The difference between T and F

[Viridian]

It means that Feelers primarily give value preference to ethics/morals and relationships with people, sometimes via feelings yet this should not be confused with making feelings based upon "emotion" though it can happen.

Thinkers primarily give value preference to logic and rational detachment, to systems and ideas and getting things done rather than necessarily through relationships with people...but it's readily apparent that Thinkers get carried away with their emotions in certain situations, or when discussing certain topics, and they can have ethics and morals, too, of course.

There's nothing scarier to me than a Thinker who thinks they're being rational when they're not, and who denies getting carried away with their feelings in some discussions. Seriously - it creeps me the fuck out. How do you reason with someone like that? At least Feelers will usually admit they make decisions based upon morals and ethics, and occasionally feelings, giving priority to relationships, and generally use logic as a tool of support for the broader framework.

For example, I make most life decisions with human concerns and ethical concerns in mind. But I also use Te to make decisions about "what works" and when weighing my ethics against "what works"...realizing that justice and systems of law work better than always being merciful, etc.

As an ENFP, I certainly have a baby STJ inside of me who likes to collect facts. But that's my secondary concern, rather than my primary. A healthy individual becomes more balanced as they age.

Also, I noticed that Arclight put this all quite simply and correctly.

It should be noted, though, that Feeling is not always merciful - some unhealthy Feelers can surprise both Ts and Fs by how petty they are. (Not that Ts can't be petty, especially if Feeling is neglected enough to become moldy and rotten inside them.)

I'd say a good distinction is that Ts tend to become contentious in matters of systems and strategy ("Your plan will doom the entire company!") while Fs tend to become contentious in matters of relationships and feelings ("You are being abusive!"). Ts can also fulfill a "caretaker" or "crusader" role, though they will focus on less personal aspects ("tough love", learning to be diligent and put effort into your work / subverting the system in order to create a new paradigm).

That sound right?

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Now we're finally making some progress.

Thank you for acknowledging my hard word. It took some determination and time, but I solved it.

 

[Thalassa]

It should be noted, though, that Feeling is not always merciful - some unhealthy Feelers can surprise both Ts and Fs by how petty they are. (Not that Ts can't be petty, especially if Feeling is neglected enough to become moldy and rotten inside them.)

I'd say a good distinction is that Ts tend to become contentious in matters of systems and strategy ("Your plan will doom the entire company!") while Fs tend to become contentious in matters of relationships and feelings ("You are being abusive!"). Ts can also fulfill a "caretaker" or "crusader" role, though they will focus on less personal aspects ("tough love", learning to be diligent and put effort into your work / subverting the system in order to create a new paradigm).

That sound right?

Meh, I was describing how I personally use Te for law-related logical thinking in terms of justice. Ethically these things are my concern because of my Fi, but the practical and effective details of how this should (or does) happen in society is Te, and probably more specifically Te/Si, which is probably why I'm comforted by the *idea* of ISTJ structure and order...but anyway, Te is my basis for justice.

I actually think justice may be the J/P dichotomy, so either Te or Fe would cause a person to value justice. The "petty justice" you speak of, sounds like you might be complaining specifically about Si/Fe or Fe/Si notions of justice in people who aren't using their Ti very well, or who aren't very broad-minded or intelligent. I think you must be referring to the ESFJ who wants people to beat up gays or something, that kind of shocking irrational "petty justice." HOWEVER, it is important to point out that not all SFJs are petty that way, especially if they are more intelligent and also use their Ti to balance their Si/Fe notions of "right" and "wrong." I want to clarify this because I love me some SFJs, and don't mean to pick on them, I just think *the particular type of petty justice* you speak of is most commonly found in unhealthy SFJs or SFJs who don't have proper Ti development.

Just wanted to clear that up, I wasn't implying that all Feelers are merciful and all Thinkers are hell-bent on justice, but that Te and Fe give us notions of justice, and in me I beleive it's more related to Te, which can seem very harsh and exacting to certain people.

