Fi vs. Ti (thanks to Virginia Woolf)

[MacGuffin]

Sometimes I see people struggling with the difference between these two functions (usually the infamous INxPs). Both are subjective rational functions, but their orientation is different. Fi seeks to come to a subjective conclusion (subjective-subjective) but Ti seeks to come to an objective conclusion (subjective-objective).

I was reading about Virgina Woolf's To the Lighthouse (which, TBH, kinda bored me even with the fantastic writing), and the artist in the story at the conclusion betrays a Fi mindset (I suspect Woolf herself to be INFP as well). To quote wikipedia: "...she realizes that the execution of her vision is more important to her than the idea of leaving some sort of legacy in her work."

In short, Fi seeks to come to a conclusion/understanding that the person agrees with personally. It is congruent with their ideals and sense of themselves. The "right" answer. Ti, on the other hand, seeks to come to a conclusion/understanding that is accurate. It is also "right", but in a different sense. The end result may be something the Ti-user finds disagreeable, but it is what it is. The conclusion has to stand separate from the person, much like the "legacy" in the quote above. Ideals and personal wishes are irrelevant.

Thoughts?

 

[Stanton Moore]

Define 'accurate'. thx

 

[Totenkindly]

In short, Fi seeks to come to a conclusion/understanding that the person agrees with personally. It is congruent with their ideals and sense of themselves. The "right" answer. Ti, on the other hand, seeks to come to a conclusion/understanding that is accurate. It is also "right", but in a different sense. The end result may be something the Ti-user finds disagreeable, but it is what it is. The conclusion has to stand separate from the person, much like the "legacy" in the quote above. Ideals and personal wishes are irrelevant. Thoughts?

Well, flip it the WHOLE way.

You're saying Fi comes to an understand that they agree with personally, even if they don't like that it might seem inconsistent with the accumulated external/world detail. Right? And then Ti would be the opposite? They might dislike the answer, but have to go with what seems consistent with the actual data?

It's like whatever is "grounding" the beliefs are located in different spheres.

 

[ThatGirl]

I don't understand how the two could be confused at all.

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, I can see that. For Fi, the right answer has to be in accordance with the values that matter. For Ti, it's looking at what is in accordance with the logic that matters.

Both can be somewhat subjective, I think (depends on how you spin logic?), but I think that Ti seems more concerned that it is not just "right" for them, but that it is right from a measurable and provable standpoint. (Perhaps their measure or their starting points can be a little subjective though?) Accuracy of thought is very important to Ti users, which is why they often tend to care more about whether what the other person is saying is true over whether or not they like that truth. I also think it is why Ti users tend to use a lot of qualifiers in the the statements they make. My Ti perceptions may be different though than a dom or aux Ti user's.

On the other hand, I think Fi would also argue that the conclusions they come to are also The Truth. However I think they would be more okay with knowing that truth, without worrying about how to prove it to someone else in a quantifiable manner. It is about finding truth in matters of feeling and that is difficult to conclusively prove to anybody but oneself, even if the Fi user feels that the principle is more universal than that. I have a harder time talking about it from this perspective, simply because I'm not in their heads, so if I'm grossly mistaken, my apologies.

I'm kind of thinking aloud as I write, but that's how it seems to me on first glance.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I have not seen many logical conclusions that don't contain subjective assumptions, so I can see why people can't easily tell the difference.

 

[INTPness]

I "think" that I relate to what MacGuffin is saying about Ti. Where his description resonates is that let's say I have a vision of what I'd like to accomplish (starting a business, etc.). I'll set out to do it often with this sort of "dreamy vision" of all the great things it could be. But, when it actually comes down to it, I know that ultimately I have to do it "right", rather than the way I envisioned it. Ideally, the way I envisioned it would match up perfectly with the reality of it (the actual implementation of it), but that's not always the case. I'm trying to think of an example, but it's not really coming to me. OK, here's one. I started a job and one of the reasons I took it (one of the MAJOR factors) was because I was given a certain level of freedom to create my own hours. That's huge to me. It frees me up to come and go as I need to and to work on other things when I need to, etc. So, subjectively, this looked like a good position for me to take. But, after taking the job, the reality of the situation was this: objectively, setting my own hours didn't really work that well. Even though I was given freedom to come and go, I found that I could not do the job nearly as good this way. People were constantly needing my help and I wouldn't be available - they'd have to check back with me the next day - it just wasn't efficient and it wasn't allowing me to good at my job.

