F = personal relationships vs T = social interactions

[Tennessee Jed]

Note: This is actually a thread about the difference between Fe vs Fi, and initially I posted it in another thread about that subject in this forum. But then I looked at the content, and decided maybe it should be in a separate thread. So here it is.

Let me start by clarifying the difference between F vs T. After that's done, then I'll get into the difference between Fe vs Fi.

F vs T

Here's an idea I've been toying with: To me, F seems to be about personal relationships (primary personal attachment bonds: partners, parent-children bonds, friendship bonds, etc.), whereas T seems to be about social interactions. Thus, for example:
--When you're talking about how you relate to a partner or a friend, you're talking about using F.
--But when you talk about "being able to sense the emotional temperature of a room full of people upon entering," that's probably going to fall under use of T.

Examples of F being about personal relationships:

Examples of *Fe* being about personal relationships
In the past here at TypoC, the INFJs (Fe-Aux) used to post long rulebooks about how relationships should work. I won't get into what I thought of them myself, as an Fi-Dom. But I noticed that they were always about relationships with a single other person, often a close friend or a partner; they didn't seem to really relate to interactions with a collective or a social group.

Similarly, an ENFJ (Fe-Dom) friend I had in the past was animated as hell when dealing with individual friends, but tended to fade into the group a bit when with groups. His main preoccupation was one-on-one relationships, and not necessarily being a group leader or guide. In fact, the group leadership role would usually fall to the Te-Doms (Remember, T is more about social relations).

In fact, ENFJ are users of Inferior Ti, and that may make them weak in gauging social dynamics in a larger group of peers, since their own T function is both inferior and introverted.

Examples of *Fi* being about personal relationships

As introverts, obviously INFPs (Fi-Dom) are going to be better with one-on-one relationships than with groups. But it can go to extremes with INFPs. For example, INFPs are well-known for going on crusades on behalf of underdogs. And sometimes they haven't even met the underdog in question. But all it takes is for the INFP to identify intellectually with an underdog to the point of projecting a kind of "relationship bond" with that person or subgroup, and suddenly the INFP is fighting for that person as though fighting for their own child. Fi's really pour a lot of time and effort into personal relationships, often in a very intellectual sort of fashion.

At the same time, Fi-Doms are usually poor at reading group dynamics. But in some cases they *can* be good at group dynamics (as in the example of gauging the social dynamic in a room full of people). Remember that I said that social relationships require use of T. Fi-Doms are users of Te-Inf, and that can actually make them okay at gauging social dynamics in a larger group of peers, but only if the Fi-Dom in question chooses to develop and engage their inferior function.

Examples of T being about social groups

Te-Doms are the gods and goddesses of social leadership. They're often poor at one-on-one relationships, but no one can read a crowd of people better than them and take leadership of that crowd. And they *empathize* with the group, in their own way. An ESTJ "mother hen" type of person (Te-Dom) will defend her "tribe" fiercely. Even an ENTJ male (Te-Dom) can be very "tribal" in his allegiances. So I won't even bother going further into Te's as social animals.

Meantime, INTPs (Ti-Dom) can actually be highly sensitive to group dynamics by virtue of Ti (a social function), while they are much weaker with their Fe-Inf (a personal-relationship) function. But because they're introverts, they bring their social observations inward and analyze them to death. The result: They use their Ti analysis to produce philosophical and legal and political systems that define how people should get along with each other. In other words, INTP is strong at reading groups, but they bring it inside and intellectualize it to the point that it comes out as intellectual systems for regulating group behavior. Short version: Good at groups, but with a very intellectual output on the subject.

************
Okay, I'm going to stop here. I'll get into Fe vs Fi in a separate post (though you can kind of see where I'm going if you look at Te vs Ti, above). But I thought it important to talk about the difference between F and T first. Why? Because a lot of the discussion in Fi-vs-Fe threads mashes together personal relationships and interactions in society. And according to my ideas, those two situations would represent two different functions, and so should be discussed separately. IOW, if you want to talk about F, then just talk about how you deal with close personal relationships.