I agree with your second paragraph, yes.

 

[entropie]

Around 1933 - 1945 there has been a nation of intelligent, highly organized and efficient people whio beat up gay people and killed them with another 6 million of innocents.

Doesnt work for me to think Te or Ti is justice

 

[Viridian]

Meh, I was describing how I personally use Te for law-related logical thinking in terms of justice. Ethically these things are my concern because of my Fi, but the practical and effective details of how this should (or does) happen in society is Te, and probably more specifically Te/Si, which is probably why I'm comforted by the *idea* of ISTJ structure and order...but anyway, Te is my basis for justice.

I actually think justice may be the J/P dichotomy, so either Te or Fe would cause a person to value justice. The "petty justice" you speak of, sounds like you might be complaining specifically about Si/Fe or Fe/Si notions of justice in people who aren't using their Ti very well, or who aren't very broad-minded or intelligent. I think you must be referring to the ESFJ who wants people to beat up gays or something, that kind of shocking irrational "petty justice." HOWEVER, it is important to point out that not all SFJs are petty that way, especially if they are more intelligent and also use their Ti to balance their Si/Fe notions of "right" and "wrong." I want to clarify this because I love me some SFJs, and don't mean to pick on them, I just think *the particular type of petty justice* you speak of is most commonly found in unhealthy SFJs or SFJs who don't have proper Ti development.

Just wanted to clear that up, I wasn't implying that all Feelers are merciful and all Thinkers are hell-bent on justice, but that Te and Fe give us notions of justice, and in me I beleive it's more related to Te, which can seem very harsh and exacting to certain people.

I agree with your second paragraph, yes.

Well, I wasn't talking about SFJs... I meant more along the lines of things like spite and revenge. Even Fi types sometimes get hell-bent on causing deep hurt for the sake of satisfying a more bitter side of them, or so I hear. You sometimes see INFPs, who are usually easygoing (or brooding yet tolerant), suddenly getting very bitter toward someone who has messed with them or with someone or something they value deeply. (INFJs can also be quite ruthless, especially when Ni takes over, but that's another story. )

 

[Thalassa]

Well, I wasn't talking about SFJs... I meant more along the lines of things like spite and revenge. Even Fi types sometimes get hell-bent on causing deep hurt for the sake of satisfying a more bitter side of them, or so I hear. You sometimes see INFPs, who are usually easygoing (or brooding yet tolerant), suddenly getting very bitter toward someone who has messed with them or with someone or something they value deeply. (INFJs can also be quite ruthless, especially when Ni takes over, but that's another story. )

We're not talking about emotional vengeance, we're talking about personal ideas of justice. Vengeance is always petty and emotional, it's individualized, no matter who is doing it. It's not especially ethical or logical.

HOWEVER, for example, someone with Si/Fe may have been taught that homosexuality is inherently socially wrong, and they may believe that they are bringing justice to the world and eradicating evil by hurting gays....which isn't really logical, but it follows a particular Fe ethical norm, and they act out in violence to get the homosexual person (or use that person as an example to other homosexuals) to conform to their Fe norm. In their minds, this is social justice. It is not "vengeance" because it is not necessarily personal, and it is usually based upon a learned Fe social ethic. Therefore, it is a form of justice in their minds - but when viewed by a more rational person it is a petty justice that is PURELY based on a set of Fe ethics, not on Te logic at all.

Te justice is more concerned with "what works." Te justice is more concerned with a logical system of justice that is efficient and effective. Te justice tends to be more associated with government or military than religious or other philosophical groups. It is a working form of justice that serves to keep society running smoothly. Or is supposed to. For example, I might think child rapists should be put to death if I simply judge it with my Fi, but my Te says "is that effective? is that logical? what is the most rational way to either rehabilitate child rapists or keep them away from hurting others? what is the most cost effective way to do this?" etc.