So, ideally, I would *love* to be able to come and go as I please and work on things *when I want to work on them* - whether that be Saturday night at 11pm or Tuesday morning at 4:30am. But, objectively, I know this isn't the best way to be successful in the position. So, even though I took the job, in large part, because of the freedom it would provide and even though I'd love to continue to *take that freedom*, objectively, I know that it's not the best way, it's not the *right way* - at least not for this specific job. It just doesn't work out as well that way. People get frustrated, it alienates people (they always have to wait until tomorrow when they see me again, etc.).

So, I had to give up my subjective ideal in order to do it *the right way* - the way that works best for everyone involved.

 

[skylights]

imo:

Te uses an external, consistent ruler. its units are based upon elements outside the self, and the distances between units don't change.

Ti uses an internal, consistent ruler. the units are based upon measurements decided upon within the self, but the distances between units do not change.

Fe uses an inconsistent ruler agreed upon externally - the distances between units can change based on people, and the units are based on external elements.

Fi uses an internal, inconsistent ruler - it also changes to meet people, but the units are adjusted internally.

they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Te is completely objective; Ti is the master of formulation of systems. Fe is good at handling people externally; Fi can adapt to meet people internally.

 

[MacGuffin]

I "think" that I relate to what MacGuffin is saying about Ti.

I feel you, brah.

Well, flip it the WHOLE way.

You're saying Fi comes to an understand that they agree with personally, even if they don't like that it might seem inconsistent with the accumulated external/world detail. Right? And then Ti would be the opposite? They might dislike the answer, but have to go with what seems consistent with the actual data?

It's like whatever is "grounding" the beliefs are located in different spheres.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

Both start from a subjective (internal view according to Jung) perspective. Fi tries to make the conclusion congruent with internal values, Ti tries to make it congruent with external values.

"I have made something about myself" vs. "I have made something regardless of myself".

 

[MacGuffin]

imo:
Te uses a consistent ruler agreed upon externally. the distances between units don't change.
Fe uses an inconsistent ruler agreed upon externally - the distances between units can change based on people.
Fi uses an internal, inconsistent ruler.
Ti uses an internal, consistent ruler.

That's pretty good too.

 

[uumlau]

Yeah, I can see that. For Fi, the right answer has to be in accordance with the values that matter. For Ti, it's looking at what is in accordance with the logic that matters.

Except that one could argue the same for Te/Fe.

Both can be somewhat subjective, I think (depends on how you spin logic?), but I think that Ti seems more concerned that it is not just "right" for them, but that it is right from a measurable and provable standpoint. (Perhaps their measure or their starting points can be a little subjective though?) Accuracy of thought is very important to Ti users, which is why they often tend to care more about whether what the other person is saying is true over whether or not they like that truth. I also think it is why Ti users tend to use a lot of qualifiers in the the statements they make. My Ti perceptions may be different though than a dom or aux Ti user's.

The bolded is the Achilles' heel of Ti. Is one's subjective impression of what is true based on personal preference or a desire for truth in spite of not liking truth? Subjectively, it's actually difficult to differentiate. Einstein really didn't like quantum mechanics in any of its formulations, in spite of his contributions to the field, because it didn't fit in with everything else he knew to be true. There is always, in the end, a subjective certainty that certain things are true, and in a rigorous Ti framework, this necessarily precludes other truths that simply don't fit in the framework. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. The remaining 1% of the time, there is something that needs unlearning.

On the other hand, I think Fi would also argue that the conclusions they come to are also The Truth. However I think they would be more okay with knowing that truth, without worrying about how to prove it to someone else in a quantifiable manner. It is about finding truth in matters of feeling and that is difficult to conclusively prove to anybody but oneself, even if the Fi user feels that the principle is more universal than that. I have a harder time talking about it from this perspective, simply because I'm not in their heads, so if I'm grossly mistaken, my apologies.

Note PB's precision in discussing Fi matters. She doesn't give up on trying to demonstrate truths, but it's difficult for those who aren't already on the same page to catch up and understand what she's getting at. And while these truths might be described as "values" and "subjective," they can be every bit as true as a Ti-style logical framework. At the highest level, it isn't about feelings or idealistic principles, but wisdom, the truths that don't reduce to logical syllogisms.

(Fe has a similar access to the same Fi truths, but apply them in a more hands-on practical way.)

 

[iwakar]

imo:

Te uses an external, consistent ruler. its units are based upon elements outside the self, and the distances between units don't change.

