to find it. Fi is concerned with relationships involving people in some form, and Ti is concerned with relationships involving ideas.


----------



## greenfairy026

Portal said:


> There are more than one form of art. (i.e realism, surrealism, cubism, cartoon, etc.) They can do realism or something more toward the realistic nature I would imagine. I think art is a terrible example though, you should have use something like music maybe? Then again music can be logical as well but to be able to play it requires Feeling function. Whether it's Fi or Fe you need to feel it to play it.


True. But no one goes their whole lives without feeling. And most people like music. So I would say it is the manner in which one feels and what one does with it that distinguishes the types and functions. For instance an Fi user (INFP) would like music written by one songwriter which had particularly expressive and meaningful lyrics maybe, while an Fe user (INTP) would like music which had a sort of collective emotion about it- a common sort of feeling which s/he could identify with. Also Fi might prefer emotional music more often whereas Ti (inferior Fe) would prefer to listen music to suit whatever mood they are in or thoughts they are having. They might choose Fi kinds of things occasionally because even Ti doms have inner feelings they need to express now and then. They like to be in control of their feeling, and music is a good way to do that. It's a safe way to feel.

I would say the same about art in general. Ti dom could use art to express ideas, or inferior Fe, or for those times when their shadow Fi shows up and they need to deal with it. Their motivation and drive for producing art is just usually a little different than Fi dom. Or once again, INTP could use art as a safe and controlled way to feel. I would think for Ti users dance would be a good form of feeling, since it fits with Si, and it is usually combined with music.


----------



## Brad Pitt

Which one am I using in your opinion? I make decisions according to what makes logical sense. I try to analyse my emotions but generally fail and end up doing something, until I am alone again. I sometimes analyse impersonal things, but not as much. I can't express emotions without being extremely uncomfortable, infant I have never shared them. I don't think I am tough minded and take things personal but that could be low confidence.

So which do you think I'm using ?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

These two functions aren't even close. Fi personalizes everything, Ti depersonalizes everything. One is conceptual, the other is evaluative (e.g. good/bad, etc. basically). One is heavily oriented to technical breakdowns of definitions and understanding, the other opposes this 100% and is more about self-conviction with bottom-up reasoning. These are the two functions that can't even begin to understand each others' reasoning, since they are both subjective (so, you never really quite know where the other is coming from in their reasoning), let alone, two totally different types of logical reasoning (analytical and synthetic/wholistic).


----------



## jbradnidom

Fascinating read. I like you how explain how Ti can see inconsistencies from miles away. I agree that Fi can detect dissonance as well. I think of internal consistency (in Ti) to be logical consistency, and in Fi, I call it consonance. Really cool that you chose to say dissonance.

Interesting description of each function-type in their unbalanced phases, as well. I love the ironic point you make about Ti-doms potentially refraining from objectivity.


----------



## littledazed

I just made a thread in the INFP forum, and wrote something and realized I was describing Fi. I think. 



> [Fi] also shows through when I am talking. It's frustrating because I may know how I exactly feel about a subject and the spate of facts that relate to it, but I can never thread it into coherent sentences to logically express it to other people, and I feel as if that hinders me from deeper conversations that could take place. My thought processes become even fuzzier when I'm trying to present a counterargument to someone. I am very long-winded as a result when I try to get a point across.


yes? no?


----------



## Entropic

greenfairy026 said:


> If you are in a situation of deciding what will make you happy, like what you want to order in a restaurant, there is no real way to use Ti. You pretty much have to use Fi. But feeling is always within the context of reason, such as asking yourself whether the dish is healthy or within your price range. If you are in a situation which requires thinking, such as climbing a rock face, value judgments and emotions have nothing to do with it. If you let your fear get the best of you, you are in trouble. But this is still within the context of overall happiness; you wouldn't choose to climb a rock if you didn't get satisfaction out of it.


While I mostly agree with your sentiments (5w4, yeah?) I think you can use Ti in the restaurant example you provided. You can for example analyze what you know from past experience that you enjoy eating. Does this dish exist in this restaurant? If I am in a restaurant and I have to decide on a dish, there are several things to consider:

1. Price
2. Quality
3. Type of restaurant

and so on. Maybe I don't have much money with me so I have to choose a cheaper dish. Maybe the quality of this restaurant isn't so great when it comes to certain dishes so I will avoid these. Maybe the type of restaurant I am at serves dishes that are not related to my favorite types of food. Then I have to pick on something else. How do I judge this? I can for example check the ingredients and see what I know I enjoy. What taste combinations seem like good choices? If I like garlic and duck, maybe I should try a garlic and duck dish?

I agree with Neverontime that picking something you like based on taste has little to do with Fi necessarily. At least based on my personal experiences it has more to do with... a gut feeling of sorts. A feeling when something is right or something is wrong. You know when it harmonizes or not with who you are and who you perceive yourself to be. I think a better example that might represent Fi/Fe is what you do if you are faced with a difficult relationship. 

As an example, let's say you've known this person for many years and you deeply care about this person and you cannot imagine losing contact. One could say it's one of the most important people in your life. But at the same time, the relationship is dysfunctional. It could be because of many things such as the person not really giving you the attention you want, or this person not wanting to develop the relationship in the way you desire despite having hinted at otherwise at a previous point when you got to know each other.

Being incredibly unhappy with the relationship even though the person is so important to you, you have to make a choice. You can either continue with the relationship, hoping it will take a direction that is more satisfying to you. Maybe something will happen that allow this such as negative external influence going away. Or maybe you hope this person will come around and see things the way you do so you now share goal and aim with the relationship. 

Alternatively, you can choose to end the relationship, deciding that it is ultimately better for you to not be in a relationship that makes you unhappy even though the person you have it with makes you happy. 

Regardless of what decision one makes, I think an Fi-based decision would be a decision where one feels that you made the "right" decision because it feels right to you. I'm also inclined to stereotype and say that an Fe decision would be the former of sticking around and an Fi-decision would be the latter, choosing to do end it. Of course, why you end it matters too. 

In my case referring to personal experience, I would end it based on that the relationship is not good for _me_. I would wager that a more Fe-driven decision would end the relationship on the relationship being unfair to the person it involves?


----------



## Entropic

littledazed said:


> I just made a thread in the INFP forum, and wrote something and realized I was describing Fi. I think.
> 
> 
> 
> yes? no?


Almost sounds like Ne to me although I'd wager it to be N in general. I think that feeling of having a thought you think is interesting or relevant but being unable to express it properly is common to all intuitive types but dominant types more so than auxiliary.


----------



## Entropic

JungyesMBTIno said:


> These two functions aren't even close. Fi personalizes everything, Ti depersonalizes everything. One is conceptual, the other is evaluative (e.g. good/bad, etc. basically). One is heavily oriented to technical breakdowns of definitions and understanding, the other opposes this 100% and is more about self-conviction with bottom-up reasoning. These are the two functions that can't even begin to understand each others' reasoning, since they are both subjective (so, you never really quite know where the other is coming from in their reasoning), let alone, two totally different types of logical reasoning (analytical and synthetic/wholistic).


I honestly think these two functions only appear as this when poorly developed. What I mean by poorly developed I don't mean strong use but that the use itself is on a basic level. I think the more a function is developed (any kind), the more it will resemble its opposite.


----------



## kaleidoscope

LeaT said:


> I honestly think these two functions only appear as this when poorly developed. What I mean by poorly developed I don't mean strong use but that the use itself is on a basic level. I think the more a function is developed (any kind), the more it will resemble its opposite.


I'm a Fi-dom & I agree with @JungyesMBTIno. My Fi gives personal significance to everything, and I can't understand Ti for the life of me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Yea. Fi and Ti might as well work with the same media (art term), so-to-speak (they rationalize from the person's ego identity concerns almost directly), but their operations are entirely different. Ti does a breakdown via what aspects of a person's ideas concern them, while Fi expands to the realm of personal significance that ideas might hold to the person and the relevance of such ideas to actual conclusions based on (but not necessarily in direct connection to) the feelings a person might have about them from various ideals they hold - Fi works with ideals about reality while Ti works with ideals that bypass reality and only concern pure conceptuality (even though this conceptuality might relate to experiences - it's more focused on the defineable forms drawn from reality, not the state of one's personal relationship to it like Fi). It's the type of thinking that borders on mystical thinking - I think we all know various Ti types of all sorts IRL (usually dominant or inferior though - the inferior Ti types might actually be even more entertaining than the dominant ones in that their thoughts are detached enough from experience that they might look like they're coming out of the depths of the random with their thinking) who seem to be coming from a different universe in how they conceptualize their experiences, so-to-speak - these types are probably *Hilarious* if senile). The Fi types are actually quite normal looking in their reasoning - sometimes almost so normal, that one might doubt that their dominant function is even a cognitive function and mistake it for the person just improvising a response based off of not having enough conceptual information with them on hand. This function is a lot harder to notice and quantify than Ti, I think (this shows online where everyone thinks "being human" is Fi, lol). It's usually noticeable if it has a sort of archetypal character to it that you have to kind of infer from the person's emphasis on the significance of their own points (this is what's frustrating about subjective feeling to begin with - it's kind of hard to draw the line between whether or not a person is just consulting with themselves for some kind of felt inner guidance and where it's actually trying to stand out as a form of reasoning - the non-dominant Fi types tend to display it as a more clear form of reasoning, due to having better adapted (willfully) thinking, while the Fi doms, especially if it's paired with intuition rather than matter-of-fact sensation, might sound like they're spouting off their stream-of-consciousness associations and feelings that bare absolutely no clear relevance to the material at hand, even though they might be making a statement of rather universal import anyhow).


