Thread: Explaining Ti to Fi types

1. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Well, that wasn't just for you. More for anyone who happens to read thread.

What would be more useful to you in understanding this, though?
What everyone else was saying.

2. Originally Posted by Southern Kross
Thats interesting Sim. This may be the root of many cross type arguments.

Could you provide a specific example of one such exchange/argument (yes, I realize the irony)? I understand how it works the other way round (ie. me pissing people off ) but I can't fully get my head around how to apply this to everyday discussions. I mean, in what ways does the TeFi type answers undermine the FeTi type idea other than simply saying "where's your evidence?" - ie. what other kinds of TeFi responses tend to offend FeTi types? What does a common Ti idea sound like (as opposed to a Ne or Ni idea etc)?

I admit, its hard for me to understand how someone could be passionate about a subjective logical theory as I am about my subjective values...

http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1288012

EDIT: Nevermind, mods deleted it.

I'll explain in PM or something if you want.

3. I've only skimmed this thread, but I've been ruminating over a question, and I've been meaning to ask you what you thought about it; considering in your OP you conclude that one should reevaluate their understanding if they consider logic as either individualized/collectivized and ethics as collectivized/individualized, I'd like to hear what you think about something uumlau wrote on my wall a few months back:

Originally Posted by uumlau
This delves into some points I have been ruminating over for the past couple of weeks. Namely, there are three kinds of "objectivity/subjectivity" in Jungian functions:

S is objective, N is subjective.
T is objective, F is subjective.
e is objective, i is subjective.

So focusing in on S vs N, the objective/subjective theme makes things perhaps more clear than concrete/abstract or details/patterns. The abstractions, the patterns, the connections, the relationship are all necessarily subjective.

So S deals with what is (Se) or what was (Si) and to some degree what should be (Si). N, however, deals with the subjective impressions are left within one's mind after experiencing reality.

The S vs N is not a matter of ability, but rather a tendency or desire to be very objective (S) about what one perceives/remembers. N similarly observes (Ne) or catalogs (Ni) the impressions that one has of the world.

The main thing that makes N appear to be more capable is that it seems to create new ideas from nothing. This is not "more skilled". Rather, it is "more flexible" and "more creative." The advantage of S, however, is that reality is fairly brutal, and the objective truth of anything will eventually triumph over that which is imagined (N). However, the selection effect of famous, very very very smart NTs (e.g., Einstein, Newton, Feynman) makes it seem as if NTs are just "smarter." Yes, a very very smart NT will come up with ideas that few would ever consider, but that doesn't imply that S is not as smart, but rather that S will be more "wise" (perhaps?) than smart.
I've posted the whole thing, but I'm mainly concerned with the bolded (the rest is just useful commentary).

So uumlau calls S, T, and e "objective", and N, F, and i "subjective".

Now, I'm not 100% sold on this idea, but over the last few months I've found it interesting.

So, do you think uumlau is correct here in assigning these labels of "objective" and "subjective", or do you think he's merely expressing a biased viewpoint (as an INTJ, his S function would be Se and his T function Te, so it's understandable why he'd call these "objective", and his N function would be Ni and his F function Fi, and so it's understandable why he'd call these subjective)?

I, personally, can also understand why one would call T "objective" and F "subjective", and even S "objective" and N "subjective".

But, then again, I'm an INTJ...

So, what says simulatedworld...?

4. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I've only skimmed this thread, but I've been ruminating over a question, and I've been meaning to ask you what you thought about it; considering in your OP you conclude that one should reevaluate their understanding if they consider logic as either individualized/collectivized and ethics as collectivized/individualized, I'd like to hear what you think about something uumlau wrote on my wall a few months back:

I've posted the whole thing, but I'm mainly concerned with the bolded (the rest is just useful commentary).

So uumlau calls S, T, and e "objective", and N, F, and i "subjective".

Now, I'm not 100% sold on this idea, but over the last few months I've found it interesting.

So, do you think uumlau is correct here in assigning these labels of "objective" and "subjective", or do you think he's merely expressing a biased viewpoint (as an INTJ, his S function would be Se and his T function Te, so it's understandable why he'd call these "objective", and his N function would be Ni and his F function Fi, and so it's understandable why he'd call these subjective)?

I, personally, can also understand why one would call T "objective" and F "subjective", and even S "objective" and N "subjective".

But, then again, I'm an INTJ...

So, what says simulatedworld...?

I think we need to get on the same page about objective vs. subjective.

Some people use these terms simply to mean impersonal vs. personal, basically Thinking vs. Feeling.

I don't really like that method. I think it is what uumlau is doing here.

I prefer to use the terms for their original meanings; that is, objective = deriving from the outside world/object, while subjective = deriving from the inside world/subject.

Good point about him calling N/F subjective and S/T objective...that is exactly how an NTJ (or SFP) would experience them.

For me it's the opposite; I see N and F objectively and S and T subjectively.

