User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe

  1. #31
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinite View Post
    Yeah okay. Btw there is this face emotion test online. I score pretty high in it, actually higher than average (32 out of 36), but I suppose the strong Fe types would be doing it more consciously. I just... looked at each face and to determine the feeling displayed, I - instinctively - tried to mirror the feeling internally which has a really weak effect on me - those mirror neurons of mine don't seem to fire strongly -, so I was straining a bit to "lock onto" what I was feeling. It's just a really weak something that's hard to grasp. Nonetheless, I did manage to do quite well on the test. Unconscious Fe, definitely

    I would be curious to hear from strong Fe types, how they do that test, how well they do on it, and if they feel all that shit consciously while taking the test or whatever other method they use consciously.




    Lol if you think you can tell everything about my thinking style from a few posts you're deluded. Maybe you can state more about my reasoning style as that's actually laid out here in words. My thinking style is however... not laid out so clearly. Bits of it maybe but certainly not all of it.

    I have no idea who Orange Fusion is but tell me what is it that reminds you of his/her style, don't compress everything into four letters, just tell me using everyday words what you see my reasoning and thinking style as. Thanks.

    Anyway, I'm no INTP, this is for sure. The example you give below about TiSe vs TiNe, I don't relate to "doing" hypothetical actions. I think you just didn't understand what I was trying to say in my post. It's ok, I'll retry.




    I'm again a mix of Ti/Te here if we are supposed to go by these Ti/Te definitions. I do my own reasoning but I also do look at studies, though I'm often lazy to cite shit like that. Well sometimes I do bother with citing and I actually got really pissed recently when a friend of mine - most likely Te-PoLR in socionics - refused to even look at the links I gave him about studies on a certain topic (it was a topic on something about attitudes of men vs women, where he made a generalization that I thought was really stupid). He also got pissed, he was claiming this bullshit that his limited personal experience on the matter was worth a lot more than scientific studies conducted according to proper methodology. I tried to explain to him that I am not claiming that all these studies are to be taken literally, they always need to be interpreted and I also tried to explain that if someone else's experience differs from his then that needs to be looked into, to find the reason why the difference. But he just wouldn't hear me from the moment that I dared to give him links to studies. He really seems to have an allergy to that or something. It of course didn't help either that I told him that my own personal experience differed from his.




    Lol you're deluded if you think you know the exact reason... I'm not saying I know but this sudden idea of switching my type from ISTP to INTP is not gonna explain it any better.




    I relate as far as "constantly analyzing specific concrete things in the environment"* and "feeling" the e.g. "imbalance" etc. I however still say I don't project the result back onto the environment. I take something from the environment by analysis of it and I do use it in practice but projection is a strong word. That sounds like "overwriting" reality with concepts. I most certainly don't do that - reality comes before concepts. When an idea doesn't turn out to align with reality, you need to change the idea to stay aligned with reality. Or you're in psychosis. I repeat what I said previously, the map is not the territory.

    So I'm ok with a Ti definition if it's put as abstracting away concepts from the object and even further than that, I agree that Ti involves filtering out certain information, focus on specific information and discarding the rest. However, none of this is actual projection back to the environment. If you happen to be talking about the same thing I am then I would say find a different word for it.

    *: OK, "constantly" is an overstatement, I just do it when I'm absorbed in my interests. I don't do it when I'm just having fun with someone for example.




    I don't have any web of whatever hypothetical scenarios. My mind is just not wired like that. That Ne thing is just really weird to me. My mind is pretty one-track and I don't like analogies, who needs analogies** when you can just take an example of the actual topic and explain the logical concept through it.

    **: I was talking about myself of course. Describing how I operate. I know N types prefer analogies.




    If this Pe can include observation of the Te scientific studies, alright. In that case we are on the same page. I'm just tired of the stereotype that science = Te. It's not!!

    I take an issue with the wording in bolded. That just sounds too black and white, comes off too strong, similarly to the word usage of "projection". No, the Ji function should be able to update its framework if the observations tell it that something's off. Maybe it's not always going to happen very fast but it will happen sooner or later. Or if not, the Ji-dom is a nutcase.