----------



## nameused

bogdan said:


> The big difference between Fi and Ti is that Fi will choose beauty before utility (when choosing an object, shop, restaurant ..) , while Ti will be utility before beauty. Being introverted means you'll have a sense of all your introverted functions, yet as a Ti user I can't approach life with Fi, because I haven't a good control over it, and I often get depressed, and it gives me negative emotions (I hope it's not Fe, because it comes from the inside). In that way I think Ti is to objective for the dreamy, idealisitc Fi and would rarely be used.


Brilliant! A few posted on here about how using a heavy combination of Fi and Ti makes a person unbalanced. One person said TI was the INFP's demon function. I find this all to be very true. I can become very Ti-obssessive, and it's not healthy. When I start feeling the need for perfection in both form and function, I begin going mental. How can you live up to Ti and Fi when nothing even lives up to Fi?


----------



## Fern

I recognize Fi in myself a lot now. I used to doubt I was Fi because i am facially expressive (How superficial of me!)
Whenever I'm learning a new system, I always attach it to one I already know in rich detail.
.... I am describing Fi, right?


----------



## pushit

This thread is very interesting, and draws me in more to my INxP speculation. A couple things:

My understanding of Ji, from what I gather so far:
Ti- system that conceptually breaks down data, with subjective logic being the final say. External data going inward has to make sense to the user for it to fall into place into this framework.
Fi- system that draws in data on a more personal level, and has to fall in line with personal values. Value; could be a certain belief, or something that is "worth" a user's time. External data going inward has to strike a chord (at any level) for it to fall into this system.
(keep in mind I'm not entirely sure, especially about Fi)

Also: based on what I've read, I'm increasingly sure I'm Ji-dom, but am having trouble distinguishing which one. The more I read about Fi the more I relate to it, but still, something doesn't seem right about it. I need passion to achieve goals; but the way my process of taking in information and understanding it seems pretty similar to Ti (although not as complex as some make it out to be, from what I read people almost tend to describe Ti-doms as "superbrains" which isn't always the case); I definitely feel like the "framework" idea sounds more like my brain, it's just not that organized (or at least it seems); things have to make sense and "click" for me in order to attach them to my system of beliefs/ideas/understanding/etc. (I don't really know, but from what I gather, Ti can be classified as "a set of beliefs", since it's personal logic, just more detached. Beliefs don't immediately correlate to Fi, that sounds slightly ridiculous to me). 

Plus, the resturant example of Ti vs Fi provided by @_LeaT_ was great! I leaned more on the Ti side of that example. Concrete information and insight like that is always helpful when I am learning something _new_. 

So, I don't really know. Plus I would put Inferior Fe or Se as more likely than Te, although I don't know much about inferior Te.


----------



## Mythographeas

LeaT said:


> I honestly think these two functions only appear as this when poorly developed. What I mean by poorly developed I don't mean strong use but that the use itself is on a basic level. I think the more a function is developed (any kind), the more it will resemble its opposite.


I'm actually inclined to agree. I'm practically on the threshold between Fi and Ti - tests that order functions by use or development tend to give me Ne, Fi, Ti or Ne, Ti, Fi as the top three functions (though I still come out INFP or INTP due to the order of the rest of them). I firmly believe that Ti can shore up a consistent system of values like the instinctive one created by Fi, and that Fi can enshrine fair-minded reason and objectivity as crucial values. The two can be very similar.

For that reason, I don't think they're always always very easy to distinguish at all. It's worth remembering that an INTP or an INFP can think and feel about their extraverted judging functions in about the same way: for both, neither Fe nor Te is exactly comfortable; both, to someone with a poorly developed inferior function, can appear to be the bane of their existence. What might be perceived as the emotional recklessness of Fe sits well with neither a dominant Fi-type nor a dominant Ti-type, and Te really is anathema to anyone who hates rigidity and inflexibility, which is a fair description of both INTPs and INFPs.

In some cases I think the difference may actually be very shallow. "Framework" and "values", depending on their respective natures, can be identical. Take for example the "beauty before utility" dichotomy - what if one finds function to be beautiful? What if Fi leads one to consider the universal practicality of utility to be of greater or equal importance to the selfish pleasure of subjective beauty? And on the other hand, what if an INTP has arrived at the logical conclusion (take Plato, for example) that aesthetics are fundamentally important?

I identify with Ti becoming almost pathological - it's sort of what I retreat to in times of great distress: a cold, iron fortress of reason where my sensitive INFP-ness can weather the storm, being locked away for its own protection. I find that a distressed INFP often desires a sort of robotic emotionlessness, whereas an INTP desires this all the time.  I wonder if the converse is true, also - that an INFP always wants to be both partial and good, and that an INTP wants this when under distress?


----------



## Ozman2988

I think those are pretty great descriptions of Ti and Fi. Even though I think they are different, but very similar in a sense of how it works. It shares the introversion. I think you could say the same when comparing Fe and Te. I agree that Fi is the most personal because its about identity and knowing the self. (From my perspective.) Knowing what is right for me despite what society says. I think Ti is very much similar of how it thinks despite the popular opinion of Te. It seeks out and exposes Te flaws. I am still understanding these functions so some feedback is appreciated.


----------



## Old Intern

Fi and Ti look similar from the outside, when you don't know someone well. Ti is not automatic though, like I've heard described above, which might be partly confusing Ne with Ti. Thinking is not automatic, even if sometimes it is very fast. Thinking requires language (even if only in your own head) or some form of symbolism, or else it is not thinking in terms of a thinking function. 

*The biggest difference between Te and Ti* is that while Ti can be used to work with externally validated fact, It does not need external validation or sources outside the self to exist. This is why it might be confused with Fi from outside observation. The classic example of Te vs Ti is the story of the emperors new clothes. The internal validation is the observers own eyeballs that tell him the emperor is naked. This is an experiential judgement, symbolically if not linguistically, Ti sees body parts exposed, this is inconsistent with what is being proclaimed about clothing and the expressed observation of the crowd. Maybe descriptions people give of these clothes, tell different stories? Ti determines he should believe his eyes and his logic. 

Te could come to the same conclusion, but Te prefers pragmatism and reliable sources, with logic more like a support tool. Ti prefers experience and logical consistency as foremost for credibility. Building models is definitely something Ti does because it values that experiential observation + logic. How far this model gets applied to parallel or similar situations though, has a perception factor.

Fi is a reaction, based on internalized standards, that which has intrinsic value to the subject..


----------



## RentABrain

I often wish I were able to "understand" feelings the way you describe. I can think on them and contemplate them all I like, even take them into account and make use of them maybe. But they will never be very solid or logical in my inner world. Good job describing Ti though. I enjoyed this post.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I read in a Jung translation that Fi and Ti work directly with the ego, so frankly, I think these types, of all of the types, are essentially people who are the most in-touch with their ego motives - as a consequence, their ability to rationally adapt to objective conditions of the outside world (inferior Je) suffers. They're pretty much all of the negative qualities that get associated with Je doms in MBTI descriptions. On the other hand, Je doms (Te and Fe) are some of the most adaptive people around to the outside world and the world of rational objective aims, but as a consequence, their personal morality suffers (they are out of touch with their ego motives, so they kind of sell their souls in a lot of ways - they might view themselves as threatening, dangerous, not know what matters to them, etc.). I'd say the U.S. has an overall Je mentality for sure (the kind of extraversion that distrusts the judgements of the self). I personally think J dominants of all stripes can benefit by developing their perception functions more - otherwise, they're always kind of putting themselves out on the line.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Inferior Je is kind of the quintessential control freak - either on a reasoned basis (inferior Te) or a feelings-oriented basis (inferior Fe). This happens to them largely from the unconscious, so with inferior Te, you get the unbending authoritarian who wants no other way but their own, while with inferior Fe, you get the person who sort of has borderline neurotic emotional issues (nothing truly serious though) that they unconsciously control everyone with.