5. I think all functions can be subjective and objective. Just in different lights. Se could be the ones with their finger on the what, why, where, how of practical opportunities or enjoyment or popular notions - but the options a Se type may offer is only as good as their experience (and their Fi and Ti). They might be a redneck that does boring things. Objectivity fail. Ne could be just as objective as Se, but skimming the exteriors more, focused on tying elements together in a way that Se's detailed focus doesn't...but it's only good as the person doing it too. Some people may suggest ideas that aren't doable or fun or can't be related to easily..which is also objectivity fail.

edit: This is a bad, subjective illustration itself probably. I need more coffee

6. Originally Posted by KDude
I think all functions can be subjective and objective.
Bingo was his name-o!

Originally Posted by simulatedworld
I prefer to use the terms for their original meanings; that is, objective = deriving from the outside world/object, while subjective = deriving from the inside world/subject.

Good point about him [edit: uumlau] calling N/F subjective and S/T objective...that is exactly how an NTJ (or SFP) would experience them.

For me it's the opposite; I see N and F objectively and S and T subjectively.

If we go by the definitions you provided for "objective" & "subjective" [which I agree with in MBTI-talk], then, neither are the two scenarios valid: N/F being subjective (uumlau's) nor S/T being subjective (yours).

^edit: Ah!
You meant for you guys, personally, missed that when jumping in to post.

Yeah...

It would depend on the orientation of the function.

As such:

Ni, Ti, Fi, Si - subjective functions

Ne, Te, Fe, Se - objective functions.

It must be so, such that each of the four functions that make up perception to action [i.e., (1)intuition, (2)sensing, to (3)thinking, (4)feeling] - can be internalized and externalized [picking up on the E/I orientation]. Otherwise, the function, as an individual system, would be unbalanced. This is also the only way to be comprehensive with representing each of the 4 functions within its own range [as 4 independent variables] - i.e., each as an e/i dichotomy [and everything in between].

As such, Xe= objective/from outside the subject, Xi = subjective/from inside subject.

Edit: I missed that it was about how they'd experience it personally, N/S, F/T, either simu or uumlau, not about whether each of the functions were objective or subjective. So, yeah, thanks for the heads-up Jock!

V and Stevo!

7. Originally Posted by Qre:us
If we go by the definitions you provided for "objective" & "subjective" [which I agree with in MBTI-talk], then, neither are the two scenarios valid: N/F being subjective (uumlau's) nor S/T being subjective (yours).

It would depend on the orientation of the function.
Not to take the wind out of your sails but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Sim was implying. I could be wrong, however.

8. Well, now that the thread's gone directly where I wanted it to...

Here's what I wrote on uumlau's wall about the subject:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra
You lost me once you called Se "wise"...

Also, I'm not entirely sure whether you see the meaning of objectivity/subjectivity as the same with regards to N/S, T/F, and e/i.

I seem to have a problem seeing Fe, Te, Ne, and Se as subjective... which would make me think that I'm thinking of objective and subjective primarily from the e/i standpoint... which then makes me question precisely what you mean by N subjectivity and S objectivity (you know, I guess I get this one, based off of the rest of the description in your post, but it does differ from e vs. i subjectivity then, doesn't it?) and F subjectivity vs T subjectivity (although, while you didn't provide an example of this, I can, rather obviously, see what you might be referring to).

But if objectivity and subjectivity all mean different things in these three circumstances, is it really worth using the same word in all three circumstances? Could there be a better terminology?
So, I rephrase my original question: is there something about T that lends itself to being called "objective" (in the sense that uumlau's using the term) while there is something about F that lends itself to being called "subjective"? Same goes for N as "subjective" and S as "objective"? And, if so, for each case: what is it?

9. Both T or F can be objective. Fi or Fe might have more of a grasp on understanding or organizing the emotional, social, or behavioral realm or rising up to meet these needs more quickly (Not to stereotype. Keyword: Might). Te or Ti might forget about that stuff and communicate dryly or harshly or dispassionately..or just be unresponsive and not pay the same attention to the quality of it's relationships.. who knows (Again.. Keyword: Might). On the flipside, Ti could display objective clarity in terms of systems, Te in a structural or utilitarian sense (bleh.. those words probably don't do them justice). Every one of the functions plays out in different types where people have a hand in certain areas.. and further, when people work together (or are more balanced within themselves), it's all the more productive, and the picture is made more clear.

I'll cut myself short before I sound too utopian or something.. like, "if we all worked together, we'd all see the same thing".. That's not my intent really. It's just that I think everyone has their own potential, and ineptitude, and perhaps we should get rid of classifying functions as black and white.

10. Here are a couple of posts where I lay out my similar take on objective and subjective, expanding to all the dichotomies. In the second one, Sim seemed to disagree:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post417057
http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1020797

Another interesting old thread on it:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...pes-split.html

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•