Fi and Ti

[Southern Kross]

Theoretical Fi approach:



(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)

No, this isn't exactly it.

Perhaps a Fi approach would be more about conflict between pragmatic concerns (money, career, logistics etc) and emotive concerns (expected stress levels, personal fulfillment, level of predictability/variance in tasks, personalities of management/employees, work environment, ability to enable/hinder a desired lifestyle etc); or perhaps to simply attempt to weigh up such emotive concerns and decide which has greater priority over the others (eg. "even if the job will be extremely fulfilling, to what degree can I live with high stress and unfriendly co-workers?")

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.

Indeed.

I think we have to steer away from emotions when talking about this. I think of the way the word 'feeling' is used in such descriptions as an intuitive sense of things, rather than an emotion. And that sense responds: "right vs. wrong?", "appropriate vs. inappropriate?", "necessary vs. unnecessary?" etc; rather than: angry, upset, happy etc. Emotions do get entangled in this but they tend to tag on after that initial reaction. On the other hand, I think Ti primarily reacts with: "consistent or inconsistent?"

 

[Silveresque]

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.

I'm not trying to establish what the two functions are used for, I'm trying to distinguish how the two functions reach their conclusions. If I gave a description of Ti used for something different from the Fi description, then I wouldn't really be comparing the two in a way that shows the difference in the processes. Think of the topic, "values", as a controlled variable.

 

[Seymour]

I think Ti vs Fi can be very difficult to narrow down, especially once one takes away subject matter. For example, it's clear that Ti can analyze people and personal relationships (such as shown by all the NTPs on typology forums).

The core of Fi as a process, it seems to me, is evaluating a subjective experience by comparing it to an idealized model built up over time by accretion of previous experiences... primarily for the purpose of aligning the current subjective experience with the idealized model.

So, this includes bringing a piece of art into alignment with another experience, emotion or ongoing theme. It also includes adjusting one's actions to fit with one's moral values or sense of self. Inauthenticity is denying the subjective core of the experience, and forcing it to be/appear as something it is not.

Ti works similarly, but by attempting to match against a personal understanding of abstracted/impersonal principles (which are also built up and validated over time experientially). Ti-doms principles are build up personally, as well, but using a more externalizable processes of logic, categorization and consistency checking.

As far as INFPs vs INTPs goes, INTPs eventually build a minimalistic, elegant, logical model that captures the essential truth of something. Conversely, INFPs build a model that attempts to capture the essential subjective core of something. Both attempt to capture the truth of things, but tackle different facets.

Anyway, not sure if that helps or is just my personal take on things.

 

[Silveresque]

I think Ti vs Fi can be very difficult to narrow down, especially once one takes away subject matter. For example, it's clear that Ti can analyze people and personal relationships (such as shown by all the NTPs on typology forums).

The core of Fi as a process, it seems to me, is evaluating a subjective experience by comparing it to an idealized model built up over time by accretion of previous experiences... primarily for the purpose of aligning the current subjective experience with the idealized model.

So, this includes bringing a piece of art into alignment with another experience, emotion or ongoing theme. It also includes adjusting one's actions to fit with one's moral values or sense of self. Inauthenticity is denying the subjective core of the experience, and forcing it to be/appear as something it is not.

Ti works similarly, but by attempting to match against a personal understanding of abstracted/impersonal principles (which are also built up and validated over time experientially). Ti-doms principles are build up personally, as well, but using a more externalizable processes of logic, categorization and consistency checking.

As far as INFPs vs INTPs goes, INTPs eventually build a minimalistic, elegant, logical model that captures the essential truth of something. Conversely, INFPs build a model that attempts to capture the essential subjective core of something. Both attempt to capture the truth of things, but tackle different facets.

Anyway, not sure if that helps or is just my personal take on things.

Thanks for your explanation, Seymour. I think this helps a lot. Many people seem to think that Fi and Ti can't be used for the same thing, so when someone actually does, it becomes difficult to discern which of the two functions is being used.

