User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Fi and Ti

  1. #11
    Senior Member Chiharu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFp None
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevlisZero View Post
    There seem to be a lot of confused members (like me not too long ago) who aren't sure whether they're INFP or INTP, or more specifically, Fi users or Ti users. I believe it's because the two functions can appear identical on the surface, reaching the same conclusions while the underlying processes involved are different.

    I've found a quote by an INFP (Snail) on INTP Forum that attempts to explain the processes of Fi:



    I'd like to know how other Fi users relate to this description. Please feel free to add to the description, cross out parts that don't fit with you, or even to write your own description.

    I've attempted to write my own version explaining what is (hopefully) Ti's form of reasoning:



    Again, I invite Ti users to critique this description. I am only one INTP, so I'd like to get a more accurate description that encompasses Ti as a whole, rather than just my personal form of reasoning.

    It seems that existing descriptions of Ti and Fi are vague and don't really attempt to explain the processes beneath the surface, which I believe is where the main difference lies. That's why I'd like to create more in-depth and specific descriptions that actually describe the underlying cognitive processes in order to figure out where exactly the line can be drawn between Fi and Ti.
    By this, I'm more of a Ti user... but I'm an ENFP...
    Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness." ― Kurt Vonnegut

    ENFP. 7w6 – 4w3 – 1w9 sx/so. Aries. Dilettante. Overly anxious optimist.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Vizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Hi RevlisZero, I'll take a closer look at your definition of Ti now.

    Quote Originally Posted by RevlisZero View Post
    My reasoning process includes questions such as “What if I were to consider this factor” or “What would be the consequences of such a value”, rather than “How do/should I feel”. If a value is found to have positive implications, it is considered justified. My feelings will usually be subconsciously altered during this process so that they are aligned with the value system.
    I find it interesting that you use "value" here when many others make a point to seperate "(human) values" for Fi and "principles" for Ti. What's your opinion on that?
    5w4
    Reserved RCUEI

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTx
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    237

    Default

    There's a website with cognitive functions that I found here:

    http://vikspiration.vikashan.com/gui...tive-functions


    Here're its descriptions of Fi and Ti:

    Fi: Introverted Feeling: Fi is more irrational, but more passionate than Fe. Fi cares deeply about decisions, and evaluates everything against an internal set of values. Fi may make a decision which inconveniences one party or another, but "means" something to Fi. Fi is all about valuing options against each other, deciding whether or not someting is worth their time.
    Ti: Introverted Thinking: Ti cares about precision, and is often the one who will question an existing framework or model for efficiency and validity. Ti will use new systems or ideas to evaluate their own approach to a subject. Ti insists on knowing how things work, analysing and deconstructing until they are able to explain it. Ti wants to get everything "perfect", an achievement which is defined internally.

    So, Fi compares options against each other with a value system.

    Ti will work to deconstruct something to its fundamental elements and will use a systematic/ideological approach for decision making.
    Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Vizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alakazam View Post
    There's a website with cognitive functions that I found here:

    http://vikspiration.vikashan.com/gui...tive-functions


    Here're its descriptions of Fi and Ti:






    So, Fi compares options against each other with a value system.

    Ti will work to deconstruct something to its fundamental elements and will use a systematic/ideological approach for decision making.
    Would you mind putting these two ways of thinking in a particular scenario/situation?
    5w4
    Reserved RCUEI

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTx
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizzy View Post
    Would you mind putting these two ways of thinking in a particular scenario/situation?
    This is going to be hard. I'm not 100% sure I'll get it down, but it's a challenge and my brain will no longer let me leave it alone.


    I suppose I should approach this from two perspectives: reactions to a simple, non-emotional event and reactions to an emotional event. I'll try to come up with examples from my own life, talk about how I dealt with them (Ti... With a little Te, but I'll focus on the Ti part) and how I'd imagine a Fi would respond. I'd welcome input on this from Fi users!




    Situation A: Impersonal Decision

    I have the choice between two jobs: Job A is one in the IT/Web Management department of the College of Medicine; Job B is a research assistant in my graduate department.

    My approach:

    If I boil Job A down to the fundamental pros/cons, I get this:

    Pros:

    - Future: Growing field (because of departmental transition to iPads, which'll need server support)
    - Career Usefulness: Increase experience base in communications and interconnectivity, something I plan to do in my career
    - Pay: Pays [relatively] well and decreases cost of grad school
    - Work Environment: I know who my boss will be and we are of a similar mindset

    Cons:

    - Career Usefulness: Not DIRECTLY in my field


    Doing the same for Job B gives me:

    Pros:

    - Career Usefulness: Directly in my field
    - Career Usefulness: Opportunity to work with and implement new theories, testing their usefulness and situational appropriateness
    - Transportation: Physically closer (no long walks from building to building between classes & work)

    Cons:

    - Work Environment: Department (for grad school) is very disorganized
    - Pay: Pay & details are unknown
    - Future: Shorter term by nature


    At this point, I'm at a stalemate: both have pretty good pros. Therefore, I need to wait until the pro/con lists expand more before a clear choice can be made.

