Fi vs. Ti (thanks to Virginia Woolf)

[Z Buck McFate]

imo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the thing is, to some extent, Te is subjectively defined, inasmuch as thinking is- in itself- a purely subjective event. The term ‘objective thinking’ is something of an oxymoron: it isn’t possible to think objectively, it’s only possible to think subjectively about objective possibilities. T inherently has more objective criteria in mind, the information is more consistent and predictable- but at the core, all thinking/judging is still a subjective event. Te has the least amount of accounting for one’s own praxis of thought, while Fi probably has the most. Te is most apt to lose sight of its own subjectivity, its own praxis of thought- which it necessarily has- so it’s blind to how values and norms can corrupt its expression of ‘objective criteria’. With this in mind, it’s not the ‘best’ way of making decisions.

 

[Kalach]

If "objective" means "not immediately or directly affective", then yes to probably everything everyone said.


Friends, suck it up. Defining "objective" that way creates an artificial distinction between Fi and Ti. ARTIFICIAL! Unless perhaps there is some reason to say Fi people spend more time not resorting to extroverted functions than do Ti people. Or perhaps there is some reason to say Fi is all about the affect, and little about "objective" assessment/assignment of role and type to this affect and that.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I personally was using 'objective' to describe that which exists outside personal feelings or thoughts. So, not only 'not affective', but also 'external to the mind'.

I don't follow how introverted thinking about 'objective' criteria is necessarily more extroverted than introverted feeling about subjective criteria. If the judgment itself is introverted (not based on the judgment of others), why does it matter what the focus is on (other than determining T/F, of course)?

 

[Kalach]

I personally was using 'objective' to describe that which exists outside personal feelings or thoughts. So, not only 'not affective', but also 'external to the mind'.

Those two are different, "outside personal feelings or thoughts" and "external to the mind". The former can't be done by anything in your head, while the latter can be accessed (relatively directly) by anything e (except perhaps Fe).

And I prove this by:

*waves hands*


Ti people are attached to something special with this word "objective". It isn't being used as Jung used it. It is being used to mean something, ironically, that one can be attached to. I am unsure how to express it. Something like "being personally interested in being impersonal". But that is a shallow expression implying the position is chosen. It seems rather that it is not chosen. It looks, sounds, and acts like a value, but indeed, that is me using terminology I fill with Fi nuance. So what is it? It's special to the operation of particularly Ti. What is it?

Yes, Ti people, what's up with this word "objective" you keep using? I know why I use it. It refers to everything that is independent of me. I don't make that "everything". And I discover it mostly just by seeing it and assenting to it. But you guys have something special going on.

What's up with that?

 

[INTPness]

Something like "being personally interested in being impersonal". But that is a shallow expression implying the position is chosen. It seems rather that it is not chosen. It looks, sounds, and acts like a value, but indeed, that is me using terminology I fill with Fi nuance. So what is it? It's special to the operation of particularly Ti. What is it?

Yes, Ti people, what's up with this word "objective" you keep using? I know why I use it. It refers to everything that is independent of me. I don't make that "everything". And I discover it mostly just by seeing it and assenting to it. But you guys have something special going on.

What's up with that?

There is something innate in me - it's been there since I was a small child - where I want to (not by choice, just by natural inclination) be invisible. I want to observe the world and everything/everyone in it - all the "goings on" and just learn from it. I want to be detached. I remember as a child, going to the lake with my family for vacation. They would all be busy setting up for the week, having fun, doing this, doing that. I would wander off to a place where nobody could see me - a really remote place and I would watch everything that was going on at the lake. All the people, the dogs, the boats, the interaction, the laughing, the water, the birds, the cows, the park ranger driving around doing his monitoring, even the trash man doing his thing. I wanted to see it "as a whole" - as a system, how it was all interconnected and I was learning how human interaction works on a larger scale than just 1-on-1 dialogue. I sometimes wished I could go up in the sky and see it all from a birds eye view, because then I'd be able to see even more things - I'd be able to gather "more information".

With all of that said, I know that I do live in this world and I can't completely detach from it - it's impossible. I have to interact, I have to be a part of what is going on - just like everyone else. And so there is no way to be totally objective about every single thing. Once you've "interacted" or "made it a part of you" in some small way, then your viewpoint is inevitably biased or skewed in the direction of your experience.

