• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

F versus T: From a Jungian Cognitive Functions Perspective

Esoteric Wench

Professional Trickster
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
945
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
I can readily articulate the differences between various cognitive functions. For example, I can tell you the main differences between Fe and Fi. Or Ne and Ni. But I have a hard time articulating the overarching differences between F functions and T functions.

I want to hear your guys' explanations of the differences between F and T. (Even better is if this explanation comes from someone fluent in JCFs (Jungian Cognitive Functions).) I've read a gazillion MBTI explanations of the difference between F and T. But after adopting the JCF paradigm, these MBTI explanations seem overly simplistic to me.

What do Fe and Fi have in common that they don't share with either Te or Ti (and vice versa)?

Go.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Fe and Fi both deal with more "personal/interpersonal" issues (which I term "humane"; as opposed to the "impersonal" or "technical" focus of Te and Ti).
The difference between them is the inner or outer standards they draw upon. (Which may lead to different ways of going about things).
 
S

Society

Guest
What do Fe and Fi have in common that they don't share with either Te or Ti (and vice versa)?

Go.

Fe is seeking to connect to other's subjective expeirence, and from this conversation, i gather that Fi is striving towards harmony with one's own subjective self. on the other hand both Ti and Te are striving to understand the objective world.

it's not much of a stretch IMO - we're social creatures and it seems natural that parts of our brain specialized in understanding a very important object in our environment - people, a part which we are also able to use to understand ourselves.

ofcourse, mixup the two and you end up with Pantheonism.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
F and T are both deductive processes in the super-function Judgment. If Judgment says "true" or "false", then Thinking was used. If Judgment says "good" or "bad", then Feeling was used.

Basically they take some premises passed in from perception, combine them with some built in beliefs, and spit out an answer. That answer could either be the end of the line, or could be something that Perception uses to come up with new stuff to pass back in.

Forgive my nerdy-programming moment, but here's what I think the Judgment functions look like (written in shitty c# with some english thrown in; I've only spent about an hour using c# so forgive me). Oops, it also won't let me format.

public string[] environmentallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current environment that perception has labeled relevant;
public string[] internallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current internal state (state of the user) that perception has labeled relevant;

public static bool Feeling(string x, string y)
{
if (x is bad given y) or (y is bad given x)
return false;
return true;
} // takes two things and checks if either of them are bad given the other.

public static string Fe(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate, environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "bad";
return "good";
} //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".

public static string Fi(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate, internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "bad";
return "good";
} //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".


public static bool Thinking(string x, string y)
{
if (x is not consistent with y)
return false;
return true;
} // takes two things and checks they are consistent with each other.


public static string Te(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate, environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "true";
return "false";
} //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "false", otherwise returns "true".


public static string Ti(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate, internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "true";
return "false";
} //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "true", otherwise returns "false".

Sorry it's a bit handwavey, but hopefully someone will get what I'm saying.
 

Esoteric Wench

Professional Trickster
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
945
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION], this was a great, great post. This is exactly what I was looking for. It's really helped me get my head around this. I'm going to print this out and tape it to my bulletin board by my desk.

:smile:
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION], this was a great, great post. This is exactly what I was looking for. It's really helped me get my head around this. I'm going to print this out and tape it to my bulletin board by my desk.

:smile:

Sweet, cuz right after I wrote that all out I thought maybe no one would have any idea how to follow it. :)
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
F and T are both deductive processes in the super-function Judgment. If Judgment says "true" or "false", then Thinking was used. If Judgment says "good" or "bad", then Feeling was used.

Basically they take some premises passed in from perception, combine them with some built in beliefs, and spit out an answer. That answer could either be the end of the line, or could be something that Perception uses to come up with new stuff to pass back in.

