[Ti] ENFP & Ti

[phoenix13]

oh! very interesting so an enfp will instantly make their decision. it's super fast yeah? but ti takes longer and is more precise?

No, you can judge things quickly with Ti. It's analogous to Fi. It takes time to think through and develop your values, but when someone does something immoral, you know it instantly. Likewise, if someone says something that conflicts with their internal logic(or whatever) system, someone with Ti will instantly recongnize it as incorrect.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, I agree with this.

With the introverted judging functions, there's usually a system that has been built up and developed over time. With Te, you can look at evidence and draw a logical conclusion from it right then and there. With Ti, you need to break everything down to their "essence," formulate basic principles, then apply it to whatever external phenomena you wish to judge/explain. So, the use of Ti depends on processing that has been done beforehand. An ENFP (or any type) using Ti with no prior processing would look retarded.

That is an astute observation is the case of NTPs, because you've incorporated Si's influence here too, when you say that Ti depends on processing that has been done beforehand. Ti is very good at applying known principles to new situations and adapting quickly to changing conditions (in combination with Ne/Se, that is.)

It's probably different for Ti+Ni users though...not quite sure how to explain that difference atm.

ENFPs can be decent with Ti in specific subject areas where, for whatever reason, they've put the effort into looking deeper and deeper into why something is some way, which is completely unnatural for such a horizontal thinker.

That's definitely true. If an ENFP is really interested in a system that requires very close attention to structural detail, they may become very well-versed in it, but I think this can also often be attributed to Te's recognition that to get results, you need to absorb certain key methodologies. I've seen an ENFP do this with strategy games, once they figure out that making up their own unique method is usually not the most effective way to win.

oh! very interesting so an enfp will instantly make their decision. it's super fast yeah? but ti takes longer and is more precise?

I think Ti and Fi both have strong preconceived notions about the criteria upon which things should be evaluated, which develop slowly over time, but that both will make pretty fast decisions in this regard when in a situation where they already have a value clearly defined...this goes double for NPs, who will absorb long-term ideas into Si as experiential fact.

 

[Lady_X]

No, you can judge things quickly with Ti. It's analogous to Fi. It takes time to think through and develop your values, but when someone does something immoral, you know it instantly. Likewise, if someone says something that conflicts with their internal logic(or whatever) system, someone with Ti will quickly recongnize it as incorrect.

oh of course... that makes sense. so does that mean the entp is more likely to be right? ooh...i don't like that a bit. :/

 

[SillySapienne]

I think Ti and Fi both have strong preconceived notions about the criteria upon which things should be evaluated, which develop slowly over time, but that both will make pretty fast decisions in this regard when in a situation where they already have a value clearly defined...this goes double for NPs, who will absorb long-term ideas into Si as experiential fact.

B-I-N-G-O!!!

What's frustrating is that Fi, as a system, and believe you me it is a system, is much harder to explain and understand than Ti is. grrrrrrrrr!!!

And, it is therefore less accepted, and it is also often berated, or just plain overlooked by many who don't have or understand it.

To a layman, I would basically say/explain, that I have two general modes of being; one being fully engaged with whatever or whoever is stimulating me, or, I guess, extrinsic engagement, and two, being fully engaged with whatever or whoevever or, more specifically, what situation, hypothetical, current, or past, has my mind seized with overwhelming thoughts, why something would happen, why someone would act a certain way, have I seen this before, if so, where, and why, is there a valid reason for what's happening, does this make sense, is there a pattern here, is this a constant...

Honestly, I can keep going, but I'll spare you.

And this second mode of being is what I would call intrinsic engagement, or Fi for all you Typologyphiles.

Yes, Fi is a value-oriented system, but it is a complex and multi-faceted, and layered system, and depending on the person, the more complex and *accurate* their Fi system of thought will be.

Yeah, I would classify Fi as a system of thought that gets *triggered* by feeling.

 

[Poki]

oh of course... that makes sense. so does that mean the entp is more likely to be right? ooh...i don't like that a bit. :/

I think what this means is that Ne in ENTP will go off in a logic manner and Ne in ENFP will go off in a feeling manner. How do you determine who is right when both go off in different directions every time.

 

[Lady_X]

I think what this means is that Ne in ENTP will go off in a logic manner and Ne in ENFP will go off in a feeling manner. How do you determine who is right when both go off in different directions every time.

right...of course you're right. my heads all swirly atm....so...just accept the different pov as different while trying to understand that they're both valid?