    Talking about black and white views, you didn't answer this: "Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing :P"

    Can you tell me if it was just a bad example or if you really think that Ti/Fi are more black and white than Te?

    And I had a couple other questions actually; e.g. what did you mean by "static accuracy"? And, have you got an example of Te evidence lying that can be detected by Ti?




    In MBTI, only Je does that. There is a reason why Ji-doms are categorized as "P" types in MBTI.

    In socionics, Ji types also do this, yes, but that's socionics, not MBTI. And yep in socionics, Ji-base types are categorized as "j" types. This isn't by accident.



    In MBTI, yes that's the difference between Je and Ji, origin of framework. (Socionics is of course different again :P)
    First, the Judging function JUDGES the environment, not just the extroverted judging function, and not just the introverted judging function. The only thing I-E does is tell you where the Judging comes from. If you challenge this, I will cease answering your questions, as then it is pointless for me to even try if you can't understand that. The Introverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an internally reasoned model. The Extroverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an externally adopted model. They are called "JUDGING" functions for a reason. Would you like me to refer to "projecting" as "judging"? It's the same damn thing. This is not Socionics, this is basic Jungian Cognitive Functions.

    Second, Introverted Thinking judges the environment according to how things are rationally reasoned internally and judges the environment based on internally *logically* reasoned principles and conclusions (it does not *overwrite* the environment). If 5 + 5 = 10, and there are 5 boxes being put next to 5 other boxes in the environment, how many boxes are there now? With Ti, the mathematical model of 5 + 5 is applied to the sensory observation (5 boxes are being put next to 5 other boxes), reasoning that since 5 + 5 = 10, and 5 same entities are being put next to 5 of the same entities, then there are 10 of the same entities in the environment. Of course it doesn't work this clear cut for everything, as Ti works fast and people aren't stupid and can figure something out like that easily. A better example would be something much more complex. Let's say that you don't remember the surface area formula for a cube, and you need to figure it out with the given Edge = 5 cm. First, you try to figure out what the concept of Surface Area is (logical analysis), the total area on the surface of a 3-dimensional figure (in this case). Reasoning that a Cube has 6 faces that are each 2-dimensional squares, you logically conclude that if you add the areas of the 6 squares, then you will also have the entire surface area of the Cube, 150 sq cm. You have observed the problem, analyzed it, and judged (because projected apparently doesn't compute) internally *logically* reasoned knowledge onto the environment (the algorithm, that the 6 squares' area will equal the cube's surface area) to solve the problem that has been observed. Congratulations, you have just applied/judged/projected a principle/concept onto the environment to solve a problem/mystery.

    Because I'm psychic and somehow know that you have read the above and thought "but what does Te do then" (I at least hope you thought of that, because if you are still stuck on the whole projection = judging I'm somewhat disappointed). Thinking as a function is responsible for logical analysis and judging. The Te approach to the problem would either be based off the Si recollection of previous methods or the Ni realizations of the circumstances producing a general idea to solve surface area that have been gathered from an external source (Te, adopting external logical frameworks/knowledge). Another approach would be identical to that of the Ti function's reasoning in the sense that the Te-user will organize the environment and use examples to prove points that will lead to the answer, as well as logically laying out the steps as to how to reach the solution in a clear-cut fashion, usually documenting details. The Te user would have an easier time visualizing or actually having a hollow cube at their disposal to break apart into 6 separate squares (so would Se types, which only adds to the confusion), proving to the Te user that the surface area of the cube (surface area's analytic meaning being reasoned out from prior knowledge or through unconscious Ti use, everyone uses the function to some extent) is the exact same as the area of the 6 squares. Furthermore, the Te user will often work through problems such as these externally, working in a Ti-ish fashion except entirely external, usually with either writing down and organizing information or logically engaging in an explanation to another party that can offer more information and allow the Te user to logically work through the problem via explanation.