----------



## LibertyPrime

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Inferior Je is kind of the quintessential control freak - either on a reasoned basis (inferior Te) or a feelings-oriented basis (inferior Fe). This happens to them largely from the unconscious, *so with inferior Te, you get the unbending authoritarian who wants no other way but their own*, while with inferior Fe, you get the person who sort of has borderline neurotic emotional issues (nothing truly serious though) that they unconsciously control everyone with.












As far as I'm concerned my Fi-Te is my superego at work (ethics-morals, guilt trips, self criticism). I'm also a 6 which is a superego type.

The superego is the ethical component of the personality and provides the moral standards by which the ego operates. The superego’s criticisms, prohibitions, and inhibitions form a person’s conscience, and its positive aspirations and ideals represent one’s idealized self-image, or “ego ideal.”

..etc. I don't recall having a strong ego, if nothing else most ENTJs I have observed have a very strong ego. Considering that msot IFPs I have met suffer from self image problems, confidence issues, inability to set goals and meet them, low self esteem and so on would argue against being in touch with ego motives. At least I wasn't for avery long time.

*o.o I understood Fi as the function that gives value to processed information, aka personal ethics/morals/values - right/wrong - good/bad as opposed to Fe, which would adapt these to the needs of the external enviroment. Fe imo is about connecting with others and this requiers compromise. * One looks internally the other looks towards it's surroundings, similarly how Fi doms look to their surroundings when it comes to logic. (common sense, what does science say, statistics, is it applicable etc..)

Its true that under a lot of pressure the self criticism leaks out as other criticism, nitpicking, paranoia (in case of Ni-Te). *Its like the self is under assault both internally (self criticism) and if the external assault continues it eventually goes into survival mode: tyranical authoritarian outburst. <== does not last that long.*

*Fi doms are moralists  yeah.*

For anyone with the Fi-Te axis it becomes increasingly important to gather information before jumping to conclusions and to manage the influx of this aka Se-Ni or Ne-Si needs to be used properly, conciously. Are my value judgments based on solid info, are my negative inner thoughts realistic?  its like a ballancing act.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Um, a well-adapted Je type (dominant) should not be a control freak when it comes to matters of worldview and objectivity. On the other hand, inferior Je probably is going to be the person who cannot handle objective worldviews that offend their egos (not like they're always like this, but it's probably a shadow characteristic that comes up for them a lot). I hear it enough with both Ji doms - the Fi doms often cannot accept various truths, while the Ti doms cannot accept "new" "feelings" that do not fall into a codification of sorts. Je doms' issues come from their inferior Ji side, not their Je side (so, where the Te dom is a very objective, clear-minded, and fair reasoner of the intellectual from the conscious standpoint, they have tyrannical subjective opinions and viewpoints that might undermine this from the unconscious side).


----------



## Vaka

Je inferiors are maladaptive to external structures, but it doesn't come out like the stereotypical Je-dom because the whole Je-dom thing is about how the world can be manipulated while to Ji firsts that's so much less relevant than understanding. At worst it comes out as rejection, not control. Refusal to be controlled


----------



## Pau7

I don't have a good idea of what Ti is (I've read descriptions and everything, but I rarely use it). Is it like personal, very subjective logic?

On the other hand, I use Fi a lot - it's like a guiding light in every situation and life in general. I usually don't know how I feel about things until something like this happens: I'll hear a sound, like a car playing really loud bass while driving far away, combined with seeing and feeling the beautiful, picturesque, cool night around me - and I get this really powerful surge of emotion. It's so strong that it doesn't even show up on my face, but I feel it running through my body and mind. It makes me miss those things my friends and I would do together, and it's the first thing I want to do when I get home from vacation. I think that's kind of Se biased, though.

Regardless, any time I make desicions on where I want to go, what I want to do, or in what direction I want to take my life, I get a similar surge of emotion, and sometimes many times a day.


Fi, for me, also can manifest in other ways, like when I'm painting. I don't know exactly how this painting is going to turn out, but I trust that what I feel should come next is the best thing to paint. Or if I'm buying a gift for someone, something in the store feels uniquely right for the person.


If someone could give a similar account of Ti (an example of how it works for you), that'd be great


----------



## Vaka

Pau7 said:


> I don't have a good idea of what Ti is (I've read descriptions and everything, but I rarely use it). Is it like personal, very subjective logic?
> 
> On the other hand, I use Fi a lot - it's like a guiding light in every situation and life in general. I usually don't know how I feel about things until something like this happens: I'll hear a sound, like a car playing really loud bass while driving far away, combined with seeing and feeling the beautiful, picturesque, cool night around me - and I get this really powerful surge of emotion. It's so strong that it doesn't even show up on my face, but I feel it running through my body and mind. It makes me miss those things my friends and I would do together, and it's the first thing I want to do when I get home from vacation. I think that's kind of Se biased, though.
> 
> Regardless, any time I make desicions on where I want to go, what I want to do, or in what direction I want to take my life, I get a similar surge of emotion, and sometimes many times a day.
> 
> 
> Fi, for me, also can manifest in other ways, like when I'm painting. I don't know exactly how this painting is going to turn out, but I trust that what I feel should come next is the best thing to paint. Or if I'm buying a gift for someone, something in the store feels uniquely right for the person.
> 
> 
> If someone could give a similar account of Ti (an example of how it works for you), that'd be great


When you talk about a judging function, it's ineivtably gonna be deeply tinged with pieces of the perceiving function. So I can't talk for ISTPs, only for myself as an INTP. This thread is really good...

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/155393-ti-vs-ni.html

posts
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/155393-ti-vs-ni.html#post3960435
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/155393-ti-vs-ni-2.html#post3960545
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/155393-ti-vs-ni-3.html#post3963630

These two posts of mine are linked in that last post from a past thread...
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/151459-ti-vs-ni-8.html#post3865691
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/151459-ti-vs-ni-8.html#post3880570

And as a conclusion...
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/155393-ti-vs-ni-3.html#post3963856

"That's pretty much how I see it...It might get complex, convoluted, and clouded, but in the end, it's about understanding in my own way or finding some way to look at things which gives me endless insight, because insight is what I want and it makes me feel more at home. I think sometimes that goal of understanding might be almost automatic and hard to pin down, but it is a strong drive"


----------



## tenbandequalizer

I've often wondered if I am INFP or INTP, and I'd offer this account- concerning my Fi and Ne (or perhaps Ti and Ne) with music. 

I play guitar and keyboard, well enough to understand intermediate jazz theory and well enough to write some of my own compositions. I also play community bluegrass, and I'm in a jazz influenced rock group. I can read music, but I am also an ear player (at least to a certain degree). I stay away from sheet composed, preferring to read lead melodies and chords. I don't know if any of this would count as an indicator, so I'd reserve judgment up until this point... the good stuff is coming. 

When I played piano in a jazz band in high school, I always found it difficult to watch our conductor. I could keep in time, but generally instead of focusing on his baton (or hands? I can't remember) I would focus on his facial expression. Keeping in time was not typically an issue unless I was BSing the song!

When I go online searching for chords, if I'm ever faced with an incorrect chord, I seem to make note of it almost immediately. I don't know if this is Fi or Ti, or if perhaps it has no relationship to either. Best example is a song that shows an Am or Am7 chord... where it is actually an F#m7-5 chord. ie: this (also I'm no good with tabs, I read chords and memorize where they are... so sorry for the crude description)...

012
E-o
Ax
D-o
G-o
Bo
e-o

The last account is how I play when I play in groups. My focus when playing guitar and keyboard is usually on the other band members. Many times I'm playing without music, just jamming, doing improvisation, whatever. I don't need the sheet music in front of me, but I do constantly look to everyone to figure out what to do (perhaps this is eN?) and when to do it. Is this skill, or is this my Fi interacting with my bandmates? 

Just curious, I suppose if you believe its my Fi (and not something entirely different), then it strongly confirms my being INFP ;-]


----------



## Joshua.E

I look at Fi and Ti as two kinds of possible souls. One soft and one hard. 

For me at as ENTP, at a personal level....

Ti loves ethics and rules. Worries about good vs bad. Will this actually work and get things done the best way. and finds universal rules for how things work. Finding really cool algorithms for doing stuff in any situation. I personally use the bubble sort algorithm to clean my house, where my own personal mental energy and sanity is the prioritized resource. 

I can be so attached to my inner "values" (little inner gems polished to beauty) that I would rather die than violate them. or be very shy to even share them, in fear that some near variable might violate them, that I didn't even consider (maybe more a NTP thing). 