Ti uses an internal, consistent ruler. the units are based upon measurements decided upon within the self, but the distances between units do not change.

Fe uses an inconsistent ruler agreed upon externally - the distances between units can change based on people, and the units are based on external elements.

Fi uses an internal, inconsistent ruler - it also changes to meet people, but the units are adjusted internally.

they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Te is completely objective; Ti is the master of formulation of systems. Fe is good at handling people externally; Fi can adapt to meet people internally.

Excellent!

 

[wolfy]

I notice what I would define as Fi values in myself most when I come across something new. And I notice how I need to fit it in amongst all the other values in me. Personal values. Like having to fit new scaffolding in amongst an already established framework and having it remain strong. That seems like it would fit in with what you are saying.

 

[Athenian200]

imo:

Te uses an external, consistent ruler. its units are based upon elements outside the self, and the distances between units don't change.

Ti uses an internal, consistent ruler. the units are based upon measurements decided upon within the self, but the distances between units do not change.

Fe uses an inconsistent ruler agreed upon externally - the distances between units can change based on people, and the units are based on external elements.

Fi uses an internal, inconsistent ruler - it also changes to meet people, but the units are adjusted internally.

they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Te is completely objective; Ti is the master of formulation of systems. Fe is good at handling people externally; Fi can adapt to meet people internally.

What's amusing is, this description is very close to one that I wrote once about them. Fi is completely subjective, Te is completely objective, and Fe and Ti are somewhere in between.

This problem with this description is that it makes it sound like Te is probably the "best" way of making decisions, while Fi is the worst. Who would want to use a subjectively defined and inconsistent ruler? That sounds like the worst kind. I think it would be better if we could define them in a way that doesn't make Fi come across so badly. It makes Fi seem completely unaccountable to anything except itself. But surely it has to be held to SOME kind of standard... or else, there would be no way of correcting corruption or error in an Fi user's values.

 

[Orangey]

It makes Fi seem completely unaccountable to anything except itself. But surely it has to be held to SOME kind of standard...

Cue somebody telling you that you're imposing your own values onto Fi.

 

[Southern Kross]

I like your distinction McGuffin. I find it very useful and interesting to discuss the functions in relation to one another.

Y On the other hand, I think Fi would also argue that the conclusions they come to are also The Truth. However I think they would be more okay with knowing that truth, without worrying about how to prove it to someone else in a quantifiable manner. It is about finding truth in matters of feeling and that is difficult to conclusively prove to anybody but oneself, even if the Fi user feels that the principle is more universal than that. I have a harder time talking about it from this perspective, simply because I'm not in their heads, so if I'm grossly mistaken, my apologies.

I'm kind of thinking aloud as I write, but that's how it seems to me on first glance.

Yes this is a great explanation. For INFPs, this is where Ne comes in to fill this gap. The primary way I use Ne is to test and verify my Fi conclusions. This seems to be a backwards way of thinking but it is no different to how Einstein used Ti to come up with theories, and then used Ne to search for possible explanations for them and test their validity. He didn't start with formulae and then manipulate them to uncover new things - he started with instincts, with conclusions, and worked backwards to see how they could make sense.

I started a job and one of the reasons I took it (one of the MAJOR factors) was because I was given a certain level of freedom to create my own hours. That's huge to me. It frees me up to come and go as I need to and to work on other things when I need to, etc. So, subjectively, this looked like a good position for me to take. But, after taking the job, the reality of the situation was this: objectively, setting my own hours didn't really work that well. Even though I was given freedom to come and go, I found that I could not do the job nearly as good this way. People were constantly needing my help and I wouldn't be available - they'd have to check back with me the next day - it just wasn't efficient and it wasn't allowing me to good at my job.

So, ideally, I would *love* to be able to come and go as I please and work on things *when I want to work on them* - whether that be Saturday night at 11pm or Tuesday morning at 4:30am. But, objectively, I know this isn't the best way to be successful in the position. So, even though I took the job, in large part, because of the freedom it would provide and even though I'd love to continue to *take that freedom*, objectively, I know that it's not the best way, it's not the *right way* - at least not for this specific job. It just doesn't work out as well that way. People get frustrated, it alienates people (they always have to wait until tomorrow when they see me again, etc.).

So, I had to give up my subjective ideal in order to do it *the right way* - the way that works best for everyone involved.