    Also, for the facial expression thing, pretty much everyone without specific deficits as seen in disorders such as ASD will do fairly well in extracting the emotional implications from others' faces. The Fe-Pi mechanism is more about extracting other's attachments to certain things and interpreting the emotional affect objects in the environment have on others (objects being both animate and inanimate), as well as adopting external ethical models from the environment to be interpreted and subsequently applied.

    "Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing :P"
    Use of probabilities is the domain of both Thinking functions (and I like to call Ni zeroing "probability analysis", but it is more the extraction of meaning from probabilities gathered from an external source). The difference in that argument is that the Fi type is likely to come to its own conclusions based on ethical reasoning (people with goatees are evil because all the ones I've ever seen hurt people) judging the people with goatees with the concept of evil (but, this, of course, also usually leads to the conclusion, "well, I haven't met every single person with a goatee, I've only met the ones I've met; therefore it is still possible that there are ethically good people with goatees", which is a more Ne perspective and even the dichotomial Perceiving argument to keep options and possibilities open), and that the Te type is more likely to appeal to credible empirical studies conducted by others to interpret the data and judge the environment based on the interpretation, and from these people, you can expect "studies show" kind of arguments that appeal to other frameworks that have been adopted rather than created internally as is seen in introverted judging processing.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    I find JCF to be fun as well. I love speculating on how Si and Se manifest themselves differently - things like that. But can it be used typologically? Not very well. But Jung himself had a distinct advantage at it. He could sit in his office and ask his paying customers pointed questions about their lives and personalities. I have to do the same with often recalcitrant forum posters who just want to argue and waste my time.
    How are you with the differences about Si in original Jungian theory vs MBTI theory? Uhm, this sounds kind of off topic but I'm just asking you what your solution to that was. Just curious.

    I do think it's the best way to type someone if you can have a deep interview with them

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    First, the Judging function JUDGES the environment, not just the extroverted judging function, and not just the introverted judging function. The only thing I-E does is tell you where the Judging comes from. If you challenge this, I will cease answering your questions, as then it is pointless for me to even try if you can't understand that. The Introverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an internally reasoned model. The Extroverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an externally adopted model. They are called "JUDGING" functions for a reason. Would you like me to refer to "projecting" as "judging"? It's the same damn thing. This is not Socionics, this is basic Jungian Cognitive Functions.
    Now, let's be very clear. It's not an issue with my capabilities for understanding. Don't confuse communication issues with capability of understanding things. So concentrate on clearing up communication instead of getting upset over how I don't "understand" your wording. I do appreciate you trying to communicate your thoughts, though.

    Introversion according to Jung* means abstracting away things from the object. Going back to the subject. Not going back to the object. Projection, as specifically put by you, sounds like the latter to me. Overall, judging on its own is just judging, it does not necessarily include an act of projecting. As a reminder, we started from your original statement "the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment". This act of imposing is what you called projection later. This is where we seem to disagree. I see this as interpreted differently in different typology systems. This is one of the reasons why e.g. MBTI ISTP is depicted different from LSI/ISTj.

    *: I use the Jung definition here because MBTI/JCF seems to line up with Jung in terms of that, as in MBTI/JCF it's the Je functions that deal with the environment directly. The Ji functions don't directly do so.

    (Btw I forgot to address this earlier but when I say MBTI/JCF I just mean what you call JCF. MBTI has the dichotomies too, but when people use the term MBTI/JCF it means the functions. MBTI itself just has less focus on them.)



    Second, Introverted Thinking judges the environment according to how things are rationally reasoned internally and judges the environment based on internally *logically* reasoned principles and conclusions (it does not *overwrite* the environment).
    I can go with that statement just fine. Simply judging environment, yes.


