Fi vs. Ti (thanks to Virginia Woolf)

[KDude]

So I don't think the inferior is *always* "unproductive."

Apparently it isn't when it comes to concerns that don't conflict with other interests. So yeah, I goofed up by saying that. That's a point made in Quenk's book too. Like an ETJ may wind down at home and write all of their friends sentimental Christmas cards that'd make an IFP blush. I'm sure as we get older too, things branch out in ways that affect others productively as well. Like instead of just writing cards for friends, an ETJ might go above and beyond in helping others.. even become philanthropists.

 

[Thalassa]

Apparently it isn't when it comes to concerns that don't conflict with other interests. So yeah, I goofed up by saying that. That's a point made in Quenk's book too. Like an ETJ may wind down at home and write all of their friends sentimental Christmas cards that'd make an IFP blush. I'm sure as we get older too, things branch out in ways that affect others productively as well. Like instead of just writing cards for friends, an ETJ might go above and beyond in helping others.. even become philanthropists.

Sure, it will be used for more personal pursuits, like my Si. My Si has made me more aware of things like nutrition, and internal bodily states. My Si could even eventually earn income for me in the forum of inspiration for writing. But my Si is never going to enjoy looking up facts for a tedious essay or article, it's never going to make me "tidy" and I'm never going to care if a picture is crooked. I'm never.gonna.fucking.care. Don't ask me to detail work. I'll miss a spot, and I'll probably try to sneak out the back door to get away. I am essentially haphazard, weirdly enough, with all of my habits and rituals, they're acclimated to my internal time, not a set schedule or anyone's idea of "normal."

Same with ETJ. They have that inferior Fi, sure, but early in life ethics aren't going to be their hugest priority... and when I'm all emotional about something, instead of trying to comfort me in some emotional way, they're gonna go "look: A. B. C....no big deal." That's great though, to get grounded in your Te by a mature TJ if you're being all emo, god it's great. It's bad with immature TJ who is wielding their own Fi issues at you, then you just might choke each other...

OR ISJ in my case, with inferior Si. They have inferior Ne...and it often looks like them randomly being silly or pondering philosophical or even very strange things...but how are ISJs productive with that Ne? That's what I want to know. I'm very curious about that, actually. It must serve some purpose for them as they grow older.

Sorry, MacGuffin. He's probably asking a moderator for a thread split even as I type this...

 

[KDude]

Sure, it will be used for more personal pursuits, like my Si. My Si has made me more aware of things like nutrition, and internal bodily states. My Si could even eventually earn income for me in the forum of inspiration for writing. But my Si is never going to enjoy looking up facts for a tedious essay or article, it's never going to make me "tidy" and I'm never going to care if a picture is crooked. I'm never.gonna.fucking.care. Don't ask me to detail work. I'll miss a spot, and I'll probably try to sneak out the back door to get away.

Your Si sounds like mine. I'm definitely not using it on the physical environment very much. Nor do I want detailed oriented work. I am detail oriented in going through information and trying to build better "holistic" views, I guess. I think it helps in trying to bridge gaps, or building illustrations or metaphors. It helps me recall things to keep adding in (uh.. or maybe that's Ne ). I don't want to present ideas that seem too random. I'm more idealistic. I like it when things "click" and snap together well. That all said, I'm still searching too.

 

[Southern Kross]

This discussion has been really interesting but I think we should stop derailing poor MacGuffin's thread and get back on topic. So I have some questions for the Ti-users in relation to what we've been discussing:

How do Ti-users come to their evaluative conclusions? How does this differ to Te? How do you feel about Te-style judgments on their subjective reasoning? To what degree are you personally invested in your logic? How do you justify subjective logic in world where quantifiable, empirical data is more valued?

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ don't worry, McMuffin loves it, he provides the ingredients and we make the sandwich ...

 

[KDude]

This discussion has been really interesting but I think we should stop derailing poor MacGuffin's thread and get back on topic. So I have some questions for the Ti-users in relation to what we've been discussing:

How do Ti-users come to their evaluative conclusions? How does this differ to Te? How do you feel about Te-style judgments on their subjective reasoning? To what degree are you personally invested in your logic? How do you justify subjective logic in world where quantifiable, empirical data is more valued?

In a way, it is on topic though. I find "versus" discussions kind of unhelpful and derailing of the wider issues myself. None of these functions work in isolation, as has been stated (and we all know that anyways). It's on topic somewhat though because the issue in question is how Fi types balance their perceptions and judgements. It's not about who's more objective or subjective. I could criticize Ti doms for not being open with a lot of "people issues", but even they have ways of understanding the world more than just through their dominant preference.

 

[Southern Kross]

In a way, it is on topic though.

In a way yes but we've managed to make it all about Fi/Te. A little balance would be good. The Ti-ers need to be grilled too!

 

[skylights]

it's the typical Fe/Ti - Fi/Te conversational pattern when discussing F matters. Fe/Ti grills, Fi/Te spills.

i am curious about Ti subjective objectivity. how it is objective. i acknowledge that it is, but i don't really understand it. Fi makes sense, it's internal and illogical. what is logic without empiricism? where does this sense of logic come from? how do you know when something is illogical?

 

[Kalach]

In short: there are two different definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ coming into play here, when saying Te is 2x as ‘objective’ and Fi is 2x as ‘subjective’.