Or that I am nearly always honest, and as I got older, I realized "lying" was an important part of living in society and with people, has a social value. My internal ethics get very mixed up with this. So I often prefer the consequences of honesty, then the benfits of "lying". (note: I am not putting in personal negative judgment on lying as evil or anything like that)

A funny new rule I have as an ENTP, I try to translate all my thoughts into personal and purpose driven statements when communicating with others. The sort of impersonal-ness (to find universal rules) i seek internally, doesn't translate well for others. It is just messy inner word salad, when it comes out. 

So for like Fi communication.

I try explain things in terms of intention and purpose, and how what I think will help people to better achieve what they actually want. I find Fi always wants to infer some personal intention to everything I say (used to make me insane, because they always got it wrong). So I make sure that what I say has a personal intention, where as when i was young, I would more just share my internal mental process and notes on a subject, in a impersonal way. 

Fi seems concerned with internal morality: good and evil. Seeks a sort of inner purity and idealism. And when the world doesn't match their utopian idealized perfect values, get cynical. I feel at times I am not "human" in their system, or that like Ti is just some sort of confused Fi, and I am really all soft and cuddly like them (or something). 

I get very confused how they hold onto hurt so long and take abuse so personal. Like they get hit, because they are bad or something. They seem like a fishbowl, and when bad stuff gets in the water, they have a hard time cleaning it out. Maybe Ti is more like a rock, the blood washes off, but the chips and cracks remain.


----------



## Tyltalis

Joshua.E said:


> Fi seems concerned with internal morality: good and evil. Seeks a sort of inner purity and idealism. And when the world doesn't match their utopian idealized perfect values, get cynical. I feel at times I am not "human" in their system, or that like Ti is just some sort of confused Fi, and I am really all soft and cuddly like them (or something).
> 
> I get very confused how they hold onto hurt so long and take abuse so personal. Like they get hit, because they are bad or something. They seem like a fishbowl, and when bad stuff gets in the water, they have a hard time cleaning it out. Maybe Ti is more like a rock, the blood washes off, but the chips and cracks remain.


Fi works largely unconsciously, from what I've noticed. I'm pretty sure this is where the saying "logic can't be put on feelings" was founded... can't really measure the unconscious.

Anyway, Fi is very personal. It likes to attach itself to anything and everything. That includes objective criticism. So by criticizing me, you're not just pointing something out - you're shaking my web of foundations, values, and to that extent, everything I stand for. This one criticism is attached to this thing, which means that you insulted this other thing of mine, and so on. Ever hear of the butterfly effect? It's a bit like that.
Lack of Ti usually means we aren't able to coherently explain why something made us so upset.


You Ti guys are lucky in that criticism doesn't really bother you. You're able to solidify your web so that it doesn't shake as much - just the area of impact is damaged, and that small area doesn't take as long to heal.

I think I barely scratched the surface, but I'm kinda tired and need to go to bed :/


----------



## Bugs

Ti-Fi work a little different as auxiliary functions for extroverted perceivers such as ExTPs and ExFPs. 

When comparing my type ( ENTP) to INTP this is very evident. Though both our types are sort of the same type ( NTP) in many ways the way the function manifest themselves are noticeably different. For the INTP , perception ( Ne in this case) is used to supplement Ti. Which means Ne explores objective possibilities to add more information to the Ti system. For the ENTP , Ti works in service of Ne. ENTPs are likely to create deductive logical systems to better evaluate and enhance their objective observation of possibilities (Ne). My goal is not to search out information to add to some internal system I have but to seek out information for its own sake ( simply _to know_) using a methodological system of logic. 

ExFPs work the same way with Fi. IxFPs seek objective details or possibilities about reality in order to supplement their value system to compare and contrast meaning. They say ' Oh , this is or could be like this , but it should be like this' ExFPs create a sentimental value system to enhance their exploration of the objective world. 'I want to seek out new things because I want to see how it effects me' or 'where do I fit in or how am I different?'


----------



## ferroequinologist

Bugs said:


> Ti develops logical systems in their minds and mainly seeks consistency and truth in a detached way.
> 
> I think some Fi's confuse themselves for Ti because their value system may happen to be logical ( both objective and/or to themselves) but for the Fi logic and reason is not the purpose of having said system. The end itself isn't to be logical or consistent but to be purposeful and meaningful to the individual. Ti's goal is logical consistency in itself.


This is actually a very good point. My thoughts, conclusions, etc. I am _very_ attached to in a very personal way. I don't want to know just to know, but because it matters. If I think I may be wrong about something, I want to know, because of how much it matters. But the key is that the end is not just "to know" (like with my wife), but to have a basis upon which to build something real--that leads to action, if only internally. It's like any particular point of knowledge is a building block of a greater building. I'm being a bit obtuse here. Sorry...  But yeah, I identify with what you are saying here...


----------



## Bugs

ferroequinologist said:


> This is actually a very good point. My thoughts, conclusions, etc. I am _very_ attached to in a very personal way. I don't want to know just to know, but because it matters. If I think I may be wrong about something, I want to know, because of how much it matters. But the key is that the end is not just "to know" (like with my wife), but to have a basis upon which to build something real--that leads to action, if only internally. It's like any particular point of knowledge is a building block of a greater building. I'm being a bit obtuse here. Sorry...  But yeah, I identify with what you are saying here...


In some respects Fi goes further than Ti. Both may ask 'what is this' but once Ti has figured out its logical underpinnings it rarely asks the next question ; ' Okay , what does this mean to me?' Fi does.


----------



## RK LK

Bugs said:


> I think some Fi's confuse themselves for Ti because their value system may happen to be logical ( both objective and/or to themselves) but for the Fi logic and reason is not the purpose of having said system. The end itself isn't to be logical or consistent but to be purposeful and meaningful to the individual. _*Ti's goal is logical consistency in itself*_.


What exactly is that logical consistency based on? Is it traditional logic like 'if A equals B, B equals C, then A equals C'? Or is it just some individual made up logic? If it's made up then how exactly do you know when something is logically consistent? Is there a sense of pleasure when the 'pieces' fit together and things become logical?


----------



## will-o'-wisp

Does this mean then, that Fi can masquerade as any function? Fi might have truth and logic as a value and appear to be Ti or might like outer harmony because it affects inner harmony and appear to be Fe. That makes it so hard to identify.
This is my biggest problem with function identification, that outer action can appear the same but the reasons behind it are hidden. Also, an observer's view of another will always be somewhat coloured by the functions they use themselves.


----------



## ai.tran.75

willow the wisp said:


> Does this mean then, that Fi can masquerade as any function? Fi might have truth and logic as a value and appear to be Ti or might like outer harmony because it affects inner harmony and appear to be Fe. That makes it so hard to identify.
> This is my biggest problem with function identification, that outer action can appear the same but the reasons behind it are hidden. Also, an observer's view of another will always be somewhat coloured by the functions they use themselves.


Pretty much but with Fi it's a internal value system that they create for themselves - it's what they feel is of value to them . Fi is mainly value base more than anything. .


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> Does this mean then, that Fi can masquerade as any function? Fi might have truth and logic as a value and appear to be Ti or might like outer harmony because it affects inner harmony and appear to be Fe. That makes it so hard to identify.
> This is my biggest problem with function identification, that outer action can appear the same but the reasons behind it are hidden. Also, an observer's view of another will always be somewhat coloured by the functions they use themselves.


I don't feel like it's masquerading as other functions. From my perspective, it's just what is. I can't honestly say I try to work out many things "logically", for instance. I just somehow know what is. After, I may attempt to work out the logic, if only to explain myself to others, but that seldom "works" in the way I expected. Frequently, the result is someone attempting to "refute" my logic, and when I hear their refutation, I'm thinking, "That's not what I'm saying at all!" but I don't have the necessary tools to explain to them what I really mean. When it does work, however, I have noticed that people tend, rather, to agree with me right away, and then I know I've gotten my point across. However, if there's any resistance, I will try, at first, to communicate better, based on their feedback, but the typical result is that I get more and more frustrated with my inability to explain myself, and just give up, and withdraw. It's not worth it to me. The thing is, they think they are right, and have proved me wrong, but the truth is, they still haven't understood me--but it's not their fault, it's mine. So, the masquerading part--I sort of struggle with agreeing with. ;-) But I suppose that from others' perspectives, it's possible. I do know that I can appear Fe to people (at least ones that don't understand what Fe _really_ is all about)

I think that all introverted functions are hard to discern, because you can't observe them directly, only indirectly through how they affect other functions. It's like trying to observe a black hole or planet orbiting another sun--we can only observe them indirectly through behavior or spoken words, so it is so subject to interpretation. (and like you said, it is all colored by our own functions that we use)


----------



## will-o'-wisp

ferroequinologist said:


> I don't feel like it's masquerading as other functions. From my perspective, it's just what is. I can't honestly say I try to work out many things "logically", for instance. I just somehow know what is. After, I may attempt to work out the logic, if only to explain myself to others, but that seldom "works" in the way I expected. Frequently, the result is someone attempting to "refute" my logic, and when I hear their refutation, I'm thinking, "That's not what I'm saying at all!" but I don't have the necessary tools to explain to them what I really mean. When it does work, however, I have noticed that people tend, rather, to agree with me right away, and then I know I've gotten my point across. However, if there's any resistance, I will try, at first, to communicate better, based on their feedback, but the typical result is that I get more and more frustrated with my inability to explain myself, and just give up, and withdraw. It's not worth it to me. The thing is, they think they are right, and have proved me wrong, but the truth is, they still haven't understood me--but it's not their fault, it's mine. So, the masquerading part--I sort of struggle with agreeing with. ;-) But I suppose that from others' perspectives, it's possible. I do know that I can appear Fe to people (at least ones that don't understand what Fe _really_ is all about)
> 
> I think that all introverted functions are hard to discern, because you can't observe them directly, only indirectly through how they affect other functions. It's like trying to observe a black hole or planet orbiting another sun--we can only observe them indirectly through behavior or spoken words, so it is so subject to interpretation. (and like you said, it is all colored by our own functions that we use)


That's interesting that you just know and explain it and reason it afterwards. Do you ever see another's reasoning as disproving what you feel to be real, or is it a knowing that can't be refuted to you do you think?

I agree about introverted functions being harder to discern. It's like trying to see what a whale looks like from the water's surface.


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> That's interesting that you just know and explain it and reason it afterwards. Do you ever see another's reasoning as disproving what you feel to be real, or is it a knowing that can't be refuted to you do you think?
> 
> I agree about introverted functions being harder to discern. It's like trying to see what a whale looks like from the water's surface.


Now that raises a whole other phenomenon. 

I'll talk about that and try to remember to segue into your question. 

With some things I find myself thinking out loud. Usually it is non-feeling topics, but also if someone raises an issue I've either never thought of before or one where I haven't yet settled, what happens is that I think out loud via the conversation. I guess it's because my Te and Se, but I can sound quite intense or sound like I'm trying to convince the other party, but honestly, I'm more talking to myself. Often in fact, after the "discussion", once I've had a chance to truly mull over the subject, I'll end up taking the opposite one from the one I was arguing before. The problem is how does someone else tell the difference? They really can't. 

However here is something else about me. If I am quick to come to a discussion and if I sound rather strong in my defense there is a greater chance that it is _not_ a deeply held value. If, on the other hand, you find it difficult to engage me me or to get me to open up on a topic, then you have probably touched on something important. The more important something is to me, and the more sure I am of my feeling judgment, the much less likely and able I am to discuss it. And you would have to push me hard to open up, and if you push too hard, then you will see the truly ugly side of me. 

But like I said, I don't know if others can see this or tell the difference. But most things I'm willing to talk about are more in the sort-of-important to less-important range. 

But generally, my most important feelings judgments and those things I mentioned before, well, I don't get to the point of such conviction lightly. Someone would have to have some convincing arguments to convince me. And to be patient to let me work through my thoughts my way. But honestly, something that important and deep was not taken lightly and in most cases I've already worked through all the various sides and points of view and objections. I try to be thorough. And yes, weirdly enough, I mostly do this outside of verbal language or thoughts. It just happens and no, I can't explain that. I don't do a lot of my thinking in words. If I do think with words, then I'm usually thinking aloud, or at least my lips are at least moving.


----------



## will-o'-wisp

ferroequinologist said:


> Now that raises a whole other phenomenon.
> 
> I'll talk about that and try to remember to segue into your question.
> 
> With some things I find myself thinking out loud. Usually it is non-feeling topics, but also if someone raises an issue I've either never thought of before or one where I haven't yet settled, what happens is that I think out loud via the conversation. I guess it's because my Te and Se, but I can sound quite intense or sound like I'm trying to convince the other party, but honestly, I'm more talking to myself. Often in fact, after the "discussion", once I've had a chance to truly mull over the subject, I'll end up taking the opposite one from the one I was arguing before. The problem is how does someone else tell the difference? They really can't.
> 
> However here is something else about me. If I am quick to come to a discussion and if I sound rather strong in my defense there is a greater chance that it is _not_ a deeply held value. If, on the other hand, you find it difficult to engage me me or to get me to open up on a topic, then you have probably touched on something important. The more important something is to me, and the more sure I am of my feeling judgment, the much less likely and able I am to discuss it. And you would have to push me hard to open up, and if you push too hard, then you will see the truly ugly side of me.
> 
> But like I said, I don't know if others can see this or tell the difference. But most things I'm willing to talk about are more in the sort-of-important to less-important range.
> 
> But generally, my most important feelings judgments and those things I mentioned before, well, I don't get to the point of such conviction lightly. Someone would have to have some convincing arguments to convince me. And to be patient to let me work through my thoughts my way. But honestly, something that important and deep was not taken lightly and in most cases I've already worked through all the various sides and points of view and objections. I try to be thorough. And yes, weirdly enough, I mostly do this outside of verbal language or thoughts. It just happens and no, I can't explain that. I don't do a lot of my thinking in words. If I do think with words, then I'm usually thinking aloud, or at least my lips are at least moving.


Ah okay so this could be seen as why Fi sometimes easily takes offense or gets hurt. Values have been accumulated carefully over time with much self reference and consideration, so if they then are proven to be invalid, or challenged, it may feel very personal because in some ways those values are a part of the Fi user.
I think I read that somewhere before.


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> Ah okay so this could be seen as why Fi sometimes easily takes offense or gets hurt. Values have been accumulated carefully over time with much self reference and consideration, so if they then are proven to be invalid, or challenged, it may feel very personal because in some ways those values are a part of the Fi user.
> I think I read that somewhere before.


First of all, I absolutely cannot speak for other ISFPs or Fi-types, but speaking for myself, I do not get "offended." I hear people use that expression all the time--"I'm offended by..." or "You've offended me..." but I just do not relate. Let me explain...

If somebody says something to me that I don't like, or does something I don't like, if they are somebody who matters to me--whose opinion counts to me, then I will either recognize that they are either mad at me, and what they are saying isn't really what they normally think, or they have a valid point about something about me, which means I need to look into it, or they are wrong, and there's really nothing I can do about it. Now, if said person also keeps pushing me, I may lash back, but that is only because they won't let it go. Usually that's because they are not getting the response they are looking for from me. I don't know what they want, but I can't give it to them, so they push, and eventually, if I'm not allowed to simply extricate myself, I may blow up at them. But that is not in response to the original "issue" but in response to their constant pressure. Am I offended? No. Frustrated? Yes, at a loss for what to do? yes. The end result? When all is said and done, I feel ashamed of myself for my own behavior. If I was in the wrong, I do what I can to correct it, so long as it doesn't involve words--I hate words in such situations, talking about things tends to simply recreate the whole episode again, so I avoid talking. Sorry, but that's how it is. Often, I know, they interpret it as my being offended, but I can't help that. They are wrong, but I can't correct their misinterpretation. It is simply easier to let them think evil of me than for me to correct their misrepresentation of my feelings. 

From my perspective, watching people getting offended, and junk, people saying that are trying to effect a behavioral change in someone else. _That_ is a classic definition of Fe behavior, not Fi behavior. I.e. being offended is Fe, not Fi. That is how I see it, but like I said, I can't honestly speak for other ISFPs or Fi types. 

To answer to what happens when I'm "disproven" or challenged. (gotta love the scare quotes there) If I am allowed, when someone offers contrary evidence to what I feel, then I will consider it in my own time. I am always taking in new information, new perspectives, and always putting them up against what I know. The problem isn't the information, it's the people. People like to act like they have some new point of view or perfect knowledge about things, and try to force it upon others. It's like they were the first to think of something? or that they can, by force of their will disprove everything? I don't know... but the only thing that gets my goat is a bad, self-righteous or self-important sense that they know better that causes me to resist. If they offered their information in a rational manner, I would be much more inclined to listen--but that's not how it usually goes. (see above) 

You see, it's not the simple act of "challenging" me, or showing me something contrary, but how it's usually done. But this is for the really big things.

Talking about daily life. I tend to approach people and situations rather carefully, and form opinions of others' behavior. There are occasions where I attribute bad intent to someone else's behavior. This is done, I guess, to protect myself, and those who matter to me. However, sometimes, I'm wrong in my evaluations. This is generally the cause of great consternation and frustration. Most of the time, nobody else will see any of this. Sometimes it comes out, but not in any direct way, so people (again) misinterpret my expressions or whatever they notice. But again, none of this has anything to do with my being "offended" in the way people understand the term. Personally, I think people get far too offended far too easily. It's something I don't frankly understand. I can't and don't want to control some else's behavior. I can only control my own response. Therefore, that is what I attempt to control. If I allow myself to simply fly off the handle at every offense, at every slight, then I'm allowing the other person to control me. This is a large part of why, when I'm in circumstances where pushed, and I eventually do "lose it," that I feel frustrated and guilty. I allowed the other person to do that to me. Horrible feeling... absolutely horrible. 