    If 5 + 5 = 10, and there are 5 boxes being put next to 5 other boxes in the environment, how many boxes are there now? With Ti, the mathematical model of 5 + 5 is applied to the sensory observation (5 boxes are being put next to 5 other boxes), reasoning that since 5 + 5 = 10, and 5 same entities are being put next to 5 of the same entities, then there are 10 of the same entities in the environment. Of course it doesn't work this clear cut for everything, as Ti works fast and people aren't stupid and can figure something out like that easily. A better example would be something much more complex. Let's say that you don't remember the surface area formula for a cube, and you need to figure it out with the given Edge = 5 cm. First, you try to figure out what the concept of Surface Area is (logical analysis), the total area on the surface of a 3-dimensional figure (in this case). Reasoning that a Cube has 6 faces that are each 2-dimensional squares, you logically conclude that if you add the areas of the 6 squares, then you will also have the entire surface area of the Cube, 150 sq cm. You have observed the problem, analyzed it, and judged (because projected apparently doesn't compute) internally *logically* reasoned knowledge onto the environment (the algorithm, that the 6 squares' area will equal the cube's surface area) to solve the problem that has been observed. Congratulations, you have just applied/judged/projected a principle/concept onto the environment to solve a problem/mystery.
    When I analyse the cube's surface, I will withdraw into my mind and will operate on logical concepts there. I don't see this as an act of judging "onto" the environment. It's more like judging "away" from it. Ti particularly is a pretty detached function. Though of course you can use the result as a solution for some problem in real life. But I would say, that as Ti user, the point is not the object(s) associated with the problem itself/themselves, the point is the internal process or analysis. This is why I don't agree with "mixing" together the MBTI Je with Ji in this way.

    With the simpler example of 5+5, assuming the boxes are actually in front of me, I will first just see an approximate quantity, I will feel that quantity though, yeah, I guess this is a pretty basic function actually, like, everyone has that much Ti. Btw, to express it as the discrete number of 10, you do have to go beyond the basic impression of approximate quantity. I don't know if people with less strong Ti just use numbers as some really dry uninteresting "words", e.g. only use them to solve whatever task. I personally "feel" numbers too. Again, using numbers for problem solving is great because of the logic itself.

    As for the bolded. It was really unnecessary for you to make that crappy comment. I absolutely don't need any of that sarcastic stuff.


    Because I'm psychic and somehow know that you have read the above and thought "but what does Te do then" (I at least hope you thought of that, because if you are still stuck on the whole projection = judging I'm somewhat disappointed).
    Lool Ni being psychic eh? :P

    I know you were joking :P


    Thinking as a function is responsible for logical analysis and judging. The Te approach to the problem would either be based off the Si recollection of previous methods or the Ni realizations of the circumstances producing a general idea to solve surface area that have been gathered from an external source (Te, adopting external logical frameworks/knowledge). Another approach would be identical to that of the Ti function's reasoning in the sense that the Te-user will organize the environment and use examples to prove points that will lead to the answer, as well as logically laying out the steps as to how to reach the solution in a clear-cut fashion, usually documenting details. The Te user would have an easier time visualizing or actually having a hollow cube at their disposal to break apart into 6 separate squares (so would Se types, which only adds to the confusion), proving to the Te user that the surface area of the cube (surface area's analytic meaning being reasoned out from prior knowledge or through unconscious Ti use, everyone uses the function to some extent) is the exact same as the area of the 6 squares. Furthermore, the Te user will often work through problems such as these externally, working in a Ti-ish fashion except entirely external, usually with either writing down and organizing information or logically engaging in an explanation to another party that can offer more information and allow the Te user to logically work through the problem via explanation.
    Yeah that paragraph sounds rather like MBTI Te here.

    Just a question, where do you think Ti figures out from what the concept of Surface Area is? The way you phrased that cube example already brings up that concept and so it sounds like it's a requirement to consult external sources for its meaning. E.g. what's the dictionary meaning of the words surface and area. Or some faint memories of what you were taught in school.

    The way I did the cube question here was actually by visualizing the cube to remember the surface area formula. The meaning of "surface area" I did not have to figure out, I already knew what it meant, I just visualized the cube to see the sides. So I guess according to your theory on how visualizing something like this must be Te or Se, it kills the idea of that INTP typing for me.