I guess what I'm getting at is - I have no problem with somoene telling me that I'm not totally objective, or that Ti isn't totally objective. I'd agree with them. But, it certainly strives to be objective - as much as that is possible while living in this world. And, again, it's not something that I consciously set out to do. It's just the natural tendency, the natural inclination. If I'm evaluating a situation or an interaction, I want to bring ZERO bias or preconceived notions to the table. I want to just observe with a totally clean slate and let the observation lead me to wherever it leads me. I don't want to taint it with my own past experiences. Like, if I were a judge for instance, each case that came before me, I would *want to* (even though it's not possible) wipe the chalkboard clean of all the other cases I had previously heard. I want to hear this new case that is in front of me with no "leaning" one way or the other. I want to hear the case and the arguments for their own merit and then make a decision with a fresh, uninhibited perspective.

The only time I will purposely think to myself "I have to be objective here" is when some situation needs "sorting out". Let's say two family members are arguing and it becomes heated and they ask my opinion. Well, I have a history with both of them and I know the background of the disagreement, etc. And I may have even taken sides in my own mind, to some extent. But, I first think to myself, "don't analyze this as a member of the family". Analyze this as a third party - as if I were someone from the outside - so that I don't bring personal bias into my decision or into my opinion. And I find that I have an ability to detach (to some degree, it can't ever be a FULL detachment) from even my own prior experience and to view the situation, and give an opinion, as if I had no prior information.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Those two are different, "outside personal feelings or thoughts" and "external to the mind". The former can't be done by anything in your head, while the latter can be accessed (relatively directly) by anything e (except perhaps Fe).

And I prove this by:

*waves hands*

I'm not sure how 'external to the mind' is that much different from 'outside personal thoughts'. At any rate, the meaning you seem to get from the assemblage of words I used is different from the one I intended to convey- so I'll rephrase: I personally was using 'objective' to describe that which exists outside personal feelings or thoughts. So, not only 'exists outside personal feelings', but also 'exists outside personal thoughts'.

 

[rav3n]

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

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

Any cognitive function doesn't process in a vacuum. Other processes can help temper or offset.

 

[Athenian200]

Any cognitive function doesn't process in a vacuum. Other processes can help temper or offset.

Still, it looks like Fi would need a LOT more help, and contribute a lot less, doesn't it? I mean, Ti at least contributes precision and analytical skills. Te contributes structure and pragmatism. Fe contributes diplomacy and compassion... what does Fi do? It just has its own values that don't come from anywhere, and judges things by them. It just has feelings about its own ideals. Maybe it gives FPs a lot of internal motivation and self-confidence, but it doesn't benefit anyone else.

The way it looks to me, is that Ne and Se completely carry an FP through life. The Fi doesn't provide much more than motivation, and has no skills.

I would like to think there was more to it, but...

 

[rav3n]

but it doesn't benefit anyone else.

I've isolated this as a Fe judgment based on external values. Many Fi users aren't interested in benefitting anyone else unless they've incorporated this value into their sourced database. Now take the strength and conviction of Fi if a Fi user has embraced this or any other value. Mountains can be moved since there's rigidity and determination in Fi.

 

[Orangey]

I've isolated this as a Fe judgment based on external values. Many Fi users aren't interested in benefitting anyone else unless they've incorporated this value into their sourced database. Now take the strength and conviction of Fi if a Fi user has embraced this or any other value. Mountains can be moved since there's rigidity and determination in Fi.

^^ Told you Athenian.

 

[PeaceBaby]

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

What did you take away from this book? Did it speak to you at all?

 

[Cybin]

I disagree that Fi is any more or less prone to focus on others than any other function.

Fi values are based on what an Fi person thinks the world would be better as, not what benefits them as an individual. The Fi perspective does refer often to their own feelings, which does lead a very easy trap of assuming people all feel like the Fi user. This can be remedied with some wisdom and maturity. A more mature Fi user will use their feelings as a guiding point, not an end point, for understanding how other people work.

Everyone has the ability to be selfish, and anyone can make the mistake of thinking that other people think like them.