My understanding based on what you've described is that although both functions are based on personal ideals and understandings, they take a different route to reach the same destination. Fi takes in experiences subjectively and compares them to existing subjective beliefs for analysis. Ti, on the other hand, takes in experiences subjectively as well, but suppresses emotion in order to see things objectively, comparing them with other subjective principles for consistency. For both processes, the conclusion that is reached becomes personal and subjective, and is incorporated into their system of values/principles. In situations where emotion is not involved, the two processes are probably identical. Come to think of it, this thread is very Ti, comparing Fi and Ti objectively to find the core difference between the two, in order to establish a model for better understanding.

Fi = subjective/personal analysis, subjective/personal values
Ti = objective/impersonal analysis, subjective/personal principles

 

[Vizzy]

I may be going off on a slight tangent (or not), but considering how tricky it is to compare two introverted functions that appear so similar by themselves, how about looking at the different effects Fi and Ti would have on an Auxilliary Ne.

 

[TenebrousReflection]

Regarding Fi/Ti

If I have a strong initial reaction to something, I tend to trust it, but I may later decide to try to analyze what lead me to think/feel that way about it (the questioning process tends to occur if someone I respect says something counter to my belief).

In the case of evaluating what I think or feel about something, I create a sort of virtual scales in my mind and put feelings, facts and logical conclusions onto the scale. The results of the analysis I would presume to be feeling based since thinking wants a level of precision that really can't be used to quantify the value/weight of feelings in the equation and I also have to assess how important each fact I add to the equation is. In the end, I have to reach the conclusion that I would be able to take on the role of advocate for the position using both logical and emotional arguements I have arrived at in order to call it a belief/value. If I don't feel I can do that, then the belief reverts to the status of being "something I lean toward" and I remain open to new ideas about it, but I will still challenge new arguements for it using both logic and emotion based questions.

I intentionally wrote my reply without reading all the responses so I would not be subconsciously influenced by the toher responses, now I will read the responses to see hwo my prespective compares to others.

After browsing other messages in this thread:
What I look for in making a decision are what the long term consequences of it will most probably be and how I feel about those consequences.
I do have beliefs that are fairly set in stone and are not subject to change - nearly always these are subjective matters to begin with ("generalization of human nature", and "what is right for me" are the most influential of those), but those beliefs do affect how I view what the probabe consequences of an action will be.

I can provide an example of a subjective and logical decison which may shed insight on my process.

View: I respect the conviction of beliefs of Ron Paul, so I decide to make an evaluation of the libertarian party. I ask what the logical consequences of it's implimentation are in the real world and I conclude that the human nature of corruption and greed make it a flawed system in practice, but in an ideal (and in my view unattainable) world it would work. My conclusion is that I still respect the ideological purity of its supporters, but I see the system as being flawed because it failes to take into consideration the darker side of human nature.

My guess is that I am using Ne to estimate a possibility and using Fi to make a judgement on the outcome of that possibility

Objective issue with some feeling interjected: Netflix announces price increase.
I compile a list of some of my favorite movies and TV shows in a spreadsheet.
I create a list of the alternatives to netflix.
I research which of the titles in my list are available on which platform
I evaluate my list and remove Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus from consideration on the basis of lack of content I am interested in watching (if they don't have my favorite past shows and movies, I don't expect them to have the stuff I will want to watch in the future).
I then conclude that blockbuster and netflix are roughly equal on movie and televison selection.
Netflix offended me by raising prices so thats a strike against them.
Blockbuster has a poor web interface so thats a strike against them.
Even after price increases, Netflix is still slightly cheaper than blockbuster for non-bluray DVDs and roughly equal on most bluray plans so there is not a cost savings from switching.
Blockbuster only offers DVD rental, not streaming, so they can not completely replace netflix (nor can anyone else at this time)
This makes it roughly a wash between my dissatisfaction with netflix and my dissatisfaction with the blockbuster interface.
I conclude that the only reason to switch to Blcokbuster is to "teach netflix a lesson", but since I don't have a bluray player, I would essential be paying more to do that and conclude that its not worth it.
I remain open to a more compelling reason to drop netflix, but for now I'll stick with them but might decide to drop streaming for a couple months as a way to send a message.

My guess here is that I'm using Te here, but I'd like to know if others agree, and if so, how Ti would approach the same issue.