    Theoretical Fi approach:

    My gut feeling says that Job A would be better since I know who my boss'll be and I know I like him and it's less disorganized than Job B even though it's further away and just feels too detached from my field of study.
    (honestly, I'm not sure if I've got this right because "It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words." Click here for source)



    I'm going to have to come back to this tomorrow (it's 2:45 AM here, so technically later today...) to the emotion-based decision. I'd appreciate any insight into the Fi side of this situation. This would help my Ti/Fi comparison in an emotions-based decision (such as a relationship issue or something of the sort)
    Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Vizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    229

    Default

    The content of the Fi thought pattern is pretty much the same as the pros/cons in the Ti example, albeit less orderly (though I guess you were just trying to communicate the air of Fi.) I notice you did this by making Fi more rambly in language. Your Fi sounded more sure of itself...though I can imagine Fi-users going back and forth in such decisions.

    How exactly do you distinguish subjective values from objective principles?
    Let's use the issue of transportation as an example which would take into consideration time and travel money. Both a Ti-user and Fi-user can say "I'll take Job B because it's more convenient and travelling would cost less". Convenience and money - principles or values? Subjective or objective? Is distinguishing the two even important to what we're trying to do? Heck, am I even going in the right direction?
    I guess we need to recognise that some see the accumulation of wealth as a principle/rule of life, and to others, it’s 'just' a matter of subjective value. It’s not black and white. But then, this leaves us wide open…again.

    ...
    Yeah, it's quite a challenge and I'll need more time to think about this too.
    5w4
    Reserved RCUEI

  7. #17
    Senior Member Silveresque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizzy View Post
    Hi RevlisZero, I'll take a closer look at your definition of Ti now.

    I find it interesting that you use "value" here when many others make a point to seperate "(human) values" for Fi and "principles" for Ti. What's your opinion on that?
    That's a good question, and I use the word "value" for a reason. For people who use the two functions in such a way that they're easy to distinguish, e.g. Fi for values and Ti for principles, a simple description of the two types like ones already available online will suffice, and there will be little doubt as to which function is being used. But where it gets tricky is when one function is used to serve both purposes. How then can one distinguish whether it is Fi serving the purpose of Ti or the other way around? I believe that the difference lies in the actual methods of making the decisions, the type of analysis involved. It is precisely for these such cases that I've created this thread, so that that subtle difference in processes can hopefully be revealed.

    Here's an example of Ti serving the function of Fi. I value honesty, not because I feel that it is important, but because I have analyzed the implications of honesty vs. lying in all types of scenarios and determined that even though the truth can hurt, it is better in the long run to be able to trust. Since telling white lies to make people feel better creates only an illusion of harmony, I consider honesty justified. In my process of analysis, I considered the feelings of others as a consequence to lies, while disregarding my own feelings. But I think what made me finally decide was what I would want. I decided that I would rather live in an honest world, so that I know I can trust what people say, and so that real harmony can exist. So perhaps I used Ti at first, but decided in the end with Fi, or perhaps Ti is capable of basing decisions on one's own desires as well. I would like to hear what other people think of this example.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Silveresque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,280

    Default

    Here's a description of Fi that I came across, written by Jung:

    Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined -- they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.

    Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately [p. 491] presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself. This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into the extraverted functions repressed by feeling, just as introverted thinking is pitted against a primitive feeling, to which objects attach themselves with magical force, so introverted feeling is counterbalanced by a primitive thinking, whose concretism and slavery to facts passes all bounds. Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values. But so much the more [p. 492] does unconscious thinking fall a victim to the power of objective facts.
    It seems that to understand the difference between Ti and Fi is to understand the difference between thinking and feeling. It sounds so simple, yet how can one truly separate thought from feeling? Everyone thinks and feels simultaneously, so how can one tell whether they're using one or the other? It's difficult for met to actually distinguish the two, to tell whether I know what I know because I have thought it or because I have felt it, especially since I intellectualize my emotions, turning them into thought as they surface. As crazy as it may sound, I believe it's entirely possible to think feelings and feel thoughts. If I feel something, but then I turn those feelings into thought and analyze them as thought, is it Ti or Fi? And what if in thinking about it I come back to feeling and make my decision? It's all so messy....I'm beginning to wonder if there's any distinction at all.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevlisZero View Post
    There seem to be a lot of confused members (like me not too long ago) who aren't sure whether they're INFP or INTP, or more specifically, Fi users or Ti users. I believe it's because the two functions can appear identical on the surface, reaching the same conclusions while the underlying processes involved are different.

    I've found a quote by an INFP (Snail) on INTP Forum that attempts to explain the processes of Fi:



    I'd like to know how other Fi users relate to this description. Please feel free to add to the description, cross out parts that don't fit with you, or even to write your own description.

    I've attempted to write my own version explaining what is (hopefully) Ti's form of reasoning:

    Again, I invite Ti users to critique this description. I am only one INTP, so I'd like to get a more accurate description that encompasses Ti as a whole, rather than just my personal form of reasoning.
    In your description of the Ti thought-process, you lost me at the word "values." It's as if you're trying to describe it from the Fi point-of-view.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #20
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Why not generalize (O, how ironic):

    Ti: Deconstructing systems
    Fi: Deconstructing humans.

    Though humans are in themselves systems, which might actually be why when you talk about psychology the lines get blurry. Fi seems more fundamental in terms of use. Understanding why humans deconstruct systems hitting everywhere and Ti wants to deconstruct systems hitting everywhere. Thus two different paths to the same goal.

Similar Threads

  1. Ni vs Fi (and Ti)
    By gromit in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 06:25 PM
  2. Differentiating Fi and Ti....
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2010, 04:31 AM
  3. Ti, Fi, and Music
    By raz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 03:22 AM
  4. What exactly is the difference between Ti and Ni, Si and Fi, and others?
    By Triglav in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 11:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO