Explaining Ti to Fi types

[simulatedworld]

I've recently come to a bit better understanding of the relationship between Ti and Fi, and I think I may be able to use it to help Ti make a little more sense to Fi-ers...so here we go:

As we already know, FeTi (used by xxTP and xxFJ) and TeFi (used by xxFP and xxTJ) represent two opposing (but equally valid!) ways of conceptualizing the nature of logic and ethics:

FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

TeFi prompts us to deal with logic and impersonal ideas collectively, according to a more generalized objective standard which we can all agree to use to quantify and measure impersonal ideas by the same method, while dealing with ethics according to an internalized and subjective standard, seeking only to find what feels right to the individual.


I've found that many disagreements I've had with TeFi types tend to come down to this:

1) I state an idea, theory or proposed framework for describing the logical relationships that make up a system, simply because it makes sense to me subjectively,
2) The TeFi type insists that I provide objective evidence and empirical backing for this idea before it can be taken seriously,
3) I get pissed because my ideas are being attacked.

I know that I am especially bad about #3, but it's only just recently occurred to me why: Ti types are attached to their logical frameworks in exactly the same way Fi types are attached to their personal values: When you attack them, you attack the user's very sense of identity.

What both sides need to recognize is that FeTi-ers constantly judge Fi ideas in Fe terms, and TeFi-ers constantly judge Ti ideas in Te terms, so each is fundamentally missing the point of the other's perspective.

This is the exchange I see again and again regarding F ideas:

1) An Fi type states his/her personal feelings regarding some sort of moral or ethical ideal because it makes sense to him/her subjectively,
2) An Fe type insists that this idea cannot be taken seriously until shown to be accurate according to popular opinion/objective consensus on ethics,
3) The Fi type gets pissed because his/her values are being attacked.


What we all need to recognize is that Ji (Fi and Ti, that is) is not looking for externalized or objective evidence, but seeks only to find a line of reasoning that makes sense internally for the individual in question.

Reread the first bolded section about the competing value systems. This is really where the vast majority of these disagreements come from.

If, right now, you're asking yourself: "But wait--how could it ever be reasonable to take collective logic/individualized ethics seriously? Logic is obviously something that should be understood personally, while ethics are obviously something that should be understood and agreed upon collectively!"

or:

"But wait--how could it ever be reasonable to take collective ethics/individualized logic seriously? Ethics are obviously something that should be understood personally, while logic is obviously something that should be understood and agreed upon collectively!"

then you have just stumbled upon the fundamental difference between TeFi and FeTi.

Now, the real challenge is to begin accepting that neither of these approaches is fundamentally more correct than the other.

And that's incredibly hard to do, but it's the only place to start if we are ever to begin truly appreciating the value in each other's perspectives.


So if you are an FeTi type, recognize that even though considering ethics through a collective/communal perspective seems obviously rational to you, you are attacking an Fi user's sense of identity when you insist that he provide objective evidence for his Feeling ideas. As an Fi user, his Feeling is focused purely on finding what feels subjectively right to him--appeasing external consensus or providing objective evidence for it is completely beside the point.

Likewise, if you are a TeFi type, recognize that even though considering logic through a collective/communal perspective seems obviously rational to you, you are attacking a Ti user's sense of identity when you insist that he provide objective evidence for his Thinking ideas. As a Ti user, his Thinking is focused purely on finding what seems subjectively consistent to him--appeasing external consensus or providing objective evidence for it is completely beside the point.

There are a lot of people on this forum, and indeed everywhere in life, who have not even begun to consider that their preferred judgment outlook (TeFi or FeTi) is anything other than 100% Objectively Correct, end of story. Most people have no idea that there might be any validity in the opposing perspective, because most people are (naturally) very threatened by any challenge to their concepts of logic and ethics.

And this is okay! It's natural for the opposing perspective to turn our stomachs. It's impossible to avoid this gut reaction--but the central idea of typology is to allow us to recognize these biases in ourselves and begin to understand that what seems obviously rational to us is not any better (or worse) than what seems obviously rational to others.

Unfortunately I find that some people use typology as further justification for their own deluded arrogance--rather than, "Okay, now I see that my values are ultimately relative, and that other people can look at the world differently and there's nothing wrong with that", it becomes: "Oh, now I see why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total moron. Good thing I now know that [insert my type here] is the best!"

And I would really like it if we could start to undo that counterproductive mentality.

If you find yourself thinking, "Well that's stupid, anyone who sees logic as individualized and ethics as collective [or the other way around] is simply an idiot who doesn't understand how the real world works", then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your understanding.

 

[IZthe411]

I get what you are saying...the whole I'm thinking about my discussions with an ISTP coworker who seems to beat to his own drum when it comes to matters of business that seem to be done one way, and one way only. It's not the case, and I think it's refreshing to work with him. I do know that his approach isn't the most popular, but he sleeps well at the end of the day.

Nice write up.

 

[sculpting]

1. can you tell the diff between you and your Ti logical framework? Doe sit seem to be "you" yet also be separate from you?

2. Also...ENFPs commonly hardcode Te as an Fi value....aka "Robotic Fi" that many ENFPs here employ.

Do ENTPs hardcode Fe as part of their Ti logical construct of how to work with people systems? Thus an Fe offense as mentioned above, triggers an Ti reaction of "illogical", even though it is a moral value, not a REAL logical value being crossed.

3. Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

 

[Lucas]

1. can you tell the diff between you and your Ti logical framework? Doe sit seem to be "you" yet also be separate from you?

Yes. It is a part of me because I derive (albeit mostly unconsciously) it from the sum of my experiences. It changes over time, as I do, and as I experience more, but it never goes away.

Do ENTPs hardcode Fe as part of their Ti logical construct of how to work with people systems? Thus an Fe offense as mentioned above, triggers an Ti reaction of "illogical", even though it is a moral value, not a REAL logical value being crossed.

Kind of. An attack on the premise of my construct seems to be an attack on my experience as invalid, and my analysis as incompetent. I believe this could be considered a Fe offense. That said, I don't think I have ever perceived an attack on my premise as an attack on my logic, because I do recognize that that premise is mostly intuited.

3. Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

I am not sure what would constitute defensive Ti. I think most of my post-premise deduction could be considered such, because it serves to provide logical justification for my premise, to defend it from outside attack, and explain how to apply it.

 

[sculpting]

I've found that many disagreements I've had with TeFi types tend to come down to this:

1) I state an idea, theory or proposed framework for describing the logical relationships that make up a system, simply because it makes sense to me subjectively,
2) The TeFi type insists that I provide objective evidence and empirical backing for this idea before it can be taken seriously,
3) I get pissed because my ideas are being attacked.

I know that I am especially bad about #3, but it's only just recently occurred to me why: Ti types are attached to their logical frameworks in exactly the same way Fi types are attached to their personal values: When you attack them, you attack the user's very sense of identity.

What both sides need to recognize is that FeTi-ers constantly judge Fi ideas in Fe terms, and TeFi-ers constantly judge Ti ideas in Te terms, so each is fundamentally missing the point of the other's perspective.

This is the exchange I see again and again regarding F ideas:

1) An Fi type states his/her personal feelings regarding some sort of moral or ethical ideal because it makes sense to him/her subjectively,
2) An Fe type insists that this idea cannot be taken seriously until shown to be accurate according to popular opinion/objective consensus on ethics,
3) The Fi type gets pissed because his/her values are being attacked.

Sim I see this happen more inadvertantly...outside of simply the scope of ideas and into the world of behavioral patterns.

1) The Fi user just does a normal Fi behavior
2) The Fe user becomes offended
2a)an Fe dom or aux will often mention it or just shun the person or ignore the behavior
2b) an ENTP...as I mentioned above...seems to become become morally offended Fe...then logically offended Ti??? Then they begin to poke with Ti to try and reconcile the lack of logic in the others behavior via sharp probing questions...but the questions are loaded with implied value judgments like "selfish"
3) The Fi feels attacked due to the deep sharp probes and implied value judgments, misunderstands a potentially gentle social rebuke for an attack on thier core and you see the emergence of "defensive Fi"
4) The Ti-Fi wars go on for 5000 posts.....

Linguistics and how the convo is framed seems to play a massive, massive role in the Te/Fi Ti/Fe communication gap. Check out the INFJ common issues thread...

Now, the real challenge is to begin accepting that neither of these approaches is fundamentally more correct than the other.

And that's incredibly hard to do, but it's the only place to start if we are ever to begin truly appreciating the value in each other's perspectives.

praise jesus. Did it ever occur to you that it seems odd that evolution would ever mix the two up? What is the advantage of this mixing?

 

[simulatedworld]

1. can you tell the diff between you and your Ti logical framework? Doe sit seem to be "you" yet also be separate from you?

It's a fundamental part of me. It's not some separate entity that I can use as a scapegoat for my behavior. Ti is a central part of my identity; there is no difference. Introverted functions are inherently personalized in this way.

2. Also...ENFPs commonly hardcode Te as an Fi value....aka "Robotic Fi" that many ENFPs here employ.

Do ENTPs hardcode Fe as part of their Ti logical construct of how to work with people systems? Thus an Fe offense as mentioned above, triggers an Ti reaction of "illogical", even though it is a moral value, not a REAL logical value being crossed.

Probably so. Since we are more naturally attuned to working with logical/illogical in Ti terms, when something offends Fe we sometimes mistakenly assume that the problem is logical in nature, when it's actually personal. (Hence the unconscious negative effects of the tertiary and inferior functions!)

3. Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

Absolutely; Ti becomes offended when its ideas and theories are attacked in just the same way Fi becomes offended when its values and feelings are attacked, because for both these are a part of our identity.

So when a Te user asks me to provide objective evidence for my Ti ideas, I get very irritated because he's completely missing the point.

Think about how it makes you feel when an Fe user asks you to justify your feelings and values by showing that most people would agree. Fi doesn't care if most people would agree; that's not what it's trying to do. Fi just wants to know exactly what feels right to you; how other people would feel about it is entirely beside the point.

Ti just wants to know exactly what seems logical to me; what other people think about it is, similarly, entirely beside the point.

The conflict happens because Fe assumes that ethics only make sense when agreed upon by larger groups, so "Show externally objective evidence for the validity of your moral view" is the only way Fe knows how to respond to Fi.

Similarly, Te assumes that logic only makes sense when agreed upon by larger groups, so "Show externally objective evidence for the validity of your theoretical idea" is the only way Te knows how to respond to Ti.

In both cases, the E function grossly misunderstands the nature and approach of the I function.

Sim I see this happen more inadvertantly...outside of simply the scope of ideas and into the world of behavioral patterns.

Yes that's exactly what happens. Ti does the same thing when Te says, "You really need to show externally objective evidence for your idea or it's totally invalid"--this comes off as an attack on the Ti user's core identity.

Linguistics and how the convo is framed seems to play a massive, massive role in the Te/Fi Ti/Fe communication gap. Check out the INFJ common issues thread...

Also very true. Lately I am finding that if I describe things to Fi users in terms of how they make me feel instead of in terms of how collective social standards say we should feel, I get a much better response because it allows them to empathize instead of implying oppressive control over their feelings.

praise jesus. Did it ever occur to you that it seems odd that evolution would ever mix the two up? What is the advantage of this mixing?

I have no idea.

 

[Robopop]

If your an INTP or ISFP, Fe and Te might not seem like it fits in with their ideas about ethics or logic respectively. I know that IxxPs have inferior extroverted judgement, does this attitude improve with age, like you grow into it.

There are going to be some people who think that both logic and ethics can fit their internal or external judgement, maybe their needs to be a clearer definition of logic and ethics when it comes to judgement in typology. Can there be a rational, impersonal ethics in typology?

 

[Totenkindly]

If your an INTP or ISFP, Fe and Te might not seem like it fits in with their ideas about ethics or logic respectively. I know that IxxPs have inferior extroverted judgement, does this attitude improve with age, like you grow into it.

I think you do... but only if you allow it.

We all get opportunities each day to do things in different ways, it's just that we don't often sense a pay off... partly because the perspective we're trying to use is so alien that we are quite clumsy with it.

(In some ways, it reminds me of when my children would hate to practice the piano and then would complain I was so much better than them... but the deal is that they had been playing for six months and I had been playing for 30 years at that point. It is really hard to struggling through the period where you feel like you suck and nothing make sense, to hopefully reach a stage where you start to glimpse some of the reward. When my kids reached that point with their music, you could see the lights come on and now they were more and more motivated to use those skills over and over and continue to improve.)

Absolutely; Ti becomes offended when its ideas and theories are attacked in just the same way Fi becomes offended when its values and feelings are attacked, because for both these are a part of our identity.

I'm a little unsure on that one.

Sometimes I do become offended if I feel like someone is being "stupid" because they can't see the "obvious" truths that I'm putting out there. (And yes, I'm using quotes in order to admit my own subjectivity here.)

Other times, I'm just, like, "So what? You don't need to accept it if you don't want to, but you can't run from the truth. You'll find out you're wrong eventually."

For some reason, Fi seems more personal to me in terms of how it is interwoven into identity. Shouldn't it be, if it is a direct reflection of the individuals values? I have values as well, and they don't necessarily align with what I can show to be truth logically, although I believe them to be true.

 

[simulatedworld]

There are going to be some people who think that both logic and ethics can fit their internal or external judgement, maybe their needs to be a clearer definition of logic and ethics when it comes to judgement in typology. Can there be a rational, impersonal ethics in typology?

Rational, yes. Impersonal, no. Ethics are an inherently personal concept, based on feelings and relationships between people.

 

[onemoretime]

1. can you tell the diff between you and your Ti logical framework? Doe sit seem to be "you" yet also be separate from you?

Yup. You're having a conversation/debate with yourself.

2. Also...ENFPs commonly hardcode Te as an Fi value....aka "Robotic Fi" that many ENFPs here employ.

Do ENTPs hardcode Fe as part of their Ti logical construct of how to work with people systems? Thus an Fe offense as mentioned above, triggers an Ti reaction of "illogical", even though it is a moral value, not a REAL logical value being crossed.

Yup. "This is right because it makes sense, and works the best for everyone." "Illogical" isn't the response that arises as much as it is "you're being irrational," i.e. you know what the rules are, and yet you don't seem to be breaking them for a good reason.

3. Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

Yup. It's violent and destructive. It reduces the other person to an object, a challenge that must be defeated by any means possible.

 

[sculpting]

It's a fundamental part of me. It's not some separate entity that I can use as a scapegoat for my behavior. Ti is a central part of my identity; there is no difference. Introverted functions are inherently personalized in this way.

Yup. You're having a conversation/debate with yourself.

Note you guys gave me different answers here...(well i think you did but could be incorrect as always... ) I dont think there is a right or wrong answer...but Silly and myself and Z and U were chattering regarding introverted functions on the "Sim Ni" thread...and it seemed like there were varying opinions on the topic...

My thought is that perhaps when young our ego resides in the dom/aux functions, but as we age we can start to step away from clinging so tightly to that pair...and grow closer to being the true "self". So these little peeks...where we feel like we ARE Xi but we are also not quite Xi...they are like little windows where for brief moments we can see more than just our ego ... (warning...phoo phoo mystical feeler stuff....)

Also-note the term "scapegoat"...Id immediately link that to how enfps use rationalization to self analyze and modify behavior via externalized Te learning and discussion....but often I think Fe mistakes this for making "excuses" Is really just a differnt learning style.

Probably so. Since we are more naturally attuned to working with logical/illogical in Ti terms, when something offends Fe we sometimes mistakenly assume that the problem is logical in nature, when it's actually personal. (Hence the unconscious negative effects of the tertiary and inferior functions!)

Sometimes I do become offended if I feel like someone is being "stupid" because they can't see the "obvious" truths that I'm putting out there. (And yes, I'm using quotes in order to admit my own subjectivity here.)

Other times, I'm just, like, "So what? You don't need to accept it if you don't want to, but you can't run from the truth. You'll find out you're wrong eventually."

For some reason, Fi seems more personal to me in terms of how it is interwoven into identity. Shouldn't it be, if it is a direct reflection of the individuals values? I have values as well, and they don't necessarily align with what I can show to be truth logically, although I believe them to be true.

So I can sorta see Sim's comment reflected in Jennifer's response...(Also Jennifer I much appreciated the piano playing description. I am trying to understand and use some sort of Fe, and it is very clumsy and weird....thus I totally mess it up at times...beautiful analogy.)

I think FiSi and TiSi may form a very sensitive core respective, so poking at either will generate a response....Jennifer, since your Fe is inferior, could it be encoded in Ti in someone but maybe much more instinctually than in an entp, thus just seem more obvious as a Ti principle....maybe encoded more subconsciously ?

Absolutely; Ti becomes offended when its ideas and theories are attacked in just the same way Fi becomes offended when its values and feelings are attacked, because for both these are a part of our identity.

So when a Te user asks me to provide objective evidence for my Ti ideas, I get very irritated because he's completely missing the point.

Think about how it makes you feel when an Fe user asks you to justify your feelings and values by showing that most people would agree. Fi doesn't care if most people would agree; that's not what it's trying to do. Fi just wants to know exactly what feels right to you; how other people would feel about it is entirely beside the point.

Also very true. Lately I am finding that if I describe things to Fi users in terms of how they make me feel instead of in terms of how collective social standards say we should feel, I get a much better response because it allows them to empathize instead of implying oppressive control over their feelings.

Hmmm, so a few points....the sentence in bold is a little off with respect to the word "feel"...I suspect most Fi users are greatly bothered if our actions hurt others and will seek to try and find ways not to make them "feel" bad. But intent is a huge issue. Often we hurt Fe users unintentionally...thus have to be taught what we actually did...which then allows an Fi judgment about if it can be changed or not. ENFPs are very flexible especially as we mold to the needs of those around us to a certain extent. I value their happiness more than most other things...but this is highly individualized of course....

Hehehe, I am doing the same to Fe users but asking them how they feel and not endlessly providing solutions.... It's fun and allows me to love other much more since I understand what they need.

Also, much thanks for these threads as you do an excellent job of summerizing a whole variety of topics and drawing them together in a precise, clean, mapped out summary. I also admire how you try to incorporate an open minded approach to the issue and seek to enhance communication. Excellent job.

Yup. "This is right because it makes sense, and works the best for everyone." "Illogical" isn't the response that arises as much as it is "you're being irrational," i.e. you know what the rules are, and yet you don't seem to be breaking them for a good reason.

This makes total sense. It is also highly rational in how it approaches a group objective. (if we could only follow Fe rulz! I cant always see them.)

 

[sculpting]

Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

Yup. It's violent and destructive. It reduces the other person to an object, a challenge that must be defeated by any means possible.

When I was chatting w Eric on the shadows thread about the rare occurance of Ti rage in INTPs....

It's usually attributed to Fe (which in four-process theory is treated as "the shadow"), but it's likely really demonic Fi. I know with me it is. The whole "passion" and all. One way it works, is that the shadows are what we project onto others. So we someone who appears to us as evil, or someone says something to us that seems evil (likely some moral judgment or something with at least some grain of truth we don't want to deal with) and all of this negative passion erupts, and we try to outdo them.

Now...this is a total stretch...but could part of the gut defensive reaction you guys feel in response to Fi (after the Fe offense transfers to Ti thoughts of stupid to then to a gut feeling of "passionate" wrong) ....actually be shadow Fi?

I dunno...I just sorta stumbled over this so please forgive eric if I have misunderstood or removed the comment from the original context....I could have totally screwed this one up....

 

[Virtual ghost]

I know you are arguing with a number of NTJs pretty much all the time on this site but I think you got it a little bit wrong. (at least that is the case when it comes to my logic)


The thing is that I am only interested in you giving me something that I can apply somewhere. If I can't apply the idea then it is quite likely that I will not interested in it. Unless the idea is interesting and we are in good terms. (friends , coworkers etc)
However if this happens this will be exactly because of Fi.


In my opinion your "enemy" is Ni. Since that funcion percives models , abstract concepts , outcomes etc. What means that if you give something that simply exists as an idea and there is nothing or not much you can do with it you bore an NTJ(s).
And if that happens over and over an NTJ that has stronger Fi will become annoyed or hostile. Since the percive you are threat to community but as Ts they my not be fully aware of this.
While the NTJ with weaker Fi will probably just walk away since drama made by personal conflict is the last thing that interests us. Especially if we are just socializing instead of arguing the point.



In my opinion this has very little to do with values. Since Ni takes the idea and runs it "throught out everything" and if it turns out that idea has no practical implications our mind just shuts off or rejects idea and forces us to search further for solutions.

I can understand the social implications of me supporting you or not but in the end I need something to work with and something that will give results.
I really don't really care how much abstract it is the only thing that matters is can "this" make a differance.


Since if it can't my mind will shut down and that has nothing to do with Fi or values. Also I really don't care if it is individual or collective value/concept. The only thing that counts is the outcome. (which does not even have to be good)


Also as a Ni dom I function as if there is no objective truth.
Since I personally can interpret the data in so many ways that calling one way the ultimate truth would be .... I guess the right word on english would be "aprurd". This is exactly why I suck at Fi actually. Since placing some kind of a faith (fi or Ti) on things that are pretty vague seems counter-productive. Which is because everything in the end depends on what you do "with it".


So to make my words more concrete here is an example.

Hammer makes a great tool but it is also pretty good weapon as well. So when you say something like "hammer and nails can do wonders" this is incomplete information towards by brain. Since it does not explain how will that exactly help us in bulding a settlement that tribe needs to survive. Also your statement could mean that someone has found a better way to do something, what then puts as at disadvantage. What could cause our death with enough time. However it could also mean that "hammer and nails can do wonders" approach is the best way to get rid of the person that is causing instability.


Now you may ask me why did I nail a person to a piece of wood and I will say "hammer and nails can do wonders". Which means that I probably got you wrong since you almost certainly did not want that person to suffer like this.


In other words you need to cleary say what is on your mind since the only thing that is obvious in your claim are the possibilites that are coming out of it. But I have no idea what is really on your mind if you don't define every varibale / goal. Also the fact that people in general do things this way ot that way also means little to me. Since I need conformation of the plan to be able to function. And if I can't get that I must think about the ways how to get one or how to get away from entire situation.


Unless of course you and I are going through entire campaign togather so it is obvious where we want to go and how we should use our resources. If that is the case is pretty sure what is on your mind.


In other words this is why we want empirical evidance. Since this is the only way we are at least somewhat sure that we are close to something that we can call objective truth or succes and that we actually understood what the other person said. Which is because we are not that much in contact with Fi and even less with Fe. So we need something to makes us sure we are on the same wavelenght as people around us. The is probably the main reason why we show affection through deeds and touch instead of being verbal about it. Which is because words/facts can be interpreted on countless ways.



I hope this makes at least some sense to you.

 

[professor goodstain]

i think it boils down to more of a fear that someones theories or values will be put to a collectively agreed practice/experiment impossed on everyone more than an attack on ones identity.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

An attack on the premise of my construct seems to be an attack on my experience as invalid, and my analysis as incompetent. I believe this could be considered a Fe offense. That said, I don't think I have ever perceived an attack on my premise as an attack on my logic, because I do recognize that that premise is mostly intuited.

I’ve been referring to the Te/Fi approach lately as “cavemen beating each other over the heads with their own opinions until the other side concedes from sheer exhaustion”. I was kinda surprised when I got a couple of Fi type responses saying that they found those interactions ultimately helpful. So it only just recently occurred to me that the Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe contrast might be the reason for it, and that somehow my Fe was being as closed to new information as the Te of the ‘cavemen’ in my statement. I’m still working on figuring out how, but SW’s op sheds some light.

So when a Te user asks me to provide objective evidence for my Ti ideas, I get very irritated because he's completely missing the point.

Exactly.

Ti just wants to know exactly what seems logical to me; what other people think about it is, similarly, entirely beside the point.

This I’m not so sure I agree with. I just get frustrated because I want to know what other people really think about it themselves- and hearing the same argument over and over again leads me to believe that other people aren’t really thinking about it themselves- they just keep coming back with the same thing (basically it seems like being told over and over what we’re ‘supposed’ to think, without stopping to actually consider how much sense my argument makes).

1. can you tell the diff between you and your Ti logical framework? Doe sit seem to be "you" yet also be separate from you?

3. Is there such a thing as defensive Ti?

Kind of like what Jennifer said (if I’m understanding her correctly), I don’t really take it personally if someone doesn’t agree with me. But I get frustrated when they don’t agree because they aren’t really listening and considering it. I like to find out if I’m right or wrong according to actual logic of others. I get frustrated when there’s no room for growth, when there’s no dialogue- but I don’t take it personally.

Maybe the aspect I have a hard time separating ‘me’ from is the need to think this way in the first place. I invariably have a Ti logical framework and don’t feel like that much is an option- but it isn’t ‘me’. Not sure if that last statement made sense.

 

[SillySapienne]

Sim, you give me a headache, damn you!!!

 

[skylights]

lame question.

can someone give me an example of well-developed Ti in action, describing their internal processing?

I’ve been referring to the Te/Fi approach lately as “cavemen beating each other over the heads with their own opinions until the other side concedes from sheer exhaustion”. I was kinda surprised when I got a couple of Fi type responses saying that they found those interactions ultimately helpful. So it only just recently occurred to me that the Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe contrast might be the reason for it, and that somehow my Fe was being as closed to new information as the Te of the ‘cavemen’ in my statement. I’m still working on figuring out how, but SW’s op sheds some light.

yeah, you'd never guess it, but TeFi types do have the capacity to be articulate and reasonable too

honestly, though, i really don't use that "Te hammer", as it's been jokingly referred to on the ENFP issues thread, unless i perceive that someone is dismissing my opinion without thinking (feeling? lol) it through...

This I’m not so sure I agree with. I just get frustrated because I want to know what other people really think about it themselves- and hearing the same argument over and over again leads me to believe that other people aren’t really thinking about it themselves- they just keep coming back with the same thing (basically it seems like being told over and over what we’re ‘supposed’ to think, without stopping to actually consider how much sense my argument makes).

this, it's exactly this, except with Fi values. it seems like i'm being told over and over what i'm supposed to do or how to behave or how i should judge things in a certain situation, without the other person considering the why of it or stopping to evaluate it. just like Ti can't be judged on Fi grounds nor must it be backed up with Te to be logical, Fi can't be judged on Ti grounds nor must it be backed up with Fe to be worthwhile.

so what am i left with? if i want to make my point, i have to argue the other person into a hole using Te until they will consider what i'm saying. it sucks for everyone, honestly, but sometimes i feel like my idea really is that important. fortunately, living in a house with three FeTi types and no other TeFi types, i've honed my Te quite well - even if it is still a brute force weapon, it's a nice shiny nightstick. no unwieldy, dirty club for me.

 

[simulatedworld]

Hmmm, so a few points....the sentence in bold is a little off with respect to the word "feel"...I suspect most Fi users are greatly bothered if our actions hurt others and will seek to try and find ways not to make them "feel" bad. But intent is a huge issue. Often we hurt Fe users unintentionally...thus have to be taught what we actually did...which then allows an Fi judgment about if it can be changed or not. ENFPs are very flexible especially as we mold to the needs of those around us to a certain extent. I value their happiness more than most other things...but this is highly individualized of course....