 

[Silveresque]

My guess here is that I'm using Te here, but I'd like to know if others agree, and if so, how Ti would approach the same issue.

Yeah, that sounds like Te to me. It seems too methodical and orderly to be Ti, but that could just be the way that it looks after writing it all out. Here's how I would handle the same situation:

Netflix raised their prices?! The horror! :horor:
Hmmm...is it really worth the time and energy to research and compare prices?
Probably not. *Stays with Netflix*

But I guess that probably doesn't help you much. Let's just say I was feeling particularly productive that day.

Does price comparison research online
Netflix still comes out the best
Decides they can afford to raise their prices if they still have the best deal
Stays with Netflix

I really wouldn't care about switching to another source just to punish Netflix. I don't really see the point, since doing so would just waste time and energy, and they still have the best deal anyways. But I would think this demonstrates the perceiving trait rather than Ti (as opposed to Fi). I suppose if you were in Te mode, that could have gone against your natural perceiving-ness and caused you to thoroughly research this. Or maybe you had such a strong Fi reaction to the fact that they raised their prices that you felt you had to do something about it.

 

[TenebrousReflection]

Thanks,

It would seem my decision making patterns are consitant with the Fi, Ne, Si, Te pattern of INFPs even if they don't seem to be an exact match to other INFPs - its enough to make me realize I use Te more than I thought I did anyway.

 

[five]

Interesting.

I wouldn't bother trying to matchup Fi vs Ti.

Rather just go Fi vs Fe route. Even though the INTP is "T" they have a torrid of feelings (at least when I observe them, often they are not aware of these feelings). Fe is clearly visible in INTP's and basically absent in Fi users.

However Fi vs Fe is something that is easier detected in reality vs online forums.

 

[five]

One also has to factor in age into it. For example lower order cognitives develop more fully, later on in life (eg 30+ years onwards)...

 

[TenebrousReflection]

Interesting.

I wouldn't bother trying to matchup Fi vs Ti.

Rather just go Fi vs Fe route. Even though the INTP is "T" they have a torrid of feelings (at least when I observe them, often they are not aware of these feelings). Fe is clearly visible in INTP's and basically absent in Fi users.

However Fi vs Fe is something that is easier detected in reality vs online forums.

In the case of comparing INFP and INTP, it makes sense to compare Fi and Ti, because they represent our primary function, and for those of us that are indecicive about our type, seeing the difference is helpful.

The lack of Fe in INFPs is a valid point, but even in INTPs that should have it, as you point out, how well developed it is depends on age and life circumstances, but an INFP raised in an environment that was full of Fe would probably also develop that skill even though it is a shadow trait for them - the difference is the INFP would probably view it as a nescessary evil, where I think the INTP would view it as a tool (every job benefits from the right tool - even if its not a job you enjoy, its still good to have the best tool for it and know how to use it).

 

[entropie]

I think the op's an intresting topic, I am afraid I am as hesistant on a factual definition like you are in the op.

Its definitly not only the difference between passion and logic or between a focus on humans or on machines... when it comes to me I'd say the one comes from the head and thinks boolean, while the other comes from the heart and thinks human. Thats the farthest step I'd dare out of the house.

But I do see the similarity, I had equal problems about recognizing whether I am enfp or entp.

 

[Lord Guess]

Just going to throw in my two cents, here.

The difference between Ti and Fi, even though they may come to the same result, is the process behind it, as everyone here knows. This is what I've found it would look like:

Ti: This system doesn't make sense; here is a much more sound, practical one.
Fi: This system is wrong; here is a much kinder/ more humanistic one.

A Ti user still has an emotional reaction to a system, but this is more dependent on whether or not it is logically sound than it is on some humanistic or moral principle. In other words, a Ti user might have a bad feeling about a principle or rule, but their feelings will be influenced far more by whether or not it works or is practical, than by a moral principle. Even if what they don't like about it is how it makes them feel, their intention will be to make it practical and leaving them with a good feeling. The practicality would come first, in this case; they would not easily sacrifice practicality to morality. The human element would be great to please, however, the point of the reform would be to increase the efficiency of the system.