So, to summarize, what you described is, I think, an Fe perspective of (my) Fi behavior--but I cannot say I speak for other Fi-types. Someone else would have to speak up for themselves.


----------



## will-o'-wisp

@ferroequinologist
I suppose the main observation of apparent Fi behaviour/thoughts etc is what I have seen written in MBTI forums, because the people are self proclaimed Fi users. Trouble is, I suspect there's a fair percentage of people who are mistyped, so it then becomes less clear.
I have spoken with apparent Fi users whose feelings really don't show very much at all, and then others who seem to have two sides. A controlled self and then a very expressive self in which feelings are poured out but this could be because they feel safe in a forum environment among other Fi users who understand, to express the things they never normally get to express, and they often seem to be younger. Or....is it actually Fe?!

I realise that Fi is about value judgements and less about actual emotions, but out of interest, from yourself and talking to other Fi users here, how comfortable are you/they with emotions generally? Is it something that is just natural and easy to accept or do you struggle/are uncomfortable with it? Especially negative emotions.


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> @_ferroequinologist_
> I suppose the main observation of apparent Fi behaviour/thoughts etc is what I have seen written in MBTI forums, because the people are self proclaimed Fi users. Trouble is, I suspect there's a fair percentage of people who are mistyped, so it then becomes less clear.
> I have spoken with apparent Fi users whose feelings really don't show very much at all, and then others who seem to have two sides. A controlled self and then a very expressive self in which feelings are poured out but this could be because they feel safe in a forum environment among other Fi users who understand, to express the things they never normally get to express, and they often seem to be younger. Or....is it actually Fe?!
> 
> I realise that Fi is about value judgements and less about actual emotions, but out of interest, from yourself and talking to other Fi users here, how comfortable are you/they with emotions generally? Is it something that is just natural and easy to accept or do you struggle/are uncomfortable with it? Especially negative emotions.


Emotions are a mixed bag. I am quick to smile and laugh, generally a quick teaser, as well. But this is around people I know, like and trust. If I were out and about alone, I would be stone, except when, for instance, dealing with a sales clerk. Depending on the person, I will try to brighten their day--because it creates a little ray of warmth in a cold place. I usually do this, not through words, but with a smile, and maybe a comment on how they are doing their job. I try to make a sincere compliment, rather than small talk, or just empty words. But mostly, it's just a smile and a friendly disposition. Ironically, this is more with females than males, but it is not exclusively with regard to females--but some guys are just "too hard", and I just let them go. If they seem at all "real", then I'll be positive and bright toward them as well.  But those aren't emotions, per se. 

I'm not exactly sure how you mean "expressive", so I'm not sure how to cover this. To me expressive tends to indicate words, but I do it less directly through words, and more through actions--or if through words, it's kind of indirect. I do love to tease, and say silly things--add silly lyrics to songs, or change the lyrics, often to match what is going on, or my thoughts toward the person--this is mainly to my own wife and kids. But I've been known to do it with others. Usually, though, with others, I'll sing parts of a song that reflects what is going on. And again, I love to laugh and smile. With my kids, though, I tend to go even further and actually _tell_ them how I feel about them. I think it's important that they hear it from me, and my youngest especially. I am about 90% sure that she's an ESP, and about 70% sure ESFP. I do know that she struggles to share her own feelings, so I make sure I'm very open to her, and tell her simply and clearly how I feel, as well as just hug her, snuggle, etc. She's much more comfortable with those forms of expression, though with me--and me only, she also loves to poke and even hit. Yeah, she's kind of a rough and tumble kid. But since she has struggled verbally, I make sure she hears it a lot from me. My wife much less so. She's an INTP, and doesn't really feel comfortable with verbal expressions, so I tend to keep those simple, and very sincere, and show her in other ways that fit her personality better--that took me a long time to learn, btw. That's my family.

I guess the upshot of what I'm trying to say is this. Emotions are like the most sensitive side of me. When I feel comfortable, I will express them, but not generally in words. It is hard to explain, but we don't feel with words--do you? I don't. And furthermore, emotions are often a tool of others to modify the behavior of others--to manipulate, I would say. So, for instance, if I show disgust, or impatience, etc. It generally means that I want the other to acknowledge and modify their behavior. This is absolutely *not* what I want to do! So, when it comes to negative emotions, I tend to be very reluctant to express them, whether with words or actions. On the other hand, I have discovered that I am very bad at hiding these things. They come out, but I am unaware of them. I don't think that Fe types have this sort of issue--they know when they are expressing emotions--I frequently don't. And sometimes I am also unaware of how my emotions are affecting others. Always, as soon as I become aware of this, I try to apologize and correct my behavior so as to not give a false impression--that I am trying to make someone feel bad, or change how they are acting. This is true even if someone is behaving in a way I don't feel comfortable with. The idea that they feel pressured by me is rather scary. I should add that this is generally true only of people I know and especially about those I really care about, but if you are in my social circles, I will try hard not to mold you to my emotional state. That is very uncomfortable to me. On the other hand, if you are outside that circle, I don't know and don't care.  

My default state, though, would be that people just took responsibility for their own emotions, and dealt with things on their own. When I was younger, I just naturally assumed that everybody was like this. I had to learn that people's emotions affect others, and that people actually _intend_ for their emotions to affect others. That as a lesson that took me years to grasp. I mean, I have always been somewhat afraid to get too "out there", but I don't know, that was probably my mother's influence, but still, if I had my druthers, I'd have people just not take on board my own emotions, in the same way that I don't take on board theirs. When I'm in circles where I can, I feel most comfortable. That may be why you observe what you do. Most of the time, though, the world tells us our emotions are bad and controlling, and we ought not feel differently from others, and that it is wrong to be sad when others are happy, or happy when others are sad. Sorry, but that is just disgusting to me to tell people that. You don't know what I'm going through, why should you be able to tell me how I should feel? *That* is an Fi perspective, and one that really ticks off Fe types for some reason. 

Man, that's a long, sloppy post, but looking back over it, it seems I either delete it all, or keep it all. For the sake of communication, I'll keep it, and send it...


----------



## will-o'-wisp

@ferroequinologist That's very enlightening. I wonder if that would be the general consensus amongst Fi users.
I agree that probably most people would agree they don't feel with words, although feelings can be analysed with words and then understood.

You seem fairly comfortable discussing your emotions.


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> @_ferroequinologist_ That's very enlightening. I wonder if that would be the general consensus among Fi users.
> I agree that probably most people would agree they don't feel with words, although feelings can be analysed with words and then understood.
> 
> You seem fairly comfortable discussing your emotions.


I'm talking _about_ them, not describing them--quite a different thing.


----------



## will-o'-wisp

ferroequinologist said:


> I'm talking _about_ them, not describing them--quite a different thing.


Correction: you seem comfortable talking about your emotions. So presumably you wouldn't feel comfortable going into depth on them. Would that make you feel vulnerable, even in this format? Do you mind me asking?


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> Correction: you seem comfortable talking about your emotions. So presumably you wouldn't feel comfortable going into depth on them. Would that make you feel vulnerable, even in this format? Do you mind me asking?


There's more going on than just that. There is the sense of being vulnerable, but also the problem of simply putting it into words. Of course, any failure or inadequacies of doing so also evokes those feelings of vulnerability... so, yeah, maybe...


----------



## will-o'-wisp

ferroequinologist said:


> There's more going on than just that. There is the sense of being vulnerable, but also the problem of simply putting it into words. Of course, any failure or inadequacies of doing so also evokes those feelings of vulnerability... so, yeah, maybe...


Okay, one more question! Do you like your emotions? If you could choose to just be on a single even keel all the time, would you choose that or not?

(Okay, so there were two questions!)


----------



## ferroequinologist

willow the wisp said:


> Okay, one more question! Do you like your emotions? If you could choose to just be on a single even keel all the time, would you choose that or not?
> 
> (Okay, so there were two questions!)


I really don't know. On the one hand, I'm not "afraid" of my emotions, but I think that, if I had my druthers, I'd rather the even keel.


----------



## MNiS

So how does Fi and Ti manifest as a summary again?


----------



## dwelfusius

bogdan said:


> The big difference between Fi and Ti is that Fi will choose beauty before utility (when choosing an object, shop, restaurant ..) , while Ti will be utility before beauty. Being introverted means you'll have a sense of all your introverted functions, yet as a Ti user I can't approach life with Fi, because I haven't a good control over it, and I often get depressed, and it gives me negative emotions (I hope it's not Fe, because it comes from the inside). In that way I think Ti is to objective for the dreamy, idealisitc Fi and would rarely be used.