Fi doesn't "come from nowhere" but it is difficult to express. TeFi is exactly the same in my experience. Things 'should' be this way and they 'should' do this, the focus tends to be more on impersonal systems than the individual compared to FiTe. STJ duties are born from Fi.

From my perspective, my values are based on my understanding of how I am affected by external forces, and how I understand others to be affected. I don't like to see other people hurt, it "feels bad." My values are worked around reducing pain and growing healthy individual minds. They aren't perfect, by any means. But, I certainly don't feel as if I'm innately more selfish than any other person and I don't base my decisions on glitter and shiny things without thought.

My own internal workings are very very loud. I cannot ignore how I feel very easily. This is why I prioritize how people are affected, because it is the loudest part of my world view. I know when I was younger I was more self centered, absolutely. As I experience more of the world this is becoming less true. I would wager that most people are the same way in this regard.

 

[ThatGirl]

I am an Fi user right? Yet my functions test will say that I use more Ti than Te.

In my experience Fi deals with circumstances and standards I already have set guidelines for. It can be over something stupid, like why would someone make a comment like that unnecessarily? Or it may have to do with larger things. Sometimes stepping in to aid some of my views on justice, what warrants punishment, what I think or feel the lines and boundaries are, etc.

But, these understandings and morales are already defined, then are applied to a situation to help it adhere to my moral beliefs.

Ti on the other hand couldn't care less what I personally think or feel about a situation. It takes a step back to objectively calculate the over all weight of each situation or circumstance. Coming up with objective ideas and understandings by working through and sorting a plexus of information into similar categories.

So Fi, projects into a situation, and Ti takes from it?
Fi, understands subjectively, Ti seeks to understand objectively.

How accurate am I on this?

 

[Southern Kross]

I am an Fi user right? Yet my functions test will say that I use more Ti than Te.

In my experience Fi deals with circumstances and standards I already have set guidelines for. It can be over something stupid, like why would someone make a comment like that unnecessarily? Or it may have to do with larger things. Sometimes stepping in to aid some of my views on justice, what warrants punishment, what I think or feel the lines and boundaries are, etc.

But, these understandings and morales are already defined, then are applied to a situation to help it adhere to my moral beliefs.

Ti on the other hand couldn't care less what I personally think or feel about a situation. It takes a step back to objectively calculate the over all weight of each situation or circumstance. Coming up with objective ideas and understandings by working through and sorting a plexus of information into similar categories.

So Fi, projects into a situation, and Ti takes from it?
Fi, understands subjectively, Ti seeks to understand objectively.

How accurate am I on this?

Interesting thoughts, and I think you're right. Fi-users want to personalise everything - they mentally put themselves into the situation and then determine a course of action based on the corresponding imperative that is invoked inside them. Whereas Ti-users, take themselves out of the equation and think in terms of what is required by the situation itself - they feel no personal obligation to act (?), and only wish to determine a course of action that fits with their personal logic.

So perhaps Fi-users project themselves into a situation in order to solicit a response inside them - to discover what they think/feel so they know how to act. And maybe Fi doms can't manage without personalising things because they don't know how to respond to them without doing so. Ti, on the other hand, is only personally attached to the logic, not the situation it is applied to.

Does this make sense?

 

[Seymour]

Interesting thoughts, and I think you're right. Fi-users want to personalise everything - they mentally put themselves into the situation and then determine a course of action based on the corresponding imperative that is invoked inside them. Whereas Ti-users, take themselves out of the equation and think in terms of what is required by the situation itself - they feel no personal obligation to act (?), and only wish to determine a course of action that fits with their personal logic.

So perhaps Fi-users project themselves into a situation in order to solicit a response inside them - to discover what they think/feel so they know how to act. And maybe Fi doms can't manage without personalising things because they don't know how to respond to them without doing so. Ti, on the other hand, is only personally attached to the logic, not the situation it is applied to.

Does this make sense?

I think for me it feels more like I allow the situation to project inward, where it is then evaluated. I think INTPs doing something similar, where the inward projection of the outward reality becomes their model or framework which they then hone using Ti.

The models I build as an INFP are often a model of the mental or emotional state of another. Like an INTP's model of reality, they aren't always accurate but sometimes grant a certain kind of insight.