Forgive my nerdy-programming moment, but here's what I think the Judgment functions look like (written in shitty c# with some english thrown in; I've only spent about an hour using c# so forgive me). Oops, it also won't let me format.

public string[] environmentallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current environment that perception has labeled relevant;
public string[] internallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current internal state (state of the user) that perception has labeled relevant;

public static bool Feeling(string x, string y)
{
if (x is bad given y) or (y is bad given x)
return false;
return true;
} // takes two things and checks if either of them are bad given the other.

public static string Fe(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate, environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "bad";
return "good";
} //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".

public static string Fi(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate, internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "bad";
return "good";
} //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".


public static bool Thinking(string x, string y)
{
if (x is not consistent with y)
return false;
return true;
} // takes two things and checks they are consistent with each other.


public static string Te(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate, environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "true";
return "false";
} //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "false", otherwise returns "true".


public static string Ti(string[] stufftoevaluate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate, internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
return "true";
return "false";
} //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "true", otherwise returns "false".

Sorry it's a bit handwavey, but hopefully someone will get what I'm saying.


This is a super cool, and different, way of representing these concepts!


The whole preference of Judgment/Perception has just never jived with me, in describing what Meyers was trying to get at, which was that some people seem to like to have more external control over their environment (emotional and physical), and others seem to like to have more internal control over their environment (because P's can still be quite controlling in an individualized way).

Since J/P has never jived with me, I cannot accept the premise of your proposition. Also I do not use my Fe or Fi in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' although I do think I understand where you are coming from with those terms. It's not so much quantitative (as your terms sort-of imply), for me, but more qualititative. Same for how I feel about T.

If I had to say a function was Judging or Perceiving, I'd ascribe those terms to the dominant (or I also like to call it 'gatekeeper') function a person uses most. For I believe that most every thought or feeling, and every perception and intuition, filters through this before being laid down in our brain; how can it not? It being the original way we began to see and experience life from the time we were born (unless under duress and this natural process breaks down, then you might get some interesting embeds). So that if we are dominant irrational, or dominant rational, that will color what goes in, and what goes out, meaning we all judge and perceive everything fundamentally.




So I keep coming up with F being irrational and T being rational, as being the main differences between F and T.

But Jung calls N and S irrational. I want to say that S is not so irrational....but more based in the world, and therefore more rational than F, but this skews everything, and I know all the T's will annihilate me for this thought.

Irrational gradation form greatest to least irrational:

N>F>S>T

I wanted to say "subjective vs objective" for my answer to the OP, but Ti is definitely not objective.




Great Thread!
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
This is a super cool, and different, way of representing these concepts!


The whole preference of Judgment/Perception has just never jived with me, in describing what Meyers was trying to get at, which was that some people seem to like to have more external control over their environment (emotional and physical), and others seem to like to have more internal control over their environment (because P's can still be quite controlling in an individualized way).

My programming-ish description actually wasn't supposed to have anything to do with preference whatsoever, it was just focused on the mechanisms (functions) themselves. The way I view the functions is that if you wrote them all out in the way I've proposed, they would account for all of cognition (the perceiving functions are actually where all the ridiculously complex stuff happens, at least in the way I divide the functions up).

The judging functions are basically checking functions. They check whether things are consistent with relevant moral premises (Feeling) or consistent with relevant premises (probably a different set than feeling) in general (Thinking).

The more interesting part of judging from a programming perspective is in evaluating which premises are relevant (which I skipped over because I wouldn't know how to start).

Since J/P has never jived with me, I cannot accept the premise of your proposition. Also I do not use my Fe or Fi in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' although I do think I understand where you are coming from with those terms. It's not so much quantitative (as your terms sort-of imply), for me, but more qualititative. Same for how I feel about T.

I just use the words good and bad to differentiate Feeling from Thinking, but it's really just yes or no for either. The question for Feeling is "is this consistent with relevant morals?", so the answer is yes/no. Same with Thinking.

Again, in my understanding, most of the important work happens in Perception. What is "stufftoevaluate"? That's a question only Perception decides the answer to.