 

[SillySapienne]

I think what this means is that Ne in ENTP will go off in a logic manner and Ne in ENFP will go off in a feeling manner.

THIS IS FAR TOO SIMPLISTIC!!!!

Ugh, all human beings both think and feel, I would argue that Fi is a thinking process that gets triggered by feelings.

It also categorizes, defines, and sorts feelings.

 

[SillySapienne]

No, Lady X, he is not right, he's perpetuating this retarded belief that I simply can't tolerate anymore.

Fi processes emotional and situational stimuli, IT PROCESSES IT.

It doesn't just spew out feelings, for fucksake!

Far from it, it takes feelings in, considers them, and the context in which they came from, and thinks about why they exist.

 

[Poki]

THIS IS FAR TOO SIMPLISTIC!!!!

Ugh, all human beings both think and feel, I would argue that Fi is a thinking process that gets triggered by feelings.

It also categorized, defines, and sorts feelings.

Yes, thats why I said feeling and logic. Everyone thinks and processes. Logic and feeling even align at times.

 

[Lady_X]

No, Lady X, he is not right, he's perpetuating this retarded belief that I simply can't tolerate anymore.

Fi processes emotional and situational stimuli, IT PROCESSES IT.

It doesn't just spew out feelings, for fucksake!

Far from it, it takes feelings in, considers them, and the context in which they came from, and thinks about why they exist.

yeah i know that but i was curious about that processes validity when it's not a feeling based discussion.

 

[SillySapienne]

Yeah, and apparently you believe that ENFPs feel with their Ne and ENTPs think with their Ne, fucking ludicrous.

"I think what this means is that Ne in ENTP will go off in a logic manner and Ne in ENFP will go off in a feeling manner"

Fi is actually QUITE LOGICAL.

Check out some Carol Gilligan, and some Nel Noddings.

These are both females who translate Fi to non-Fi speakers, in a highly logical manner, too.

 

[Poki]

yeah i know that but i was curious about that processes validity when it's not a feeling based discussion.

Yes, what I was trying to say is that its 2 different areas of focus. honestly I may allow someone to believe they are logically right because at that time I am focused on thier Feeling in regard to the situation. I understand how they may categorize, sort, etc and how its gonna come across if I become logically stubborn. Its a give and take, in this difference of opinion, what really matters.

 

[SillySapienne]

In a Different Voice is a 1982 text on gender studies by American professor Carol Gilligan.

Harvard University Press has described this text as “the little book that started a revolution.” In this text, she criticized Kohlberg's stages of moral development of children which argued that girls on average reached a lower level of moral development than boys did. Gilligan argued that the participants in Kohlberg's basic study were largely male. She also stated that the scoring method Kohlberg used tended to favor a principled way of reasoning that was more common to boys, over a moral argumentation concentrating on relations, which would be more amenable to girls

Carol Gilligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nel Noddings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nel Noddings received a bachelors degree in mathematics and physical science from Montclair State College in New Jersey, a masters degree in mathematics from Rutgers University, and a Ph.D. in education from Stanford University.

Nel Noddings' approach to ethics of care has been described as relational ethics because it prioritizes concern for relationships. Like Carol Gilligan, Noddings accepts that justice based approaches, which are supposed to be more masculine, are genuine alternatives to ethics of care. However, unlike Gilligan, Noddings' believes that caring, 'rooted in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness' is a more basic and preferable approach to ethics (Caring 1984, 2).

The key to understanding Noddings' ethics of care is to understand her notion of caring and ethical caring in particular.