Both Fi and Ti are at the affect of ‘subjective’ truth- according to the first definition of ‘subjective’ listed above (individual experiences information as ‘true’, regardless of whether or not other individuals do). AND both Ti and Fi are ultimately aimed at seeking a ‘truth’ that can be considered as such collectively. BUT Ti seeks ‘objective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’ while Fi ‘subjective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’.

(Now that I actually read it, I have some questions...)

What's "collective" doing in there, again? I'd really want to say if a truth is measured by number of people attached to it, then it isn't ever going to be objective. But that's just me not subscribing to Fe. See, the above description seems heavily influenced by Fe inasmuch as the outer world is (apparently) taken to be formally (genuinely, objectively) organised by actual, existent, not determinate but definitely witnessable and countable, relationships between people. I, naturally, would demur. I would understand the outer world as formally, genuinely, objectively [etc etc etc] by processes and things viewed impersonally.

I'd really prefer to say that Ti gets to be "objective" by virtue of withdrawing from the contingencies and exigencies of the outer world. The objectivity in question is (Jungian subjectivity and) the result of determinedly NOT taking objective human relationships into account. The Ti thinker--when thinkering--is not swayed toward harmony or the fudging of statements to respect other people's feelings.

Fi would end up with a similar "objectivity". The Fi person describes universal values by virtue of actively removing the influence of objective external processes. The "values" become applicable universally. They're "objectively" right.


Plausibly we have here a description of why introversion isn't a sickness. All versions of introversion do something of value. Actually, that's it, isn't it? Ti is objective precisely because it's a process of thought that removes itself from the external world. But it doesn't delve into a moribund inner sickness. Rather it extracts information and processes judgement, free from the restriction of the immediate environment.

 

[MacGuffin]

it's the typical Fe/Ti - Fi/Te conversational pattern when discussing F matters. Fe/Ti grills, Fi/Te spills.

i am curious about Ti subjective objectivity. how it is objective. i acknowledge that it is, but i don't really understand it. Fi makes sense, it's internal and illogical. what is logic without empiricism? where does this sense of logic come from? how do you know when something is illogical?

Logic is simply a tool, you learn to use it like any other tool. Ti users seemingly are attracted to it at an early age - observing causality in real life.

If X then Y.

 

[KDude]

I think both Ti and Fi are kind of applying the theoretical and/or internal on to the world. I don't know where objective or subjective really begins in any of them. Se could be perceiving the objective potentials of a given situation, but they might use Ti to leverage it in a new way. Ni might see potentials as well, but control how they enact it with a utilitarian Te outlook.. just using whatever outside options are available, as they are.

Someone else could probably articulate it better.

 

[Cybin]

By definition, extraverted functions are objective, introverted are subjective. E: focused toward the object, away from self I: vise versa.

 

[skylights]

Logic is simply a tool, you learn to use it like any other tool. Ti users seemingly are attracted to it at an early age - observing causality in real life.

If X then Y.

lol, that's it? consistent if x then y?

it seems easy. but then i try to translate into advanced Ti skills like diagnostics and i get confuzed.

 

[MacGuffin]

lol, that's it? consistent if x then y?

it seems easy. but then i try to translate into advanced Ti skills like diagnostics and i get confuzed.

That's the foundation for all logic.

Don't worry, just start talking about "feeling tones" and confuse all the Ti-users.

 

[INTPness]

You can't get mad at someone else because they're not perfect like you thought they were. All this does is reinforce FP paranoia about needing to be perfect anyway - it's like the worst nightmare to have our suspicions confirmed that we need to be perfect to deserve love or whatever. What I'm hearing here is FPs shouldn't get as much slack because we have high standards we strive to live up to - but because you expect others to let you down, then they're not as hurtful when the do? That's really weird to me....

That's not what I was implying at all. It's not that I hold FP's to a higher standard than non-FP's. It's that I "learn" from their frequent good behavior (let's say that I become "conditioned") that they are "do gooders" who don't want to hurt people - who genuinely want the best for the people they profess to care about. Where you misunderstood me is that I don't put the onus on the INFP to "continue being perfect". They're human and I'm smart enough to understand that. What I was saying is that, because of their good hearts and character, I sort of come to believe that they would never hurt me (at least not in a major, dealbreaking, OMG I can't believe you did that kind of way). And then when it happens, it hurts more - simply because of the shock factor or the surpise element. It's obviously an issue with me, but when you're young and haven't met a lot of FP's, well, you still have some learning to do when it comes to people.

It's like if your loved one is always home from work at the same time every day, without fail. And you get to a point where you just know them like the back of your hand. You know that they will be home every day at that same time. And then one day, out of the blue, they are late. And you know something is wrong. Something must have gone wrong or happened because it's SO out of character for them.

So, FP's have the same "room for error" in my personal "book of judgment", but after you learn one thing from a person over and over and then they suddenly show a different hand one day, it can produce some serious shock value. Like if you had an INTP friend who was insanely good at math. Every time you needed help with math, he knew the answer. Then one day you were like, "How much of a tip should I leave?" And he was like, "Heck if I know. Figure it out yourself!"

It's a surprise because it goes against the behavior that he has shown repeatedly, over and over, in the past. That's all. It doesn't mean that he is REQUIRED to help you with math or that the FP is REQUIRED to be a perfect person. It's just about the shock that it produces because it's so sudden and seemingly out of character.