So again, let me stop here and ask: What do people think about the distinction that I'm drawing? F = personal relationships vs T = social and group interactions: Do you think it's total BS, or does the idea seem to have some merit? It's just an idea I'm toying with, so I'm genuinely interested in getting honest feedback on this. Then later, once a consensus on the F vs T idea arises, I'll follow with what I think is the main distinction between Fe and Fi.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Examples of T being about social groups

Te-Doms are the gods and goddesses of social interactions. They're often poor at one-on-one relationships, but no one can read a crowd of people better than them. And they *empathize* with people in a group. An ESTJ "mother hen" type of person will defend her "tribe" fiercely. Even an ENTJ male can be very "tribal" in his allegiances. So I won't even bother going further into Te's as social animals.

This is really interesting to me. I don't see this at all, really. With the caveat that it's "not true of all", my experience of Te doms is that they're tone deaf steamrollers (and I say "steamrollers" because of the tone-deafness). So we must have pretty different ideas of "reading the room", because I feel like they're generally terrible at it. This is something that actually systematically frustrates me about Te.

This is also true, ime, of ITJs.

Meantime, Ti-Doms can actually be highly sensitive to group dynamics, both by virtue of Ti (a social function) and extraverted Fe (a personal-relationship) function. But because they're Ti-Doms, they bring it inward and analyze it to death. The result: They use their Ti analysis to produce philosophical and legal systems that define how people should get along with each other. In other words, Ti-Dom is strong at reading groups, but they intellectualize it to the point that it comes out as intellectual systems for regulating group behavior. Short version: Good at groups, but with a very intellectual output on the subject.

TPs on the other hand, I do not feel like they are tone-deaf to the people aspect (since they're willing to actually work through that stuff aloud and allow for outside input to weigh in on the conversation - and/or they provide a satisfactory explanation for why input is being dismissed). I rather envy how they seem to be able to spout this stuff off the cuff, almost instantly, because I really struggle with being able to work through this stuff aloud. It can take me forever to articulate when/why I'm taking issue with something. It's like I have to retreat and let the information work its way through the horrible Rube Goldberg contraption that is Ni dominance before I have anything like an opinion - and in the meantime, I have to simply sit with some unwanted emotional charge until it's been sorted. But with TPs, it's like BAM! They see it happen, and they can comment immediately. (In a way that often satisfies my own sensibilities).

But (and this is probably a side tangent) I do feel - especially with NTPs - like they can instead be tone deaf to an attachment to reality (it's an issue I have with Ne in general). As an example, with my INTP dad (possibly ENTP), I might tell him that I think he should get a new truck; I will lay out all the potential costs I anticipate to fix the one he has, I will lay out examples of available used trucks I've found, and I will explain how I think it ultimately it's gotten to the point where he's just throwing good money at bad by keeping the truck he has. He'll launch into some tangent about how there's no guarantee that a newer truck with fewer miles will last longer. Then I have to calmly explain that "no guarantees" doesn't mean one thing is far more likely to be reliable than the other, and that likelihood itself is what makes something a sensible idea. It's almost like all reality is a talking game though, sometimes, dealing with Ne.

***

The way I've personally come to perceive the difference between F and T inclinations is that a person's attention is either naturally drawn towards the interpersonal world or the objective world (things). Using the (I think) famous "did you see the gorilla?" test to illustrate selective attention (under spoiler), I think that T types are inclined to look for objective information (not people-oriented, e.g. constantly absorbing information they hear about cars and building opinions about, well, cars - that kind of thing ) while F types are primed to look for what's going on for other people and between people. The stronger a person's T inclinations, the blinder they are to the 'gorilla' of people-oriented information.

That's my 2 cents.

Oh snap [MENTION=22236]YUI[/MENTION], you deleted. Let me know if you want me to delete this response.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I like how you analyzed it. It is very "Te" style for breaking things down. I disagree with your Te assessment, though.

I have a very good friend who is a ENTJ. He is a pretty good and laid back guy, but his mind is focused on using objective reality to further his goals, principally, making money and building businesses.

He has created several successful businesses in a short time, analyzing how to quickly grow opportunities.

He is a poor people person, for all he is very friendly by nature. He treats all his employees like robots and harshly criticizes failure to meet his standards and expectations. He says rude things to his wife, even though he says he isn't intending to be mean. The idea of couching language in polite phrases does not hit him at all.