    It's an interesting thought that visualization of logic would be related to Se preference too. It's just imagination, it's not really that direct physical but I will admit I do like to visualize logic stuff a lot so I happen to fit your theory; I do it in some abstract-ish way, shapes, forms, colours, whatnot. Not by imagining actual physical objects much. The latter at best is an illustration of some specific example I think of. (That example then can be analysed)

    What did you mean by Ti organizing? You say Te organizes the environment similar to Ti. See the bolded. Otoh If you just meant that Ti organizes data inside the mind, fine. Ti I think is just getting the concept of 10 about 10 boxes or figuring out the cube stuff. None of that involves organization of the environment. That's usually attributed only to Te in MBTI. I know, in socionics it's also attributed to leading Ti with creative Se - but you know how that's a different system. In MBTI, Ti xxTP types are not J types.

    Btw Ti for me doesn't work by simply logically laying out all the steps in some crappy linear fashion. This is another reason why I like Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. Jung's description as well, it again doesn't mention anything about clearly laid out logical steps. I can of course do that, when communicating my thoughts to others but it's always a bit of a PITA. I'm perfectly willing to do it, communication is important; just it's not what comes to me naturally.

    Note when I say I like those Ti descriptions, I'm not trying to say that everyone's got to be thinking in the same way I am. Someone else could relate to some other definition more than me. I'm just saying the fact I relate to these means that these descriptions talk about something that actually exists, at least in my case.


    Also, for the facial expression thing, pretty much everyone without specific deficits as seen in disorders such as ASD will do fairly well in extracting the emotional implications from others' faces. The Fe-Pi mechanism is more about extracting other's attachments to certain things and interpreting the emotional affect objects in the environment have on others (objects being both animate and inanimate), as well as adopting external ethical models from the environment to be interpreted and subsequently applied.
    Sounds like a lot more advanced MBTI Fe use than what I could ever imagine. Heh.


    Use of probabilities is the domain of both Thinking functions (and I like to call Ni zeroing "probability analysis", but it is more the extraction of meaning from probabilities gathered from an external source). The difference in that argument is that the Fi type is likely to come to its own conclusions based on ethical reasoning (people with goatees are evil because all the ones I've ever seen hurt people) judging the people with goatees with the concept of evil (but, this, of course, also usually leads to the conclusion, "well, I haven't met every single person with a goatee, I've only met the ones I've met; therefore it is still possible that there are ethically good people with goatees", which is a more Ne perspective and even the dichotomial Perceiving argument to keep options and possibilities open), and that the Te type is more likely to appeal to credible empirical studies conducted by others to interpret the data and judge the environment based on the interpretation, and from these people, you can expect "studies show" kind of arguments that appeal to other frameworks that have been adopted rather than created internally as is seen in introverted judging processing.
    As for the bolded. So you say this simple logical step would require use of Ne or Pe in general. I think it's more Pe than just Ne.

    Personally I use a lot of empirical studies to interpret data but I like to take it further by internal analysis, comparing it to my own observations in my personal experience too. I do score high on Te too in function tests because MBTI Te is certainly defined in this way as you put it here. So yeah. I'm just a hybrid Ti&Te lol but I still think Ti > Te because I just use Te as some kind of good tool. Never for its own sake.

    I hope that helps the thread starter. You explained Te very nicely. And I tried to explain some of Ti. Obviously the bottom line for the OP's question about which one he/she prefers is really this, which function is used as a tool and which one is indulged in for its own sake.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinite View Post
    Now, let's be very clear. It's not an issue with my capabilities for understanding. Don't confuse communication issues with capability of understanding things. So concentrate on clearing up communication instead of getting upset over how I don't "understand" your wording. I do appreciate you trying to communicate your thoughts, though.

    Introversion according to Jung* means abstracting away things from the object. Going back to the subject. Not going back to the object. Projection, as specifically put by you, sounds like the latter to me. Overall, judging on its own is just judging, it does not necessarily include an act of projecting. As a reminder, we started from your original statement "the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment". This act of imposing is what you called projection later. This is where we seem to disagree. I see this as interpreted differently in different typology systems. This is one of the reasons why e.g. MBTI ISTP is depicted different from LSI/ISTj.

    *: I use the Jung definition here because MBTI/JCF seems to line up with Jung in terms of that, as in MBTI/JCF it's the Je functions that deal with the environment directly. The Ji functions don't directly do so.