If I had to say a function was Judging or Perceiving, I'd ascribe those terms to the dominant (or I also like to call it 'gatekeeper') function a person uses most. For I believe that most every thought or feeling, and every perception and intuition, filters through this before being laid down in our brain; how can it not? It being the original way we began to see and experience life from the time we were born (unless under duress and this natural process breaks down, then you might get some interesting embeds). So that if we are dominant irrational, or dominant rational, that will color what goes in, and what goes out.

Yeah I think it would be really hard, when looking at the actual relationship of functions, to talk about preference for functions (type). In my mind the differences are not in the structure of the code, but in the function calls themselves (which might just be a tiny little tweak in perception's code, as in, how often it checks things for consistency).
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My programming-ish description actually wasn't supposed to have anything to do with preference whatsoever, it was just focused on the mechanisms (functions) themselves. The way I view the functions is that if you wrote them all out in the way I've proposed, they would account for all of cognition (the perceiving functions are actually where all the ridiculously complex stuff happens, at least in the way I divide the functions up).

I know.

The judging functions are basically checking functions. They check whether things are consistent with relevant moral premises (Feeling) or consistent with relevant premises (probably a different set than feeling) in general (Thinking).

I know. Thing is, this just isn't the way it really works I don't think. And it's definitely not the way it works for me. To me, T and F are not necessarily "judging" functions, as Jung defines them. I don't use my F in context to some moral code. In fact, I would say that Fe, used properly, should be one of the least judgmental of the functions. Because everyone has a unique experience! And if I am engaging with someone, ideally I will not need to judge at all. Perhaps I will use my Ni or Ne or Si or Se or even T to understand them better, but 'judgment' should actually be the furthest thing from F interaction....

I think the only place I use Judgment is with my Ni, ultimately judging what goes in and what goes out.

And I feel that reserving judgment for one's primary function, whatever that might be in any given point in time, is the ideal. I do not think we can label certain functions "judgmental" in other words. But I think our dominant function in use is our judging function.


The more interesting part of judging from a programming perspective is in evaluating which premises are relevant (which I skipped over because I wouldn't know how to start).

It becomes apparent when trying to use programming language just how much intricacy is involved when our minds work.


I just use the words good and bad to differentiate Feeling from Thinking, but it's really just yes or no for either. The question for Feeling is "is this consistent with relevant morals?", so the answer is yes/no. Same with Thinking.

I don't think in terms of yes or no though. Unless it is just so minute as to be practically irrelevant. It's more like, "ohrly?" lol Always a learning process...

Again, in my understanding, most of the important work happens in Perception. What is "stufftoevaluate"? That's a question only Perception decides the answer to.

I'm sure a dominant perceiver would agree with you. ;)


Yeah I think it would be really hard, when looking at the actual relationship of functions, to talk about preference for functions (type). In my mind the differences are not in the structure of the code, but in the function calls themselves (which might just be a tiny little tweak in perception's code, as in, how often it checks things for consistency).


I guess MBTI is a quick and dirty way of assessing one's Jungian functions. And what most people use (because it is now taught in college psych), which is effective for communicating with each other.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I know. Thing is, this just isn't the way it really works I don't think. And it's definitely not the way it works for me. To me, T and F are not necessarily "judging" functions, as Jung defines them. I don't use my F in context to some moral code. In fact, I would say that Fe, used properly, should be one of the least judgmental of the functions. Because everyone has a unique experience! And if I am engaging with someone, ideally I will not need to judge at all. Perhaps I will use my Ni or Ne or Si or Se or even T to understand them better, but 'judgment' should actually be the furthest thing from F interaction. No?

Well I don't really agree, as by definition Feeling is a judging function. I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at though. Since Fe's judgment is predicated on environmental factors, the judgments it makes are much more context-dependent than those of Fi. I tend to think of myself as less judgmental than most people, but that's a different definition of judgment. Evaluating is closer to what I mean when I'm talking about judging functions.