He is very bright, but interpersonal relations do not matter, as if he band see them. On a 8- function stack using the shadow, Fe is at the very bottom for him and he is blind to Fe space.

I don't know about other ENFJs, but here is how I see how being an ENFJ is for me:

1. I am really in touch with the vibe of a group. I do a good amount of public speaking. I have been told some of my speeches have been the most powerful they have ever heard. I connect with audiences and they connect with me. I work to persuade my audience and usually I can get them to agree with me. When speaking, I prefer to do so without notes as it frees me to go with the audience and be engaged with them.

2. On a one to one basis, I easily connect with others, who often express that I understand them deeply, even after a few minutes. People I barely know feel very close to me.

3. I have many acquaintances but few friends. And I find making friends an odd experience.

4. Ti is tricky. I read once that Ti in ExFJs turns the into a quest for TRUTH, even an obsession with honesty. I agree with that idea. Ti also makes it difficult for me to adequately explain my reasoning to others. NiTi means I understand things but struggle to express my own thoughts on things. For example, I have a half finished book on a big topic, that is groundbreaking and important. When I talk with people allot it, they are amazed. Yet getting the words on paper to match my thoughts is near impossible, so its been half finished for years.

5. Random strangers approach me regularly and feel connected to me.

6. For the group, I will put the good of a group before my personal good, if I believe in a group. At the same time, I can be extremely stubborn and make a group of one or two, me, if I feel the need.

7. I am a horrible salesman. I can't sell anything unless I feel it really is a win win situation. I try to talk people out of bad deals that benefit me.

8. I am an odd ENFJ e9, so I don't look like typical ENFJs. It is an odd combo.

9. I hate doing tedious work. I hate due dates. I hate meaningless rules, that exist just to placate ESTJs, much of which seem to govern schools and bureaucracies.

As to other Fe using groups, ExTPs seem very capable as using Fe as a tool. The best salesmen I know are ESTPs. Some of the best lawyers I know are ENTPs.

The xSFJs I know seem to connect very well to others, but also seem not to be conscious about it all. They just do it. They are much more practical than NFJs.

INTPs seem to have Fe, but it is weak. You have correctly elaborated on the Ti dom trap of over thinking. INTPs seem to get sidetracked by Si, and get locked into rigid prior understanding, based upon Ti.

The main difference I see between ENFJs and INFJs is speed and depth. My INFJ sister thinks like me. She is just far slower at reaching decisions. However, she is a far deeper thinker, while I can be more superficial in my understanding of a topic.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I disagree with your Te assessment, though.

I have a very good friend who is a ENTJ. He is a pretty good and laid back guy, but his mind is focused on using objective reality to further his goals, principally, making money and building businesses.

He has created several successful businesses in a short time, analyzing how to quickly grow opportunities.

He is a poor people person, for all he is very friendly by nature. He treats all his employees like robots and harshly criticizes failure to meet his standards and expectations. He says rude things to his wife, even though he says he isn't intending to be mean. The idea of couching language in polite phrases does not hit him at all.

He is very bright, but interpersonal relations do not matter, as if he band see them. On a 8- function stack using the shadow, Fe is at the very bottom for him and he is blind to Fe space.

Actually, your analysis of your ENTJ friend matches what I was trying to describe with Te-Doms (who I said are good at social groups and leadership but bad at personal relationships): He's a natural leader of people resulting in success in business ventures, but poor at interpersonal or one-on-one relationships. Often it happens that great leaders of groups or organizations are crappy at individual relationships. An example of this would be a general in the Army: A general is great at reading and leading the troops and getting the maximum effort out of them, but part of his success derives from the fact that he's a harsh taskmaster and a slavedriver, not a personal friend of the troops.

In short, Te-Doms = Good at taking leadership of groups, but tend to be weak at personal relationships.

Meantime, your analysis of yourself as an ENFJ was interesting, and I thank you for your contribution and your candor. But since it's much more broken-down and detailed than the first part of your post, I'll save my comments until I see some additional feedback from others.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Actually, your analysis of your ENTJ friend matches what I was trying to describe with Te-Doms (who I said are good at social groups and leadership but bad at personal relationships): He's a natural leader of people resulting in success in business ventures, but poor at interpersonal or one-on-one relationships. Often it happens that great leaders of groups or organizations are crappy at individual relationships. An example of this would be a general in the Army: A general is great at reading and leading the troops and getting the maximum effort out of them, but part of his success derives from the fact that he's a harsh taskmaster and a slavedriver, not a personal friend of the troops.