An Fi user, on the other hand would have thoughts on the matter, but their thoughts are influenced by their emotions and moral principles, not the other way around. An Fi user might look at a rule/principle and say, "this is wrong, it shouldn't be like this". They may then have logical reasons as to why they believe that it is wrong, but the logic here is used to serve their moral principles, unlike a Ti user, who will modify their morality to fit into a logical model. The morality of it would come first; the logic and practicality behind it would always take a backseat to that. If an Fi user were to advocate logic over emotional harmony, it would be because the logic, in that case, would be more fitting to their principles than the harmonious option.

 

[Silveresque]

Here's an interesting perspective I found on another thread by simulatedworld:

The difference is that Fi/Te people have preconceived notions of ethics ("natural ethics" which stay static regardless of context), but believe that logic just depends on the current situation. Nothing is logical until an external context has been defined.

Ti/Fe people have preconceived notions of logic ("natural logic" which stays static regardless of context) but believe that ethics depend on the current situation. Nothing is ethical until an external context has been defined.

In other words, an INFP might say that violence is always bad, but sometimes it's logical and necessary, whereas an INTP might say violence can be logical, but it's not always ethical/acceptable.

 

[wolfy]

In other words, an INFP might say that violence is always bad, but sometimes it's logical and necessary, whereas an INTP might say violence can be logical, but it's not always ethical/acceptable.

It doesn't make much sense to me though, both those things vary depending on context. Plus, I'd say I see ethics as in more of a flux than logic. In your example I would usually think... it will work to impose my will on others but is it the right choice ethically.

 

[Silveresque]

Maybe it's more like this: Do you feel what's right/wrong or what you personally desire, and then decide whether or not it's logical, or do you know what's logical and then have to decide whether or not it's ethical?

 

[Eric B]

Here's some more ways of expressing these finctional distinctions I've just thought of.

ego's Ti self-evaluation: Am I living up to my own sense of technical worth? Am I producing an environment of internally standardized efficiency? (convenience; everything makes sense, not controlled by anything that doesn't make sense).

Hence, a pragmatic (NT[P] or S[T]P) approach to decision making

The sense of humane worth is generally ceded to the outside environment. The goal is to be logically efficient to one's self, and accepted by others. Often these conflict, causing much stress as the immature functional need goes unmet.

Shadow degradation:

Ti-Fi When things don't make sense, ego is offended. If others do not acknowledge or accept position, then a strong internal sense of humane worthlessness develops. Merging with the object from a humane perspective normally protects you from this internal sense, but if the object is too much against the ego, then you are exposed to these feelings you try to keep out of consciousness.

This would be balanced by ceding some of the technical judgment to others, and keeping some of the humane judgment to one's self, but these are normally rejected perspectives. Then, you could both deal with things not always making sense, and not depend on others' acceptance when at odds.

ego's Fi self-evaluation: Am I living up to my own sense of humane worth? Am I reflecting to others the values I believe are universal?

Hence, a responsive (F+P informative;motive focused) approach.

Technical evaluations are ceded to the external environment. The goal is to be ethically congruent to one's own self, and logically efficient to others. The person then works to serve others in some way. (Thus, the typical Supine--IxFP and Sanguine--ExFP behaviors, which might sound Fe-ish, but are really a combination of Fi and Te. Here, INTP/Naama, is where what you've been saying about function-attitude 'simulation' is true).
This can conflict, if the internal sense of personal need is not what the group wants. Thus, even though the person's ethical standard is internal, he will still often be very sensitive and easily hurt by others' disapproval. (The tertiary or inferior Fi of TJ's, is where it more likely puts on a tough stubborn exterior that often resists others in favor of one's own values).

Shadow degradation (FP's can state whether they can testify to this):

Fi-Ti When life isn't congruent with values, ego is offended. If others do not acknowledge or work towards making necessary changes, then a strong internal sense of depersonalization occurs.
Merging with the object from a technical perspective normally protects you from this internal sense, but if the object is too much against the ego, then you are exposed to these feelings you try to keep out of consciousness.

This would be balanced by ceding some of the humane evaluation to the group, and then internalizing some of the technical standards so that you both understand the logic of why people want what they do, and do not overextend yourself too much.