 

[Thalassa]

I should also add here that I only used that example to illustrate how Fe and Te can relate to justice. I know an ISFJ who thinks that people who hate gays are complete dickbags and should be locked away, so clearly all SFJs don't have this Fe ethic, nor would they act on their ethics, whatever they were, in such an irrational manner if they had more Ti development.

Paint throwing PETA vegans and straight edge punks who beat up smokers are another case of something that seems like Fe "justice" gone horribly awry without proper balance of Ti...it can't be "vengeance" because it's a higher form of Fe social justice, it's not personal or individualized.

And Te justice, though logical, isn't always fantastic, either. Te can get so concerned with "effective" and "efficient" that they blindly start adhering to technical rules at the expense of human well-being, too.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Viridian]

We're not talking about emotional vengeance, we're talking about personal ideas of justice. Vengeance is always petty and emotional, it's individualized, no matter who is doing it. It's not especially ethical or logical.

HOWEVER, for example, someone with Si/Fe may have been taught that homosexuality is inherently socially wrong, and they may believe that they are bringing justice to the world and eradicating evil by hurting gays....which isn't really logical, but it follows a particular Fe ethical norm, and they act out in violence to get the homosexual person (or use that person as an example to other homosexuals) to conform to their Fe norm. In their minds, this is social justice. It is not "vengeance" because it is not necessarily personal, and it is usually based upon a learned Fe social ethic. Therefore, it is a form of justice in their minds - but when viewed by a more rational person it is a petty justice that is PURELY based on a set of Fe ethics, not on Te logic at all.

Te justice is more concerned with "what works." Te justice is more concerned with a logical system of justice that is efficient and effective. Te justice tends to be more associated with government or military than religious or other philosophical groups. It is a working form of justice that serves to keep society running smoothly. Or is supposed to. For example, I might think child rapists should be put to death if I simply judge it with my Fi, but my Te says "is that effective? is that logical? what is the most rational way to either rehabilitate child rapists or keep them away from hurting others? what is the most cost effective way to do this?" etc.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you. I do agree that Je functions are largely responsible for the construction of a justice system, since they are "objective", that is, concerned with the "common denominator" such as laws and rules. The rule of law is a very Te concept, which is pretty ironic, considering quite a few dictators were TJ types.

Sorry if I sounded contentious.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Does my sig help distinguish the difference?

Here (in case I change my sig any time soon):

What is Feeling?

* Feeling is primarily a process.....that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection.
* In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value.
* Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason...

(Carl Jung, Psychological Types, Chapter XI - Definitions)

 

[Thalassa]

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you. I do agree that Je functions are largely responsible for the construction of a justice system, since they are "objective", that is, concerned with the "common denominator" such as laws and rules. The rule of law is a very Te concept, which is pretty ironic, considering quite a few dictators were TJ types.

Sorry if I sounded contentious.

It's okay you didn't sound contentious, I was just clarifying what I meant. The fact that TJs have an occasional propensity to become dictators is actually not at all ironic. It's Te gone crazy bad - control freaky, systematic, and obsessed with rigid structural law, even to the expense of human life and/or basic human rights.

Fe can do it, too, just for a different motive. Like Hitler was NFJ, not TJ, because he was driven by what he saw as a collective "moral" vision for the country of Germany, his race, and apparently he also thought he was getting justice on the Jewish people for crucifying Christ. Needless to say, homeboy was insane, but I'm just pointing out that both an ExFJ and a TJ could be dictators, but they would have different motives and methodoligies.

Also, I think an ENFP could become a crazy activist (Fi with immature Te) but the reason why I used the PETA and extremist straight-edge examples as Fe justice gone awry is because they tend to act as an organized group of people with a common purpose of publicly shaming or "punishing" people for breaking their group's moral code.

 

[Randomnity]

One is smart, and one has social skills.


I won't tell you which is which, though.

 

[Thalassa]

One is smart, and one has social skills.

I hope you're joking.