In short, Te-Doms = Good at taking leadership of groups, but tend to be weak at personal relationships.

Meantime, your analysis of yourself as an ENFJ was interesting, and I thank you for your contribution and your candor. But since it's much more broken-down and detailed than the first part of your post, I'll save my comments until I see some additional feedback from others.

Again, I would not call the "success" of the Te Dom being the ability to treat people like objects, like how Amazon treats its warehouse workers. I don't believe it is good thing at all, and ultimately unsuccessful and counterproductive.

I would look at McNamara and his conduct of the Vietnam War as a Te dom exercise in complete futility. Let's count bombs dropped and people killed so we have some "metrics" to put into our formula, and who gives a damn if it actually advances the goal of winning the war.

My ENTJ friend is "blind" to the human element (his words).

The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be run in a very Te dom mode and does not actually ever achieve victory.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

My ENTJ friend is "blind" to the human element (his words).

I would suggest that your Te-Dom friend is blind to the *personal* element, but he is very good at driving a *group* forward. If he was, as you describe him, totally incapable of dealing with people in any form whatsoever, then he would almost certainly drive all of his businesses into the ground and not be a success. To run a multi-person business, you have to have *some* cognizance of group dynamics, what motivates people, etc. Also, the typical business-owner has to deal with clients, customers, suppliers, inspectors, accountants, lawyers, etc. There's a huge "human element" to running a business, and this is precisely what Te-Doms traditionally excel at.

As I see it, your own dominant Fe simply doesn't want to recognize Te methods as representing a type of "people skills." But that's exactly the point of this thread. Te-Doms are in fact very good at handling people. But they do it in a very different context and style from Fe. In short: Fe=a focus on one-on-one interpersonal skills, whereas Te=a focus on group leadership (including using the slavedriver style of leadership, if necessary).

As for the rest of your post, concerning bombs and wars, that sounds like politics to me. I'll leave that aside.

 

[Agent Washington]

I've always utilised the thinking part to get an idea of what the other person's thinking due to lack of affective empathy. I spent a lot of time trying to be rid of others' emotional influences on me.

 

[cascadeco]

I would suggest that your Te-Dom friend is blind to the *personal* element, but he is very good at driving a *group* forward. If he was, as you describe him, totally incapable of dealing with people in any form whatsoever, then he would almost certainly drive all of his businesses into the ground and not be a success. To run a multi-person business, you have to have *some* cognizance of group dynamics, what motivates people, etc. Also, the typical business-owner has to deal with clients, customers, suppliers, inspectors, accountants, lawyers, etc. There's a huge "human element" to running a business, and this is precisely what Te-Doms traditionally excel at.

As I see it, your own dominant Fe simply doesn't want to recognize Te methods as representing a type of "people skills." But that's exactly the point of this thread. Te-Doms are in fact very good at handling people. But they do it in a very different context and style from Fe. In short: Fe=a focus on one-on-one interpersonal skills, whereas Te=a focus on group leadership (including using the slavedriver style of leadership, if necessary).

As for the rest of your post, concerning bombs and wars, that sounds like politics to me. I'll leave that aside.

I think I can get down with this. Though like everything/ every type in existence, there will be ones who are incompetent/not good at it.

Though I have only had one ESTJ manager, she was indeed very good at deploying and running a team. I would agree it's less about personal connection (though she did quite obviously connect better with some than others, and had her favorites) and more about just being on top of where everyone is and what everyone is doing and effectively assessing what needs to be done / if things need to be switched up. Efficiency and smooth operations, ultimately - though yes her style would leave something to be desired for some folks. But she had at least superficially learned more Fe-ish behaviors as well so as an ESTJ manager she did put on that hat -- I think because she knew it was an aspect that was necessary.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've heard it referred to as task-based vs people-based. To accomplish a group task, you do need to know how to steer the ship / manage people, but the focus is on the task.