Noddings believes that it would be a mistake to try to provide a systematic examination of the requirements for caring; nevertheless, she does suggest three requirements for caring (Caring 1984, 11-12). She argues that the carer (one-caring) must exhibit engrossment and motivational displacement, and the person who is cared for (cared-for) must respond in some way to the caring (1984, 69). Noddings' term engrossment refers to thinking about someone in order to gain a greater understanding of him or her. Engrossment is necessary for caring because an individual's personal and physical situation must be understood before the one-caring can determine the appropriateness of any action. 'Engrossment' need not entail, as the term seems to suggest, a deep fixation on the other. It requires only the attention needed to some to understand the position of the other. Engrossment could not on its own constitute caring; someone could have a deep understanding of another person, yet act against that person's interests. Motivational displacement prevents this from occurring. Motivational displacement occurs when the one-caring's behaviour is largely determined by the needs of the person for whom she is caring. On its own, motivational displacement would also be insufficient for ethical caring. For example, someone who acted primarily from a desire to accomplish something for another person, but failed to think carefully enough about that other person's needs (failed to be correctly engrossed in the other), would fail to care. Finally, Noddings believes that caring requires some form of recognition from the cared-for that the one-caring is, in fact, caring. When there is a recognition of and response to the caring by the person cared for, Noddings describes the caring as "completed in the other" (1984, 4).

Nel Noddings draws an important distinction between natural caring and ethical caring (1984, 81-83). Noddings distinguishes between acting because "I want" and acting because "I must". When I care for someone because "I want" to care, say I hug a friend who needs hugging in an act of love, Noddings claims that I am engaged in natural caring. When I care for someone because "I must" care, say I hug an acquaintance who needs hugging in spite of my desire to escape that person's pain, according to Noddings, I am engaged in ethical caring. Ethical caring occurs when a person acts caringly out of a belief that caring is the appropriate way of relating to people. When someone acts in a caring way because that person naturally cares for another, the caring is not ethical caring (1984, 79-80). Noddings' claims that ethical caring is based on, and so dependent on, natural caring (1984, 83, 206 fn 4). It is through experiencing others caring for them and naturally caring for others that people build what is called an "ethical ideal", an image of the kind of person they want to be.

Noddings describes wrong actions in terms of "a diminishment of the ethical ideal" and "evil". A person's ethical ideal is diminished when she either chooses or is forced to act in a way that rejects her internal call to care. In effect, her image of the best person it is possible for her to be is altered in a way that lowers her ideal. According to Noddings, people and organizations can deliberately or carelessly contribute to the diminishment of other's ethical ideals. They may do this by teaching people not to care, or by placing them in conditions that prevent them from being able to care (1984, 116-119). A person is evil if, in spite of her ability to do otherwise, she either fails to personally care for someone, or prevents others from caring. Noddings writes, "[when] one intentionally rejects the impulse to care and deliberately turns her back on the ethical, she is evil, and this evil cannot be redeemed" (1984, 115).

This is referred to as "obligation". "There are moments for all of us when we care quite naturally. We just do care; no ethical effort is required. 'Want' and 'ought' are indistinguishable in such cases." I have the ability to "abstain from action if I [so] believe that anything I might do would tend to work against the best interests of the cared-for." According to Noddings we are obligated to pursue the "musts".

 

[Poki]

Yeah, and apparently you believe that ENFPs feel with their Ne and ENTPs think with their Ne, fucking ludicrous.

"I think what this means is that Ne in ENTP will go off in a logic manner and Ne in ENFP will go off in a feeling manner"

Fi is actually QUITE LOGICAL.

Check out some Carol Gilligan, and some Nel Noddings.

These are both females who translate Fi to non-Fi speakers, in a highly logical manner, too.

Your frickin stuck on the end result where I am focused at the begining. whether your Fi ends up being logical or not is irrelevant to me in this discussion.

Ugh, all human beings both think and feel, I would argue that Fi is a thinking process that gets triggered by feelings.

and no I am not mad or frsutrated, just matching the intensity

 

[Little Linguist]

Perhaps it would be helpful to clearly define what we all mean by Fi and Ti before we continue a pointless discussion where we act like dogs chasing our tails.

As I understand it, Fi and Ti are both rational functions, whereby Fi makes judgments based on values (which can vary from individual to individual, i.e. subjective) and Ti makes judgments based on principles (which could be defined as universal truth, i.e. objective). The fact that these functions are both rational functions that help us process data is not in question.

In addition, I would state that every individual uses every process at one point or another; rather it is a question of which processes are preferred or more frequently used.

So, sure an ENFP can and does use Ti, but I can imagine that Te would feel more 'comfy' to us, as it probably complements the other functions better and leads to a more satisfactory and efficient result (albeit not quite as powerful as Ne/Fi). My Te is very effective (very, very, very!!!!!!) but not nearly as charming, sweet, and endearing as my Ne/Fi combo, which means that Te becomes evident when:

a) important, difficult decisions must be made
b) swift action must be taken
c) a program/idea/plan must be implemented and we need to 'get our rears in gear'

But what would Ti bring us??? We already HAVE a rational function that serves us well. Quite frankly, I'm not even that sure what the hell Ti is because I hardly ever use it, preferring my Ne/Fi/Te combination, which has always served me very well in the past.