If this is correct you just helped me tremendously.I CAN NOT for the love of everything understand why people would buy something (mainly tech wise) with "being pretty" as the 1st or 2nd most important deciding factor.Unless it's house deco or something, you know , a painting.But a functional item with a very defined use.. -.- why? it drives me insane. So why did you buy this *crappy overpriced not suitable for your needs* laptop instead of one of the 5 i recommended when you asked me?I liked the red one more .. **gnaa ** eats shoe


----------



## HalfThracian

They function the same but in a completely different direction
Fi doms question how things make them feel.
Ti doms question the objects' property value.


----------



## MikeNTP




----------



## slemo

dwelfusius said:


> If this is correct you just helped me tremendously.I CAN NOT for the love of everything understand why people would buy something (mainly tech wise) with "being pretty" as the 1st or 2nd most important deciding factor.Unless it's house deco or something, you know , a painting.But a functional item with a very defined use.. -.- why? it drives me insane. So why did you buy this *crappy overpriced not suitable for your needs* laptop instead of one of the 5 i recommended when you asked me?I liked the red one more .. **gnaa ** eats shoe


I might be Fi and I would never buy a laptop that was not suitable in every area.
I mean everything: heat, processing, graphic gard and common fps with different games and different settings, ram, matte or glossy screen (since the reflection is annoying), screen quality, do guarantees invovle dead pixels?, weight, keyboard backlighting, keyboard type (I die for lenovo), OS and other preinstalled programs, storage method (ssd or mechanical), boot-up time, spill resistance, network card, usb type (2.0 or 3.0)...

So please take your prejudice elsewhere.

EDIT: Sure, I do care about how it looks, because I want it to represent me. I wouldn't want a pink computer... Would you want a computer with awful looking design and your least favorite color??


----------



## dwelfusius

Hey I have an idea, why don't you subjectify my oversimplified exaggeration to make a point so you feel satisfiable but hurt.

Maybe you could have just stated your point without going all judgmental on me, than I could have told you that that was how it was meant.But you chose not to.


----------



## ferroequinologist

HalfThracian said:


> They function the same but in a completely different direction
> Fi doms question how things make them feel.
> Ti doms question the objects' property value.


This, and the video in the following post, seem to miss something. I think that Ti and Fi are both very similar processes, but operate in different spheres, but where there is overlap, they may actually be very similar.

Fi operates in the sphere of what is right or wrong, good or bad, helpful or harmful, and yes, like and dislike (but that is only a minor part of the whole). 

Ti operates in the sphere of correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, useful, not useful, relevant or non-relevant. 

To the Ti type, these things become just as emotionally attaching as the values for Fi. How such emotions are aroused or expressed, of course, differs wildly from the Fi type, but the emotions become as attached to these with Ti values as Fi values to the Fi type. 

As to the simplistic idea that an Fi type will only choose what looks pretty, well, no. Not really. Does that mean that it is not an essential element of choosing? No. But it will seldom be the only reason. It all depends on the whole. For instance. I'm buying clothes. For me, it matters not what brand or name is attached. If I like it, I buy it. It also matters not what others think about my purchase. I buy solely based on my personal tastes. If I'm buying tech, aesthetics plays a huge role, but only as a determining factor. If there are two items essentially the same, or even if the better looking one seems to have lower specs, if it will still meet my needs, I'll buy the better thought-out aesthetics. That means I typically buy Apple. Huge rift in this one, though. I've lately bought a Motorola X. I love its looks, but love some tiny features that separate it from every other phone on the market. It has usability features that make it stand out. In short, it works in a way that is pleasing to me, even if the OS is ugly. There is more than just visual interest or beauty that matters to me. And yes, I still consider it an aesthetic decision. But for most other things, I've been pure Apple since day one. Nobody else understands the depth of aesthetics like Apple has through the years--even their uglier years were better than the competition--but it wasn't hard then--Windows 3? 95? XP? Gah!!! I would poke my eyes out before I spent a day looking at those! ;-)

As to other things--furniture? Quality first, then looks second, but looks definitely matters. Car? Well, when it comes to cars, I'm pure utility--I'm a dad... dad's can't really afford to get too picky about looks--their kids will ruin the interior anyway. ;-) But let my kids get older, and I'm buying a Beetle, or maybe a Mini... Would I purposely buy something ugly because it worked best? I don't know. I suppose it depended. A lawnmower, yes. a tool, yes. A kitchen utensil, no. TV, no. But again, it's only one criterion. 

Now this does not mean that there aren't people who seem to buy based solely on how it makes them feel or how it looks, but even then, I have my suspicions that there is more than meets the eye. When I was young, my typical answer to questions that challenged my choices or my Fi rationales was to just say "I don't know." or "I just like it" or some such. It's too much of a pain to try to explain myself for something that was _my_ decision, not theirs. Who are you anyway, to judge me for my decisions, just because it doesn't match with your expectations? So you would have heard such answers from me when I was younger. And honestly, much of what I think inside my head takes place without words. It just "is." I can't explain myself much of the time, so asking me something like this.... it's a non-starter, and you can scratch your head all you want. I don't care. Think me an idiot. I don't care. Think yourself smarter than me? I'll know better, but still not care. Just go elsewhere to stroke your petty ego, thank you. And yes, that's probably what an Fi person is thinking when you act that way toward them.


----------



## philomath

as an ENTP Ti is my second function. I have no Fi, my wife does. She utilizes Te. So I know both sides of Thinking intimately, also, as a human being we eventually use all the functions because we are complex and (for the most part barring mental illness) whole.

Simple Explanation:
Ti - goes inward to think, or process information logically and on a more introverted level, examines first then intakes info
Te - talks it out, bounces ideas off of people, takes info at face value initially then examines

Fi - is very mysterious because no one can see it and because so many people are moral relativists so their values, their convictions change, but Fi is seen when someone does something that you consider rude and confront them and they explain their actions influenced by their belief
Fe - will act first on harmony and unity in the external environment.

hope my .02 helps


----------



## ConspiracyTheory

When going into deep talks about the truths of the universe me and my INFP logically come to the same conclusions- but he has negative or positive feelings towards the same information that I see as not logical to have feelings for. You can't have good or bad feelings for a Truth. You just have to accept it or reject is as false if you have an idea that makes more sense. 

I think he his missing a link of understanding truth, by allowing himself to decide a truth is "good or bad". And equally, HE thinks I'M missing an element of understanding truth by withholding any subjectice feelings from it. 
That's the only real difference I've found between Ti and Fi.


But we deconstruct the universe its possible origins and end up with the same information and use the same logical sequence. He concludes what he finds as good or bad while I leave out that layer..

I'm extracting his principles and making them sound kind of INTP-ish. He uses more judge mental statements that I'm not going to convey well here because I don't remember his exact words.

But basically he says the fact that there are tiny organisms in the sea is not agreeable. It takes away from the idea that humans are special and linked to a creator. Alot of the earth is incompatible with the religious social values, that is viewed as a negative discovery and really bothers him.

As INTP I say tiny organisms in the sea is compatible with a creator, even more strongly than religious texts,, because it shows the universe encompasses all possibilities with a common pattern inherent to all lifeforms. This can't be seen as good or bad, just a principle that we live by or we reject, if we find out something else. My view of a creator is altered from a man in the sky like religious books describe, into what I see as more accurate, an invisible thread inside of everything. Just a presumed fact, not good or bad.


----------



## ferroequinologist

philomath said:


> Fi - is very mysterious because no one can see it and because so many people are moral relativists so their values, their convictions change, but Fi is seen when someone does something that you consider rude and confront them and they explain their actions influenced by their belief


I really find myself disliking the designation "mysterious" to describe Fi. It is no more mysterious than any other introverted function--all of them are, in a sense, "mysterious" because all of them are about the subject, and are thus subjective, and unique in operation to each individual. I could say find Ti equally "mysterious" to me, because I cannot do what my wife does, and certainly cannot ignore my Fi. But that doesn't really give Ti any credit by doing that. In fact, now I say it, adding "mysterious" to any function doesn't give it due credit. That's my impression and opinion. FWIW 

Personally I find the description that @ConspiracyTheory gave above to be quite apropos and accurate to describe how my wife and I think and differ. Thanks for the perspective.