Meantime, INTPs (Ti-Dom) can actually be highly sensitive to group dynamics by virtue of Ti (a social function), while they are much weaker with their Fe-Inf (a personal-relationship) function. But because they're introverts, they bring their social observations inward and analyze them to death. The result: They use their Ti analysis to produce philosophical and legal and political systems that define how people should get along with each other. In other words, INTP is strong at reading groups, but they bring it inside and intellectualize it to the point that it comes out as intellectual systems for regulating group behavior. Short version: Good at groups, but with a very intellectual output on the subject.

Yeah, i identify with that. I mean, I've had to develop the latter a lot due to various life scenarios, but I'm more intuitive at analyzing a group as a machine where people are the parts -- i,e., the top-down broad view. It's got an end goal and it views individuals as part of that goal and/or the role they play in reaching it.

It's also not that one cannot have a very intense and perceptive view of a particular individual and experience empathy for them, but it tends to be generalized into the "human condition" -- i.e., as indicative of the experience that person is undergoing, as something any person can experience, and what that truth of experience is. That's the "sweet spot," and to focus solely on the specific person and just relate to that one person (without generalizing out to summarize some core truth) is what takes energy. Compare that to a perspective where the specific person is actually the end goal.

 

[Tilt]

Note: This is actually a thread about the difference between Fe vs Fi, and initially I posted it in another thread about that subject in this forum. But then I looked at the content, and decided maybe it should be in a separate thread. So here it is.

Let me start by clarifying the difference between F vs T. After that's done, then I'll get into the difference between Fe vs Fi.

F vs T

Here's an idea I've been toying with: To me, F seems to be about personal relationships (primary personal attachment bonds: partners, parent-children bonds, friendship bonds, etc.), whereas T seems to be about social interactions. Thus, for example:
--When you're talking about how you relate to a partner or a friend, you're talking about using F.
--But when you talk about "being able to sense the emotional temperature of a room full of people upon entering," that's probably going to fall under use of T.

Examples of F being about personal relationships:

Examples of *Fe* being about personal relationships
In the past here at TypoC, the INFJs (Fe-Aux) used to post long rulebooks about how relationships should work. I won't get into what I thought of them myself, as an Fi-Dom. But I noticed that they were always about relationships with a single other person, often a close friend or a partner; they didn't seem to really relate to interactions with a collective or a social group.

Similarly, an ENFJ (Fe-Dom) friend I had in the past was animated as hell when dealing with individual friends, but tended to fade into the group a bit when with groups. His main preoccupation was one-on-one relationships, and not necessarily being a group leader or guide. In fact, the group leadership role would usually fall to the Te-Doms (Remember, T is more about social relations).

In fact, ENFJ are users of Inferior Ti, and that may make them weak in gauging social dynamics in a larger group of peers, since their own T function is both inferior and introverted.

Examples of *Fi* being about personal relationships

As introverts, obviously INFPs (Fi-Dom) are going to be better with one-on-one relationships than with groups. But it can go to extremes with INFPs. For example, INFPs are well-known for going on crusades on behalf of underdogs. And sometimes they haven't even met the underdog in question. But all it takes is for the INFP to identify intellectually with an underdog to the point of projecting a kind of "relationship bond" with that person or subgroup, and suddenly the INFP is fighting for that person as though fighting for their own child. Fi's really pour a lot of time and effort into personal relationships, often in a very intellectual sort of fashion.

At the same time, Fi-Doms are usually poor at reading group dynamics. But in some cases they *can* be good at group dynamics (as in the example of gauging the social dynamic in a room full of people). Remember that I said that social relationships require use of T. Fi-Doms are users of Te-Inf, and that can actually make them okay at gauging social dynamics in a larger group of peers, but only if the Fi-Dom in question chooses to develop and engage their inferior function.

Examples of T being about social groups

Te-Doms are the gods and goddesses of social leadership. They're often poor at one-on-one relationships, but no one can read a crowd of people better than them and take leadership of that crowd. And they *empathize* with the group, in their own way. An ESTJ "mother hen" type of person (Te-Dom) will defend her "tribe" fiercely. Even an ENTJ male (Te-Dom) can be very "tribal" in his allegiances. So I won't even bother going further into Te's as social animals.

Meantime, INTPs (Ti-Dom) can actually be highly sensitive to group dynamics by virtue of Ti (a social function), while they are much weaker with their Fe-Inf (a personal-relationship) function. But because they're introverts, they bring their social observations inward and analyze them to death. The result: They use their Ti analysis to produce philosophical and legal and political systems that define how people should get along with each other. In other words, INTP is strong at reading groups, but they bring it inside and intellectualize it to the point that it comes out as intellectual systems for regulating group behavior. Short version: Good at groups, but with a very intellectual output on the subject.

************
Okay, I'm going to stop here. I'll get into Fe vs Fi in a separate post (though you can kind of see where I'm going if you look at Te vs Ti, above). But I thought it important to talk about the difference between F and T first. Why? Because a lot of the discussion in Fi-vs-Fe threads mashes together personal relationships and interactions in society. And according to my ideas, those two situations would represent two different functions, and so should be discussed separately. IOW, if you want to talk about F, then just talk about how you deal with close personal relationships.

So again, let me stop here and ask: What do people think about the distinction that I'm drawing? F = personal relationships vs T = social and group interactions: Do you think it's total BS, or does the idea seem to have some merit? It's just an idea I'm toying with, so I'm genuinely interested in getting honest feedback on this. Then later, once a consensus on the F vs T idea arises, I'll follow with what I think is the main distinction between Fe and Fi.

From my experience, ENFJs are often excellent at moving groups but tend to short-circuit when there multiple sources of competing drama because there's a pull to accommodate everyone so the bottom line/message gets distorted.

ENTJs, on the other hand, are much better at deploying people to get to the bottom line but tend to struggle with maintaining group morale and culture.

Group morale and culture are significant to maintain retention and trust in an organization whereas focusing on the bottom line is key for maintaining logistics and structure.

Both are important but typically have different objectives and strengths for mobilizing people/groups.

TJ types in my life tend to value me because I help them sort through the motivations and humanity of things... They respect me for my "deep understanding of people" while they really help me to step back and consider the logistics of things.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

As I see it, your own dominant Fe simply doesn't want to recognize Te methods as representing a type of "people skills." But that's exactly the point of this thread. Te-Doms are in fact very good at handling people. But they do it in a very different context and style from Fe. In short: Fe=a focus on one-on-one interpersonal skills, whereas Te=a focus on group leadership (including using the slavedriver style of leadership, if necessary).

Okay yeah, we are definitely coming from different angles of understanding "reading the room". If the definition of "good leadership" you're working with includes slave-driving (basically knowing how to effectively force one's own will onto others through coercion).

A big part of my own perception on this is pragmatic. If you treat people like shit, then they don't especially care about doing a good job. They'll do the absolute modicum of what they need to do in order to keep the job, they need to be micromanaged just to do that much (which bleeds resources) - and they'll resent the micromanaging, which fuels the urge to 'get away' with as much as they can (it's a vicious circle that only gets bigger the longer it's left unattended) - and they'll only put up with that crap for as long as they need the job.

In my mind, "good leadership" knows the value of making everyone feel invested in being part of the team. There's less micromanaging and less turnover, which actually leads to much better results. (Studies have proven this, though I'm too lazy and my google-fu sucks too bad to find them).

eta: There's actually a germane side tangent to bring in here about how I think there's a kind of "bad leadership" that can apply to any type - that Js are probably worse about than Ps - that shouldn't be confused with Te strengths/weaknesses in particular. Any type can be a (shitty) leader by imposing their will on others in a coercive way - with Js it's more directly forceful. This is the thing I'm personally disagreeing would meet the criteria of "good leadership". There's kind of a whole other tangent - according to how I personally define "good leadership" - about why I find Te frustrating in this regard (and this other tangent was in my first post).

 

[Coriolis]

This is really interesting to me. I don't see this at all, really. With the caveat that it's "not true of all", my experience of Te doms is that they're tone deaf steamrollers (and I say "steamrollers" because of the tone-deafness). So we must have pretty different ideas of "reading the room", because I feel like they're generally terrible at it. This is something that actually systematically frustrates me about Te.

This is also true, ime, of ITJs.

As one of the aforementioned ITJs, I agree with this. That sort of reading the room and getting groups to work together as always seemed the purvey of Fe primarily, though perhaps other F-based functional combinations as well. Te at its best will understand that it is necessary to address and include the human element in order for a group to reach a goal, and we can certainly work at learning the required skills, but it is not our natural preference or forte. I for one prefer to work with someone who has these gifts and can take on that part of the project/work, so each of us plays to our strengths.