 

[Eric B]

ah, interesting, well then maybe im a T in disguise then, as "If I don't cut costs in the company, then the company will go under, and we'll ALL be unemployed." is exactly the thought process id use,lol... Id just feel bad for the person I let go...and I think a T if they liked the person would as well most likely.

That doesn't make you a T; if you're an auxiliary F; it's likely then tertiary T. That has to be taken into consideration too. And a personal concern can always be operating uder that. What determines the preference is what is the starting point or focus.
The point there was, that did seem a more "technical" concern moreso than "personal".

 

[Randomnity]

would I joke about such a serious matter?




cheese

 

[Thalassa]

Around 1933 - 1945 there has been a nation of intelligent, highly organized and efficient people whio beat up gay people and killed them with another 6 million of innocents.

Doesnt work for me to think Te or Ti is justice

That's because that's a horrendous form of Fe "justice" which I already explained.

 

[Kaveri]

Let's say you own a family business.

[...]

The "T" will likely get rid of #1 - he is concerned with efficiency and the "bottom line" - he simply compares the productivity of the 2 individuals and it's easy to see who is more productive. The truth of the matter is plain to see: the older guy is costing the company money. The younger guy is making money for the company. Therefore, the older guy has to go.

The "F" will likely get rid of #2 - they will reason that the younger guy can easily get a job somewhere else and do well in his career. He has no burdensome financial obligations, no children to feed/put through college, no house payment, etc. Plus, the older guy has been such a loyal and true employee over the years - it wouldn't be fair to just throw him on the street now that he is close to retirement. He was loyal to the company, now the company has an obligation to be loyal to him.

I would be tempted to get rid of #2. I would get rid of #1 only if I believed that the company couldn't survive if I didn't fire him. But if it seemed likely that the company (and I) could get by with a little less profit, I would fire #2 to keep #1.

The "T" will likely get rid of #1 - he is concerned with efficiency and the "bottom line"

This is an interesting way to put it. I think that the bottom line in life in general is to make life a little more enjoyable for everyone. I wouldn't want some petty game like making maximum profit come before this ideal. I want to make money to live nicely, not live to make money nicely. If that maikes me an F, then are Ts people who don't think about things like what's really valuable in life at all? Are they unable to prioritise if all they can think about is winning games?

Of course, it wasn't clear in the example whether the choice was about maximum profit vs lesser profit or lesser profit vs the company going down. If it was between maximum profit and lesser profit, then I would keep the old friend. Otherwise, I'd have to fire him but in that case I'd surely explain to him that it's nothing personal and I would also help him find another job (if I had time) if he still wanted to find a new job.

Edit: It'd be a really tough decision if it seemed something like 60-80% probable that the company survives with the old guy but 20-40% probable that the company will go down if I keep him, even with the best efforts. So perhaps the correct answer to this dilemma is that a true Feeler would choose to keep the old guy even if the likelihood of the company surviving was less than 50%? Or something? :x And the less the probability has to be for someone, the more F they are. I wonder what the "turning point" between T and F would be, though? Would it still be a more Feelerish decision to keep the old guy with a 75% chance that it works?

I honestly don't know what probability would convince me to keep him. It's hard to predict one's own behaviour in such a complicated and possibly stressful scenario. It's possible that I'd still fire him with an estimated 85% percent chance of the company surviving with him, if I really didn't like the idea of finding another job for myself in that situation.

 

[Kaveri]

One is smart, and one has social skills.


I won't tell you which is which, though.

I think you're talking about the difference between introversion and extraversion here.

 

[Randomnity]

It's a multi-purpose theory!

 

[entropie]

That's because that's a horrendous form of Fe "justice" which I already explained.

Wait you are bending the organized killing of jews into being a form of horrendous Fe "justice". Aint that way far out ?

 

[Orangey]

Wait you are bending the organized killing of jews into being a form of horrendous Fe "justice". Aint that way far out ?

Yes, that is indeed way far out.