Sure, in crisis situations/stressful situations/other unprecedented situations/unavoidable and undesirable situations, we might indeed have to use this foreign function, but I can imagine that if I have ever had to use it, I breathe a deep sigh of relief when that time is over and can step back into my comfy, cozy, natural being.

 

[Little Linguist]

ENFP metaphor (for me anyway)

Wearing Ne is like wearing fuzzy, warm, comfy slippers in wintertime and sitting by a lovely fire with a cup of Earl Grey after a long walk in the snow.

Wearing Fi is like lying in bed and reading a lovely book where you can think a little, laugh a little, cry a little, and ponder a little.

Wearing Te is like temporarily putting on a uniform and army boots, which may not be that comfy until they are broken in (giving you blisters in the process), but highly effective at getting the job done until you can relax at home with a comfy book, slippers, and Earl Grey in front of the fireplace.

Wearing Si is like wearing damn uncomfortable 15 inch pumps where if you don't be careful, you could lose your balance, and it can either look nice if you use them in the right way, or it can look ridiculous.

And at the end of the day, you always want to come home, take off the uncomfy pumps or the combat boots and put on the soft, fluffy slippers.

So to complete the metaphor: If Te is wearing a uniform and combat boots and 'getting the job done', Ti is like floating around in a gravity-free zone without gravity boots. We kind of float here and there trying to get from A to B but don't freaking get anywhere because we don't have the tools to get there (gravity boots), and it's a damn bit more ineffective than the uniform and combat boots. Then, an XNTP or XSTP come by with the gravity boots, go "Na nanny boo boo," and call us on it because we're floating around in mid-air like a moron when we could have accomplished the same goal much faster by avoiding the gravity-free zone to start!

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, it is very hard to find a lot of info on what Ti is like for ENFP's.

Berens' description of Trickster Fi (EFP's):

They are usually not interested in identifying principles or categorizing, but under stress they tend to be deceived into engaging, accepting, and rigidly following selected principles, thinking that doing so will ensure success when it really won't. They may make statements or believe in ideas that are contradictory and illogical. Yet at times they can delight in exploring models and frameworks.


Also, Beebe himself describes its positive side more in this interview by an ENFP, where he describes her INTP husband as providing "a source of humor about introverts" or something like that:
http:// www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf

 

[Little Linguist]

Yeah, it is very hard to find a lot of info on what Ti is like for ENFP's.

Berens' description of Trickster Fi (EFP's):

They are usually not interested in identifying principles or categorizing, but under stress they tend to be deceived into engaging, accepting, and rigidly following selected principles, thinking that doing so will ensure success when it really won't. They may make statements or believe in ideas that are contradictory and illogical. Yet at times they can delight in exploring models and frameworks.


Also, Beebe himself describes its positive side more in this interview by an ENFP, where he describes her INTP husband as providing "a source of humor about introverts" or something like that:
http:// www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf

This is what I was trying to illustrate via my metaphor.

 

[Moiety]

I think roles like the trickster etc...are really no applicable to real life. Also if functions CAN have varying degrees of strength irrespective of type (which I think there is more than evidence for) why couldn't an ENFP use Ti in any proficient way?

This thread has a whole lot of misinformation and inaccuracies.

Plus, if an ENFP is always bound to use Te in order to Think (in the typological sense), why then don't I ever identify with Te descriptions but I invariably do with Ti ones? The number of INfPs and INtPs out there alone, should be proof enough Fi and Ti can coexist in the same person.

 

[Little Linguist]

OMG ERIC!!!!!! THIS IS AMAZING!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly, wow, this is exactly it....I never knew it before, but now it all makes sense!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE THIS INTERVIEW!!!!!! NOW I understand the dynamic. How interesting.

Oh, sorry for the effervescent enthusiasm, but it was like a BOOM and a POW and then all of a sudden, it all clicked in place and made sense.

Um, yeah, when I'm a bit calmer and have processed everything, I'll make a bit more sense and write something a bit more coherent, sorry.