This is fascinating because shows the similarities between Fi and Ti. Your thought process is quite familiar (in itself and also because I relate to the situation) yet with some distinctions. There some phrases in particular that stood out:

-"I found that I could not do the job nearly as good this way."
- "it just wasn't efficient and it wasn't allowing me to good at my job"
- "I know this isn't the best way to be successful in the position"
- "...even though I'd love to continue to *take that freedom*, objectively, I know that it's not the best way, it's not the *right way* - at least not for this specific job."

Everything you said I would reasonably say myself if in that situaiton, except the above phrases. You almost remove yourself from the equation where I would be inclined to place myself in the most central role - I would personalise it so much more. I would say things more like:

-"I can't do what is expected of me if I work in this way"
- "I can't trust myself to do my job properly when working from home"
- "I have to accept that it just isn't possible for me to do this job in this way"
- "even though I prefer to work from home, I am letting down others by failing to be there when I am needed"

This problem with this description is that it makes it sound like Te is probably the "best" way of making decisions, while Fi is the worst. Who would want to use a subjectively defined and inconsistent ruler? That sounds like the worst kind. I think it would be better if we could define them in a way that doesn't make Fi come across so badly. It makes Fi seem completely unaccountable to anything except itself. But surely it has to be held to SOME kind of standard... or else, there would be no way of correcting corruption or error in an Fi user's values.

Yes but I don't fault the description. This is a major source of internal conflict for me (and I suspect so for other Fi-doms) and I feel like the description is merely reflection of that.

You do hit upon a great point, though: when looking at the judging functions with some degree of objectivity, the extroverted ones always sound more sensible and rational, and therefore, preferable. It is so difficult to justify subjective reasoning, especially the degree with which Fi uses it. It is frustrating to me because the things I believe really do make sense to me. I don't just magically start believing something - my instincts speak to me the way empirical data speaks to Te. But how on earth can I explain that feeling to someone? I can easily understand them questioning it because, objectively speaking, it makes no sense - I too am distrusting of people who believe something 'just because'. I feel like language betrays me because it can't effectively convey the undefinable inside my head.

I really wish someone would find a way to justify Fi reasoning as valid and rational. All I can really do is point to the great things Fi-doms have contributed to the world; that have spoken to people's souls through music, art, and the written word. The only 'proof' that I can provide is in the degree in which other people strongly respond to the things we communicate.

 

[Amargith]

Note PB's precision in discussing Fi matters. She doesn't give up on trying to demonstrate truths, but it's difficult for those who aren't already on the same page to catch up and understand what she's getting at. And while these truths might be described as "values" and "subjective," they can be every bit as true as a Ti-style logical framework. At the highest level, it isn't about feelings or idealistic principles, but wisdom, the truths that don't reduce to logical syllogisms.

(Fe has a similar access to the same Fi truths, but apply them in a more hands-on practical way.)

It's about finding that wisdom, those universal truths, distilling them as the main guidelines for life, for understanding yourself and how you function, as well as what that entails..aka, who you are.

 

[MacGuffin]

I really wish someone would find a way to justify Fi reasoning as valid and rational. All I can really do is point to the great things Fi-doms have contributed to the world; that have spoken to people's souls through music, art, and the written word. The only 'proof' that I can provide is in the degree in which other people strongly respond to the things we communicate.

Fi is a rational function by definition. All four are, but the motivations for all four are different.

 

[Seymour]

I think it is an ongoing frustration with Fi is that it is the least externalizable of the judging functions. Ti judgments can be separated from their source and evaluated logically, but Fi doesn't have the same advantage. I think that's one reason that Fi doms and auxs focus so much on intent and being genuine. If there are no absolute ways of judging externally, what else do you have to go on? Fe at least has the consensus of social rules and expectations as a starting point for judging (whether the individual Fe user agrees or disagrees with them, at least there is a metric).

I find it also makes Fi users feel somewhat vulnerable when their values or judgments are attacked, since it's difficult to verbalize the reasoning behind the decisions.

 

[Uytuun]

Fi in my experience has access to something grander than the personal, but people always seem to see it as wholly idiosyncratic. It knows "laws" that circulate among us that complement Ti's sensibility for "logic", the expression of both (stereotypically in theory and art) seems to resonate with many.

At the same time, they both operate in a closed system. Ti's closed system is difficult for me. Actually, where does that magic Ti touch lie? It sees past the object (and sometimes loses track of it entirely it seems)...I can see its brilliance, but where is that quality generated? Almost a bodily experience sometimes, it has a heavyness (sumptuousness?) Ni-Te lacks.

But the assumptions of the system, yes, problematic sometimes.