----------



## JessBunny

I've been trying to type a friend I've known for more than a year, and it still fascinates me how I can't figure out his judging function. Living in the present comes up often in our conversations often, he is also very physically adept and often does things on the spur of the moment, which leads me to think that he's IS_P (plus he often gets excited, sometimes too much so when he talks about predictions coming true, which sounds like tertiary Ni). However I find things interesting because I used to think that he was Ti (we had an argument and he said "there is no objective truth", which lead me to that conclusion), however he doesn't seem to show that much Fe either, and when I asked him if he preferred "objective truth + subjective values" or "subjective truth + societal values" he told me "subjective values + subjective truth". :laughing: I'm leaning towards Fi-dom after getting to know him better, but I'm still not quite sure (not to mention that gender stereotypes complicate things even further. My best guess would be that one of his Fi values is that there is no objective truth, but who knows?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar

dwelfusius said:


> If this is correct you just helped me tremendously.I CAN NOT for the love of everything understand why people would buy something (mainly tech wise) with "being pretty" as the 1st or 2nd most important deciding factor.Unless it's house deco or something, you know , a painting.But a functional item with a very defined use.. -.- why? it drives me insane. So why did you buy this *crappy overpriced not suitable for your needs* laptop instead of one of the 5 i recommended when you asked me?I liked the red one more .. **gnaa ** eats shoe


Maybe it's Fe using it for showing off or something?


----------



## reybridge

Simple, Fi is a 'Burning' that has a 'Trigger', while Ti is a 'Burning' that has a 'Standard'. Source: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...orks-please-only-people-pure-logic-enter.html.


----------



## Zachara

WOW! That was was an AMAZING read! Thanks for posting!


----------



## Joe2718

Completely off topic, will o wisps avatar hypnotized me. 

I can use an emotion. I love patterns. 
there almost back on topic.


----------



## Osytek

Psilo said:


> I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.


It is very true. 



> Objectivity and subjectivity are a large separation in the functions. Fi types are very close to their inner feelings, understand them, yet the objectivity of language prevents them from expressing this portion of their being. Fi then needs to take subjective viewpoints into account in their internal world model because that is the part world they best understand and they see it to affect their worldview greatly. This is not to say they ignore objectivity, yet a danger zone for Fi (DomFi especially) is to ignore objective truth that doesn't harmonize with their subjective truth resulting in either an overly-emotional or a self-centered person (or both, depending on your perspective). Ti, on the other hand, is either does not understand it like Fi can (much like Fi has a harder time with deductive reasoning of objective qualities), or deems it irrelevant. An unbalanced Ti would be entirely disconnected with the human element leaving their world model incomplete and too rigid for that sort of information. (ironically becoming too subjective in their objectivity)


I wanted to say that Ti people acts like they have no head and Fi people acts like they have no heart. ^^ 
(i mean from time to time).


----------



## Monroe

I'm still new at the MBTI cognitive functions, but a good example of Te versus Ti is the difference between my ESTJ mother and myself, ISTP. She likes to talk things out, that's how she solves a problem. She will go over a problem and ask specific questions about it, has to verbalize it until she hits the answer. It's the opposite of how I want to approach a problem. I like to think on the problem, stop for a moment--clear my head, and then an answer will hit me later, processed and dissected. Naturally how we discuss things are pretty opposite as a rule, but I've learned it helps a little to let her draw things out in the open and I usually hit something more directly later on. IDK, this could be a good example of how these functions manifest.


----------



## Wisteria

> Ti is an abstract deductive reasoning process. Would it be correct to say that Ti focuses on stripping away at the superficial side of any given object/situation to find the inner and pure objective information? Ti then goes to define and ultimately fit the piece of information into an internal model of all objective information collected thus far. All done unconsciously for the most part until a particularly complex bit of information cannot fit in which case both the information and the internal construct are called into question until all inconsistencies are worked out and the puzzle is solved. The larger problems require varying amounts of time, energy, and logical processing until everything fits once again. This is how Ti can pinpoint inconsistencies from miles away, the information they received is not the proper shape or not even from the same puzzle as they understand the world to function.


Perhaps I am just being thick, but I have some misunderstandings on this description of Ti. I don't know what to make of the first sentences. How can objective information have a superficial side to it? Is this just a strange way of describing Ti and how it classifies or abstracts objective information. As an introverted function it will be abstract, but in what way, and how? "All done unconsciously for the most part" I'm stumped. In the Ego, functions are not unconscious I don't think. So for Ti-ego types it is not an unconscious process as it is the dominant/aux function after all, the functions every individual naturally responds with. I (actually) believe I understand the rest of this sentence though. Ti interprets outer information and evaluates it's correctness or inconsistencies based on it's own internal construct of logic. The rest of this explanation I can also understand. 



> Fi would then be an abstract integration process taking into account pure subjective information or 'feelings'. The internal world model is constructed less of logical systems as Ti. Fi focuses less on defining new information and more on simply understanding and then integrating it to the basic framework already in place. Like conducting and building a song one instrumental piece at a time. Fi is focused on how things work together, and dissonance is readily apparent. A distinction from the inconsistency targeting of Ti where things must fit, Fi can work with small inconsistencies as long as the bigger picture can still function as whole.


I will probably be especially critical of this Fi description...I believe Fi can appear outwardly analytical as an Fi-ego type would evaluate external information based on their own subjective feelings and how it aligns with their own ideals, whilst not expressing feeling directly. Second sentence seems correct with the point that it doesn't aim to define information, but unsure of the rest of it. Seems to suggest that Ti is inflexible and Fi integrates. Like building a song based on - what? Seems like to logical of an explanation of a feeling function. As for the rest of this paragraph, I am entirely unsure as to what this means, but I do tend to prefer descriptions that actually directly say what the functions are and what they do, without this...abstract explanation. OP is giving me a Ti vibe with these impersonal abstracted approach to logically explaining things.



> Objectivity and subjectivity are a large separation in the functions. Fi types are very close to their inner feelings, understand them, yet the objectivity of language prevents them from expressing this portion of their being. Fi then needs to take subjective viewpoints into account in their internal world model because that is the part world they best understand and they see it to affect their worldview greatly. This is not to say they ignore objectivity, yet a danger zone for Fi (DomFi especially) is to ignore objective truth that doesn't harmonize with their subjective truth resulting in either an overly-emotional or a self-centered person (or both, depending on your perspective). Ti, on the other hand, is either does not understand it like Fi can (much like Fi has a harder time with deductive reasoning of objective qualities), or deems it irrelevant. An unbalanced Ti would be entirely disconnected with the human element leaving their world model incomplete and too rigid for that sort of information. (ironically becoming too subjective in their objectivity)


Hm...Yes, the unhealthy manifestation of Fi may appear self centered and over-emotional - depending on your perspective, indeed. Thinking doms tend to see Fi types as these traits, even believing they are unreasonable. On the other hand, I don't display this persona at all. Therefore I think Thinkers will be more likely to share this view on Fi, but admittedly, this could easily be true of FPs through their lack of using "cold" objective logic. About Fi deeming deductive reasoning processes as irrelevant, I totally agree. When I see this reasoning I usually react with denial, and feel it's inaccurate and beside the point. The points on both introverted judgement functions ignoring objectivity in this way is completely correct. They develop a bias in their rationality.



> I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.


My reaction to this example of deductive reasoning:
???
:crazy:
Inward, outward, outward, inward...They're both introverted functions, let's keep things simple and assume they are working inwardly, okay?

Overall I think I have gained some understanding of introverted thinking, mostly based on the thoughts of the OP's logic and through realizing my reaction to it.


----------



## Osytek

Wisteria said:


> Inward, outward, outward, inward...They're both introverted functions, let's keep things simple and assume they are working inwardly, okay?


I think she just mixed Fi and Ti with other functions. I act often according to my Fe-thinking but when sth is wrong i use my Ti-thinking instead of.


----------



## RobertS

Very interesting little essay. Your observation that the major distinction between T and F is based on degree of objectivity is right on. As an INTP educator, I have a strong hunch that your Ti description is more characteristic of Ti with Ne, which is to say that the style of logic for N's is deduction, while sensates tend to reason using induction. The style of logic used is actually based on how we organize our perception. I know this seems ironic, but think about it and send me your reaction.


----------



## Osytek

RobertS said:


> Very interesting little essay. Your observation that the major distinction between T and F is based on degree of objectivity is right on. As an INTP educator, I have a strong hunch that your Ti description is more characteristic of Ti with Ne, which is to say that the style of logic for N's is deduction, while sensates tend to reason using induction. The style of logic used is actually based on how we organize our perception. I know this seems ironic, but think about it and send me your reaction.


U are right, when i act i use Ne-Fe thinking and when sth is wrong i change to Ti (+ sth perhaps). It can be different from time to time. All kind of available functions can be used, Si too. I just described one of many possibilities. 

Sometimes perhaps when extremely stressed i can act even like ENTJ it's kind of shadow change or sth like this i don't know, and ENTJ extremely stressed can act like INTP.


----------