    (Btw I forgot to address this earlier but when I say MBTI/JCF I just mean what you call JCF. MBTI has the dichotomies too, but when people use the term MBTI/JCF it means the functions. MBTI itself just has less focus on them.)





    I can go with that statement just fine. Simply judging environment, yes.




    When I analyse the cube's surface, I will withdraw into my mind and will operate on logical concepts there. I don't see this as an act of judging "onto" the environment. It's more like judging "away" from it. Ti particularly is a pretty detached function. Though of course you can use the result as a solution for some problem in real life. But I would say, that as Ti user, the point is not the object(s) associated with the problem itself/themselves, the point is the internal process or analysis. This is why I don't agree with "mixing" together the MBTI Je with Ji in this way.

    With the simpler example of 5+5, assuming the boxes are actually in front of me, I will first just see an approximate quantity, I will feel that quantity though, yeah, I guess this is a pretty basic function actually, like, everyone has that much Ti. Btw, to express it as the discrete number of 10, you do have to go beyond the basic impression of approximate quantity. I don't know if people with less strong Ti just use numbers as some really dry uninteresting "words", e.g. only use them to solve whatever task. I personally "feel" numbers too. Again, using numbers for problem solving is great because of the logic itself.

    As for the bolded. It was really unnecessary for you to make that crappy comment. I absolutely don't need any of that sarcastic stuff.




    Lool Ni being psychic eh? :P

    I know you were joking :P




    Yeah that paragraph sounds rather like MBTI Te here.

    Just a question, where do you think Ti figures out from what the concept of Surface Area is? The way you phrased that cube example already brings up that concept and so it sounds like it's a requirement to consult external sources for its meaning. E.g. what's the dictionary meaning of the words surface and area. Or some faint memories of what you were taught in school.

    The way I did the cube question here was actually by visualizing the cube to remember the surface area formula. The meaning of "surface area" I did not have to figure out, I already knew what it meant, I just visualized the cube to see the sides. So I guess according to your theory on how visualizing something like this must be Te or Se, it kills the idea of that INTP typing for me.

    It's an interesting thought that visualization of logic would be related to Se preference too. It's just imagination, it's not really that direct physical but I will admit I do like to visualize logic stuff a lot so I happen to fit your theory; I do it in some abstract-ish way, shapes, forms, colours, whatnot. Not by imagining actual physical objects much. The latter at best is an illustration of some specific example I think of. (That example then can be analysed)

    What did you mean by Ti organizing? You say Te organizes the environment similar to Ti. See the bolded. Otoh If you just meant that Ti organizes data inside the mind, fine. Ti I think is just getting the concept of 10 about 10 boxes or figuring out the cube stuff. None of that involves organization of the environment. That's usually attributed only to Te in MBTI. I know, in socionics it's also attributed to leading Ti with creative Se - but you know how that's a different system. In MBTI, Ti xxTP types are not J types.

    Btw Ti for me doesn't work by simply logically laying out all the steps in some crappy linear fashion. This is another reason why I like Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. Jung's description as well, it again doesn't mention anything about clearly laid out logical steps. I can of course do that, when communicating my thoughts to others but it's always a bit of a PITA. I'm perfectly willing to do it, communication is important; just it's not what comes to me naturally.

    Note when I say I like those Ti descriptions, I'm not trying to say that everyone's got to be thinking in the same way I am. Someone else could relate to some other definition more than me. I'm just saying the fact I relate to these means that these descriptions talk about something that actually exists, at least in my case.




    Sounds like a lot more advanced MBTI Fe use than what I could ever imagine. Heh.




    As for the bolded. So you say this simple logical step would require use of Ne or Pe in general. I think it's more Pe than just Ne.

    Personally I use a lot of empirical studies to interpret data but I like to take it further by internal analysis, comparing it to my own observations in my personal experience too. I do score high on Te too in function tests because MBTI Te is certainly defined in this way as you put it here. So yeah. I'm just a hybrid Ti&Te lol but I still think Ti > Te because I just use Te as some kind of good tool. Never for its own sake.

