• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Explaining Ti to Fi types

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Well, I WOULD like to understand that some day. If possible.

It seems like Fi values just come out of nowhere... unless they're derived from the "natural moral workings of the world" just like Ti is fueled by observation and thus a sense of the natural rules of the external physical world.

Theoretically, they should be -- otherwise function theory is not balanced.

^I would say of course they're based on observation..

Some people might get caught in a Fi-Ni or Fi-Si loop and seem less...relevant or easy to relate to.. (or something), but I think both Ne and Se helps round many Fi types out, if they really use them. And you can't use them without being in the world somewhat, and observing things. You can't be Se or even Ne without looking outside yourself. Some of us introverts might be too introverted for our own good at times, and just sit on a chair indoors with our ideals/values/Fi, but if they did that for too long, they might as well not even call themselves Ne or Se. Because they're observation is barely existent (or rather, applied indirectly), where Ne or Se is playing almost a third role, instead of secondary. At a certain point, people need data, and over time, that fleshes things out, and Fi isn't just coming out of nowhere, but out of experience, and observations on what works (as they see them).
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, I WOULD like to understand that some day. If possible.

It seems like Fi values just come out of nowhere... unless they're derived from the "natural moral workings of the world" just like Ti is fueled by observation and thus a sense of the natural rules of the external physical world.

Theoretically, they should be -- otherwise function theory is not balanced.

Just like it seems to TeFi types that Ti ideas come out of nowhere :)

Fe needs "proof" of Fi and Te needs "proof" of Ti, and neither wants to give in.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, with Ti, it's like I have absorbed all the "rules" of the world around me, to create an internal model, and I understand it will work.. as long as the data I have processed is representative of the actual world. So I can look at a situation and almost immediately see the state of the entire system now, it's probable appearance a short ways into the future, and make reasonable predictions about it in the future... although as more and more time passes and more chaos has a chance to filter in (or more chance for any inherent errors in my view to magnify), I grow less and less certain of the specifics of my expected outcome.

The Fi'ers I'm comfortable with seem to have the same sort of flexibility. They have a sense of the moral fabric of the world, but they are still responding to the world as it unfolds around them rather than having static rules in place that typically can be used on their own to make things work. (And that is what I feel like Je functions are more aware of -- a set store of procedural rules that have been agreed upon and can be followed to typically produce results in a given situation.) But Ji models are far more fluid. As Satine says, they are the universal rules focused through a unique individual. As such, they have to constantly be engaged with the real world... and this is why Ji ruled are not specific steps but typically principles that can be applied to any situation and underly the situation.

So I guess then that Fi users who seem obstinate/indifferent to others/stuck in their own bent way of seeing the world are probably the analogy of the Ti user who sees the world in one rigid pattern and does not seem to adjust output to accommodate new information. There's lots of arguments like that over at INTPc -- you see a wide range of participants, some who are open and flexible to processing and accommodating new information on the fly (which I think is the healthy form) and some who seem to just have one single, limited, narrowly framed viewpoint that is set in stone and the principles of their model lack flexibility and thus are only applicable in certain situations rather than being universally true.

Just like it seems to TeFi types that Ti ideas come out of nowhere :)

Fe needs "proof" of Fi and Te needs "proof" of Ti, and neither wants to give in.

Thanks, but that's kind of an obvious side note and thus not really useful to me in understanding this.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
EDIT: I think I'd call these reactions of "annoyances" as cognitive disturbances. Different types of subconscious cognitions[cognitive functions] are more in tune with different methods of perception and judgement. The clash of preferences translates into "Fi hates Ti because of x". Our subconscious functions do function as part of our identities. But then this means cognitive-opposites will least likely get along with each other. It is also in conflict with the idea that we are disinclined towards our inferior function but maybe this reaction is more superficial than the former idea.


EDIT: I guess this isn't about values..

No, I cannot connect this theory fittingly enough with my observations.

Where attacks comes from is always interpreted by Fe. There is always a connection to Fe.

When you say "attack", it always implies a feeling function(Fx) wherein something is valued. Values, however, can be but only limitedly determined by the preference of the person: INTP's value TiNe. When Ti & Ne are "attacked" based on Fe's Judgements, TiNe(INTP) will subconsciously display irritated response from the Function of Fe alone. TiNe here are only considered information to be value-judged by Fe and not the entire "precious stone".

The introversion of Ti may indicate "subjectiveness" but the whole process is for the purpose of objectivity. It dictates objective response and nothing else. It is Fe that elicits response.

Fe is as personal(attacks, feelings etc.) as Fi albeit the 'flow' of judgement differs wherein one is extraverted(by the 'object' to the subject) and the other introverted(by the subject to the object). They are the displays of emotions, values and understanding of ethics.

-------------

Ti is not personally attached to the person but it is subjective. It can be a cause of conflict but indirectly and not the primary.

Fi, on the other hand, behaves within that theory.