Of course, as an Fi-dom I can help but feel that emotions always color perception and judgment, and no one can be entirely objective. There's a certain freedom in owning up to one's own irrationality.

 

[skylights]

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

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

Still, it looks like Fi would need a LOT more help, and contribute a lot less, doesn't it? I mean, Ti at least contributes precision and analytical skills. Te contributes structure and pragmatism. Fe contributes diplomacy and compassion... what does Fi do? It just has its own values that don't come from anywhere, and judges things by them. It just has feelings about its own ideals. Maybe it gives FPs a lot of internal motivation and self-confidence, but it doesn't benefit anyone else.

The way it looks to me, is that Ne and Se completely carry an FP through life. The Fi doesn't provide much more than motivation, and has no skills.

I would like to think there was more to it, but...

I've isolated this as a Fe judgment based on external values. Many Fi users aren't interested in benefitting anyone else unless they've incorporated this value into their sourced database. Now take the strength and conviction of Fi if a Fi user has embraced this or any other value. Mountains can be moved since there's rigidity and determination in Fi.

in addition to what z buck pointed out, i think that there's a sort of fascinating twist in which Fi becomes more removed in some ways than the other functions (in other words, an aspect in which they flip Fi>Ti,Fe>Te) - not in the sense of objectivity, but in the sense of independence. the downside to Te, then Fe and Ti, is that they need certain things to operate. Te must have an external arena and is confined to logic. Fe doesn't have the same logic constraint but also must have an external environment (you will note how an ESFJ or ENFJ in private contemplation moves almost entirely to Si or Ni), Ti is tied to logic (things are frustrating and nonsensical if they do not operate by logic), while Fi is constrained neither by logic nor by the existence of an external environment.

it's why you occasionally have the one little Fi dom kid finally getting really angry and standing up and yelling at the bully when no one else will - it's not logical to do that, and it's not in line with external standards - but in throwing your entire self on the line you stand to gain a more holistic achievement - the only word i can think of is healing.

also fascinating is what we see occur in types:

Fe is always paired with Ti, Ti with Fe
Te is always paried with Fi, Fi with Te

so:

Fe/Ti - (subjective, objective) / (objective, subjective)
Fi/Te - (subjective, subjective) / (objective, objective)

we all thus have both objective and subjective Judging processes. the difference lies in whether they are grouped together, or paired. why FPs and TJs can seem alternatingly warm and cool while TPs and FJs can seem simultaneously warm and cool.

 

[ThatGirl]

The reason I said that Fi projects out, is this:

Take a situation where someone walks in and recognizes something as wrong, or out of step with their inner moral compass. They are more likely to project out the Fi that was preexisting and defined. This would be Fi in action, though Fi as a function is internally structured.

Ti (in action) tends to take a step out of the situation and mull through its components in a more objective manner. So the motion of it is toward the inner world.

It may be I don't fully understand Fi, when I feel people see the most of it from me, it is because I already know exactly what the right and wrong is. Where I stand in a subjective manner, etc. Then I am just told I am stubborn as hell, and very much unwilling to bend on my view. Thank God for T in being an at least slight segway into a more interpersonal view.

My Fi, is already developed, and doesn't budge.

 

[KDude]

Te is probably the "best" way of making decisions, while Fi is the worst.

Not necessarily. Te is taking a lot of objective information about how the world works, both good and bad. And guess what? The world is a vampire. :rolli: And Fi is a rat in a cage. And umm..

Scratch that.

Fi has it in mind to reform some of it. Moving things closer to an ideal (albeit slowly). For better or worse. Many Fi types are taking a humanitarian/universalistic approach to values, so I would say it's "for better" in many cases. Sometimes not. "Objective" is not necessarily good though.

 

[INTPness]

^^^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9a1OtHoJvg

 

[Kalach]

I'm not sure how 'external to the mind' is that much different from 'outside personal thoughts'. At any rate, the meaning you seem to get from the assemblage of words I used is different from the one I intended to convey- so I'll rephrase: I personally was using 'objective' to describe that which exists outside personal feelings or thoughts. So, not only 'exists outside personal feelings', but also 'exists outside personal thoughts'.

So, it is a value! And becomes more clearly recognised as such if "outside" is rendered as "uninfluenced by", viz INTPness' impressive description above.