Much of what you're talking about I would say takes place inside Intuition and Sensing. Those are the functions that actually define the parameters of the evaluation, and where openmindedness actually comes into play.

I understand not everyone has the same way of thinking about the functions, this is just how I divide up cognitive tasks in the framework I'm using.

It becomes apparent when trying to use programming language just how much intricacy is involved when our minds work.

:)

I don't think in terms of yes or no though. Unless it is just so minute as to be practically irrelevant. It's more like, "ohrly?" lol Always a learning process...

In general, I think judging mostly says "yes". So it's not necessarily that visible when it's happening. When you realize, wait a sec, that's not good, or that's not consistent, that's when it's clear you're using Judging, even if it only accounts for maybe 5% of actual usage.

I'm sure a dominant perceiver would agree with you. ;)

I would say this is true for Judging dominants as well. I don't define a dominant function by it's literal use in terms of % cognitive computational power. I think generally Judging takes up a very low percentage of cognition (think of all the tasks involved in just labeling what's happening around you, it's ridiculously computation-heavy). The difference between a Judging dominant and a Perceiving dominant might be something like 5% of total cognition to 7% of total cognition.

I guess MBTI is a quick and dirty way of assessing one's Jungian functions. And what most people use (because it is now taught in college psych), which is effective for communicating with each other.

Sure, it's just when you actually get into the nitty gritty of what Sensing and Intuition actually do, it seems clear that they do much much more than Thinking and Feeling combined. I once took a class on visual perception and it's mind-boggling how much of the brain is used on something we think of as so simple.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well I don't really agree, as by definition Feeling is a judging function. I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at though. Since Fe's judgment is predicated on environmental factors, the judgments it makes are much more context-dependent than those of Fi. I tend to think of myself as less judgmental than most people, but that's a different definition of judgment. Evaluating is closer to what I mean when I'm talking about judging functions.

Much of what you're talking about I would say takes place inside Intuition and Sensing. Those are the functions that actually define the parameters of the evaluation, and where openmindedness actually comes into play.

I understand not everyone has the same way of thinking about the functions, this is just how I divide up cognitive tasks in the framework I'm using.



:)



In general, I think judging mostly says "yes". So it's not necessarily that visible when it's happening. When you realize, wait a sec, that's not good, or that's not consistent, that's when it's clear you're using Judging, even if it only accounts for maybe 5% of actual usage.



I would say this is true for Judging dominants as well. I don't define a dominant function by it's literal use in terms of % cognitive computational power. I think generally Judging takes up a very low percentage of cognition (think of all the tasks involved in just labeling what's happening around you, it's ridiculously computation-heavy). The difference between a Judging dominant and a Perceiving dominant might be something like 5% of total cognition to 7% of total cognition.



Sure, it's just when you actually get into the nitty gritty of what Sensing and Intuition actually do, it seems clear that they do much much more than Thinking and Feeling combined. I once took a class on visual perception and it's mind-boggling how much of the brain is used on something we think of as so simple.


I'm not surprised Jung thinks of T as a judging function, as he was Ti dom. Since Ti was his gatekeeper function, it necessarily judged for him what went in and what went out. I think he just lumped F in with T because it was neat, and he wasn't quite sure what to do with F (which further supports that he was INTP as well), because his definition of Fe is just completely inaccurate, and I've studied it extensively, as least in his P.T. book.


And I can perhaps see that because I'm Ni dom.


But my Fe does not make judgments. It interacts with other living things, colored by my Ni predominatly, and other functions as necessary. It is actually my Ni, my gatekeeper function that makes any and most judgments that happen, followed by my less dominant Si :). I think, indeed, that an Fe doms' Fe makes judgments, but that is because everything taken in is filtered with Fe, lending it a judgmental feeling.