No no, when I say, "How others will feel about it" I am referring to the moral values that make up your dominant outlook. The point was that Fe will draw moral values from an externalized consensus of whatever group the user feels emotionally part of, and so it doesn't really understand how you could ever derive any ethical ideas without knowing what other people think about them.

Fi finds it silly and possibly even offensive that anyone would expect it to take other people's opinions into account when forming its conception of morality...I did not mean to imply that Fi types never care how anyone else feels about anything, just that they are ardently against drawing moral standards from anywhere but "straight from the heart!" "Do what feels right to you, not what everyone else says is right!", etc. etc.

Has a lot to do with why Fi doms are such common literary and cinematic protagonists...people identify with their search for identity and admire their commitment to placing it above all else (something many would like to aspire to but end up getting sidetracked from.)

Hehehe, I am doing the same to Fe users but asking them how they feel and not endlessly providing solutions.... It's fun and allows me to love other much more since I understand what they need.

Well if you want to adapt to them, you should figure out what social/cultural/familial group governs their values in each situation and then convince them that [whatever you're trying to convince them of] is consistent with what that group would believe is moral.

But it also helps if they learn to tell you how they do feel instead of how they (and you, by extension, which threatens Fi's sense of freedom) should feel.

Also, much thanks for these threads as you do an excellent job of summerizing a whole variety of topics and drawing them together in a precise, clean, mapped out summary. I also admire how you try to incorporate an open minded approach to the issue and seek to enhance communication. Excellent job.

No problem, now please just convince Jaguar and Tater of this. Maybe you can translate the idea into FiTe terms more effectively than I was able to.

This makes total sense. It is also highly rational in how it approaches a group objective. (if we could only follow Fe rulz! I cant always see them.)

Well, if you really started following them consistently you'd probably start to find them pretty oppressive pretty quickly. Fe blunts the highly individualized approach that Fi takes to moral identity in order to make it generalized enough and broadly applicable enough to apply to everyone in the group, which necessitates setting aside your own feelings in favor of the group...not something most Fi users are very good at doing.

 

[Totenkindly]

No no, when I say, "How others will feel about it" I am referring to the moral values that make up your dominant outlook. The point was that Fe will draw moral values from an externalized consensus of whatever group the user feels emotionally part of, and so it doesn't really understand how you could ever derive any ethical ideas without knowing what other people think about them.

Well, I WOULD like to understand that some day. If possible.

It seems like Fi values just come out of nowhere... unless they're derived from the "natural moral workings of the world" just like Ti is fueled by observation and thus a sense of the natural rules of the external physical world.

Theoretically, they should be -- otherwise function theory is not balanced.

 

[Amargith]

Well, I WOULD like to understand that some day. If possible.

It seems like Fi values just come out of nowhere... unless they're derived from the "natural moral workings of the world" just like Ti is fueled by observation and thus a sense of the natural rules of the external physical world.

Theoretically, they should be -- otherwise function theory is not balanced.

They are

Fi looks for universal truths as well, and in what way those apply to you. How about this as an analogy:

Sunlight is a universal source of energy. But, make it travel through a piece of glass, cut or shaped in a certain way and it will reveal a myriad of colours, specifically shaped according to how it was caught by the glass.

The same is true for universal moral truths. They affect us much in the same way the sunlight strikes the glass, but it is the glass that determines what the sunlight will look like after it's passed through that. Universal moral truths get taken in and processed according to who you are as a person. How do they impact you, how do they apply to you, what is relevant in this particular truth to you as a person and how can they guide you, aid you in your unique personal path on this journey called Life. We all have the same end destination, and we are privy to mostly the same universal guides, those moral truths. It is however a very different road we all follow and those guides aren't always obvious to everyone. When you do stumble upon them..how can they, much like the sunlight, brighten your journey and aid you in understanding it, and implementing them in the best way possible given your current, unique situation and the road to follow.