-----

This is inaccurate[to my observations] and is highly vulnerable to misunderstandings.

FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

TeFi prompts us to deal with logic and impersonal ideas collectively, according to a more generalized objective standard which we can all agree to use to quantify and measure impersonal ideas by the same method, while dealing with ethics according to an internalized and subjective standard, seeking only to find what feels right to the individual.

Fe, Fi, Te and Ti are all interrelated.

Fe needs "proof" of Fi and Te needs "proof" of Ti, and neither wants to give in.
I disagree.
 
Last edited:

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When I was chatting w Eric on the shadows thread about the rare occurance of Ti rage in INTPs....

Now...this is a total stretch...but could part of the gut defensive reaction you guys feel in response to Fi (after the Fe offense transfers to Ti thoughts of stupid to then to a gut feeling of "passionate" wrong) ....actually be shadow Fi?

I dunno...I just sorta stumbled over this so please forgive eric if I have misunderstood or removed the comment from the original context....I could have totally screwed this one up....
No, that is likely right. That would be the shadow Fi reaction. They trigger each other in people.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No, that is likely right. That would be the shadow Fi reaction. They trigger each other in people.

It makes sense since the value seems to be introverted-oriented.


Now...this is a total stretch...but could part of the gut defensive reaction you guys feel in response to Fi (after the Fe offense transfers to Ti thoughts of stupid to then to a gut feeling of "passionate" wrong) ....actually be shadow Fi?


I would say Fe to Fi. There is no necessary Ti here.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ti wasn't at all hard for me to grasp. It was Fe at first that was hard for me to grasp.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Thanks, but that's kind of an obvious side note and thus not really useful to me in understanding this.

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?
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Thats interesting Sim. This may be the root of many cross type arguments.

FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

I've found that many disagreements I've had with TeFi types tend to come down to this:

1) I state an idea, theory or proposed framework for describing the logical relationships that make up a system, simply because it makes sense to me subjectively,
2) The TeFi type insists that I provide objective evidence and empirical backing for this idea before it can be taken seriously,
3) I get pissed because my ideas are being attacked.

I know that I am especially bad about #3, but it's only just recently occurred to me why: Ti types are attached to their logical frameworks in exactly the same way Fi types are attached to their personal values: When you attack them, you attack the user's very sense of identity.

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 :D ) 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... :)
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
can someone give me an example of well-developed Ti in action, describing their internal processing?

so what am i left with? if i want to make my point, i have to argue the other person into a hole using Te until they will consider what i'm saying. it sucks for everyone, honestly, but sometimes i feel like my idea really is that important. fortunately, living in a house with three FeTi types and no other TeFi types, i've honed my Te quite well - even if it is still a brute force weapon, it's a nice shiny nightstick. no unwieldy, dirty club for me. :D

Yeah, My Te doesnt feel like a hammer either. It can be blunt, when I am under massive stress but not brutal.

^I would say of course they're based on observation..

Some people might get caught in a Fi-Ni or Fi-Si loop and seem less...relevant or easy to relate to.. (or something), but I think both Ne and Se helps round many Fi types out, if they really use them. And you can't use them without being in the world somewhat, and observing things. You can't be Se or even Ne without looking outside yourself. Some of us introverts might be too introverted for our own good at times, and just sit on a chair indoors with our ideals/values/Fi, but if they did that for too long, they might as well not even call themselves Ne or Se. Because they're observation is barely existent (or rather, applied indirectly), where Ne or Se is playing almost a third role, instead of secondary. At a certain point, people need data, and over time, that fleshes things out, and Fi isn't just coming out of nowhere, but out of experience, and observations on what works (as they see them).

Well, with Ti, it's like I have absorbed all the "rules" of the world around me, to create an internal model, and I understand it will work.. as long as the data I have processed is representative of the actual world. So I can look at a situation and almost immediately see the state of the entire system now, it's probable appearance a short ways into the future, and make reasonable predictions about it in the future... although as more and more time passes and more chaos has a chance to filter in (or more chance for any inherent errors in my view to magnify), I grow less and less certain of the specifics of my expected outcome.
.

I think Kdude is correct...although I'd love to hear more about his FiSe perspective. Many Fi users feel internal pain at seeing others in pain. We react to quell that pain...but we store that event as "wrong". If you start recording these events very young, you can determine what is wrong or right, based upon what causes pain or happiness in those around you. Many times these moral values will approach Fe social norms, but sometimes you stumble across odd ones due to our personalized experience.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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 :D ) 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... :)

I answered this in a new thread here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/34290-tife-vs-fite-practice-sim-jaguar.html#post1288012


EDIT: Nevermind, mods deleted it.

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

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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:

uumlau said:
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...?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

What about you?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
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 :coffee:
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I think all functions can be subjective and objective.

Bingo was his name-o! :D

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.

What about you?

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! :D

V and Stevo!
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
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.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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:

Zarathustra said:
You lost me once you called Se "wise"... :newwink:

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?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Last edited:
Top