As to your last sentence, I doubt an F or T dominant would agree. Their personality is such that most everything they experience is colored by their thinking or feeling. Yes, their brain might perceive or intuit massive amounts of data, but how much is usable will be determined by how it works with their dominant function, and will be dependent upon their environment at the time. Also, our ability to tap into large areas of visual perception in the brain might be more linked to our sense of sight, and not so much Se, for example, which implies an additional step of consciously understanding what you are perceiving.

As an example, IxTPs are always filtering everything through their Ti, thinking about how to make more workable connections in processes, to make things work, or to figure things out (even people). Their perception, therefore, will be limited by this dominating function, at least most of the time, in normal circumstances.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
[MENTION=6336]AphroditeGoneAwry[/MENTION]: I have a feeling we would probably type people similarly, so I don't think our narratives about MBTI are inconsistent. They just have drastically different internal structures. I'm respectfully disengaging since I don't think I can bridge the narrative gap. :)
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^Yeah, i understand. I'm used to T's doing that with me already, because I'm always throwing out what is considered "known and accepted."
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I am able to switch types. Takes about an hour to really dive into a mindset. T is like this tightness in your chest. You don't feel -anything- not even the wind. It is like pure impervious to pain form. Also, everything is a lot faster in T. There are no conversations including mental dialogue. F.. I can't speak about F cause I'm in T mode. F thougg is like marmalade to T's granite
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I am able to switch types. Takes about an hour to really dive into a mindset. T is like this tightness in your chest. You don't feel -anything- not even the wind. It is like pure impervious to pain form. Also, everything is a lot faster in T. There are no conversations including mental dialogue. F.. I can't speak about F cause I'm in T mode. F thougg is like marmalade to T's granite

Now you're talking from the perspective of an F. Your description of T sounds more like suppression.

Not sure what you mean by "no conversations". You mean like with people in your head? It might be the case most of the time, but I don't think it's necessarily true. Bullshit from the outside world can play back in an ITP's head. In fact, here's a quote from Thomson's book.

The more ITPs defend themselves against the Extraverted Perception they actually need, the more powerful their Extraverted Feeling impulses become. Such types pay a good deal of attention to the way people react to them. The famous scene in Taxi Driver in which the main character rehearses his response of percieved disrespect, "You talkin to me? You talkin' to me?" is a larger than life illustration of the kind of concern extreme ITPs experience.

Their indifference to others is paradoxically combined with the idea that people are trying to make them look bad or treating them with disregard. Both types tend to take such disagreements into the public arena. ISTPs respond in a direct physical manner. INTPs spend time and energy worrying about their professional reputation or defending their thoughts against percieved attacks in scholarly journals.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I've noticed in T mode colors seem less intense, also your entire face feels more stiff, depth perception, hearing, and smell are enhanced. Shoulders and torso move in conjunction. Head positioned more toward the back. Body language is stiff but not in the case of tp as much.. seems like tp has limbs looser but neck/head not so much. Et is more "phony" in terms of posturing this is why extjs will back down when confronted esp (physically). God there is so much it is hard to be specific and I know this post will be taken out of context as it is. Ask me something specific or describe a situation and I'll break it down.

[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]: high adrenaline + testosterone mitigates pain. It is not about "suppressing" anything. It's more like *shrug* rolls off your shoulders. Also, if you think it is impossible to experience something then you'll never experience it.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Interesting.

Speak to the thought processes. what type do you feel like most right now? And compare it to your favorite F type.
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
Yes, when I go into "S" mode I experience a similar transformation.

My body snakes into an S shape and I slither to and fro around my home. I notice details popping out at me like fireworks. My brain gets fuzzy with actual thought and instead I hone in on the sensation of sounds and the desire to make a fort that is perfectly rectangular with pillows in my living room. I also start reading People magazine online.

When I go into "N" mode I stop eating for weeks at a time and I explore the wonders of the universe from my living room.
 
Top