    I hope that helps the thread starter. You explained Te very nicely. And I tried to explain some of Ti. Obviously the bottom line for the OP's question about which one he/she prefers is really this, which function is used as a tool and which one is indulged in for its own sake.
    Introversion is bringing what is from the outside internally to be analyzed, but I have one last proposition for you to consider.

    Think of Ji as like "standards".

    Fi holds the environment to internally reasoned ethical "standards".
    Ti holds the environment to internally reasoned logical "standards".

    The environment then is "held" to specific "standards".

    Now, if this were Je, then we'd say society's "standards".

    Fe holds the environment to society's ethical "standards".
    Te holds the environment to society's logical "standards". (usually in regards to efficiency, systems managing, etc.)

    Either way, there is still the "projection" of "standards" onto the environment no matter how we look at it. Now, if we were to debate who is probably going to follow through with a physical projection on the environment (as in actually doing something), then we'd lean in favor of the Je users, as Ji users aren't typically known for their charisma and action.

    Also, in relation to your noticing of my sarcasm, I need that to stay sane. Don't take that away from me.

    What I meant in the bolded is that Te essentially organizes the environment similarly to how Ti ruminates over a problem internally. Imagine the Ti analyzing process being conducted on like a whiteboard or like a private detective's spiderweb of conspiracy on a wall. There is a need to literally extrovert the thinking done.

    Of course Ti doesn't work clear-cut and linearly like I emphasized. The Ti process itself is usually quick, complex, and unconcerned with documentation.

    It is Pe in general, but I for whatever reason thought it was more apt to say "Ne" at the time. No idea why I said that. Apologies.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    @Alea_iacta_est

    Been a bit MIA... back now


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Introversion is bringing what is from the outside internally to be analyzed
    Yeah that's a good summary too. Though, it's not entirely that simple. Introversion involves more than just the object, it actually goes past the object.


    but I have one last proposition for you to consider.

    Think of Ji as like "standards".
    I feel that's a bit of oversimplification to just call Ji that, but I can see what you mean.


    Fi holds the environment to internally reasoned ethical "standards".

    (...)

    Either way, there is still the "projection" of "standards" onto the environment no matter how we look at it.
    Yes I understand your idea and this reasoning can be entirely logical but I think it's not the same as Jung's idea. This is more like socionics. Not saying that's a problem... but my original point was primarily about Jung and MBTI. Socionics is sometimes a really weird animal


    Now, if we were to debate who is probably going to follow through with a physical projection on the environment (as in actually doing something), then we'd lean in favor of the Je users, as Ji users aren't typically known for their charisma and action.
    Hmm but that then - as mentioned in my previous post - means it requires more/other factors beyond Ji. Extraversion or something else.


    Also, in relation to your noticing of my sarcasm, I need that to stay sane. Don't take that away from me.
    Haha alright


    What I meant in the bolded is that Te essentially organizes the environment similarly to how Ti ruminates over a problem internally. Imagine the Ti analyzing process being conducted on like a whiteboard or like a private detective's spiderweb of conspiracy on a wall. There is a need to literally extrovert the thinking done.
    Interesting, this need. I guess you have this need yourself?


    Of course Ti doesn't work clear-cut and linearly like I emphasized. The Ti process itself is usually quick, complex, and unconcerned with documentation.
    +1

    Btw I do like to document some thoughts sometimes when I'm in the mood... perhaps when I feel it's especially insightful


    It is Pe in general, but I for whatever reason thought it was more apt to say "Ne" at the time. No idea why I said that. Apologies.
    No worries

Similar Threads

  1. Romney vs. Obama; Te(Fi) vs. Ti(Fe)
    By Istbkleta in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-21-2012, 05:12 PM
  2. How can I know Fi/Te from Ti/Fe?
    By Elemental Chaos in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 10:30 AM
  3. Let's Discuss Te/Fi,Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe, Fe/Ti
    By Thalassa in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 02:30 PM
  4. Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe?
    By Cloudblue in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-15-2010, 10:09 PM

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