TPs on the other hand, I do not feel like they are tone-deaf to the people aspect (since they're willing to actually work through that stuff aloud and allow for outside input to weigh in on the conversation - and/or they provide a satisfactory explanation for why input is being dismissed). I rather envy how they seem to be able to spout this stuff off the cuff, almost instantly, because I really struggle with being able to work through this stuff aloud.

I see this with my INTP. He comes across as much more friendly and approachable than I do, and can socialize with much greater ease and enjoyment.

 

[Zhaylin]

I’m still confused about the whole thing. Where does Ni and Ne come in? ESPECIALLY where Fe (?) is concerned.
If you’re properly reading a room and see things (people/emotions/objects) in various states which need addressed, what is the driving function?

A person is crying but you notice the overhead light flickering. You’re in a position to tend to either. I’d say, the person who fixes the light would be using T lol
But, what if they intuit that the flickering is causing the crying person a debilitating migraine which is what makes fixing the light their priority?
What if the crying person causes you extreme discomfort, you intuit the flickering and fix the light?
If you’re compelled to simply go over and comfort the person because you see they’re upset, I’d say that’s Fe.
What about all the others though lol

 

[Tilt]

This is an example of effective EXFJ style leadership.... Satya Nadella, Current CEO of Microsoft.
[video]https://www.wsj.com/video/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-qa/41D02815-935C-421D-8021-5E1BFD3DDE84.html[/video]

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Good input! My thanks to everyone who contributed so far!

To some extent, it sounds like some posters are arguing over semantics, that is, the definition of "leadership." That is, some posters seem to be saying that they don't think of Te as leadership or as people-handing skills because it's not a touchy-feely or people-friendly style in the same sense as Fe.

But I would just counter that Te obviously *is* about dealing with people, because otherwise it would be Ti.

To put it another way, the traditional "core sphere" of Te-Dom career choices is leadership and management. And leadership and management are about people-handling. It may be top-down and heavy-handed, but it's still about people-handling. It's just a different sort of people-handling from Fe.

Also, let me put all this in a different perspective: I kind of see the F vs T split as reflecting two separate personal development stages.

F stage: In the Jungian universe, there's a stage where the child kind of masters the concept of personal emotional bonds. Jungians call it the stage where men get in touch with their anima and women get in touch with their animus. I won't go into all that Jungian stuff. But it's basically the stage where the individual begins to derive a whole series of personal concepts encompassing such things as:

--What is love? Loyalty? Betrayal? What kind of partner would I want? What kind of friend? Do I want a friend who competes with me, or a friend who supports me? Do I want a partner who challenges me, or a partner who mirrors me? What is sexy to me, versus what is not sexy to me? What causes me to trust people, and what causes me to mistrust people? What constitutes friendship? What do I do if I get angry at a friend? And so on...

This is the whole touchy-feely realm that traditionally falls under F. And all personality types have F somewhere in their makeup, so every adult has at least been through this stage and made up their own decisions as to how they want to answer these questions. The difference with F-Doms is that they kind of "live" in this stage. That is, they tend to want to see the world through this particular prism more than most.

T stage: In the Jungian universe, there's also a stage where the growing child asserts himself in the larger outside world. To compare: The F stage was more about family and close friends and was more of an early-childhood stage, when the child was still mostly operating within the family group. Meanwhile, the T stage is more about later childhood and adolescence, and it's about moving out into the larger world. It's basically about "social" concepts such as:

--Where am I on the pecking order? What's my role in my social group? How much do I lead and how much do I follow? How do I deal with group conflict? What if I try to assert my wishes or demands and other members of the group frustrate me in that attempt? What if I fail? What if I succeed? Should I automatically do what others tell me, or can I do things differently from others? How do I handle the anger of others? How do I handle my own anger in the group setting? What if I get ostracized from the group? What if I get elected leader of the group? And so on...

The tools that you develop at this stage are very different from the tools that you developed at the "F stage." Here, at the "T stage," you develop tools such as: The concepts of equity, equality, balance, social structure, social hierarchy, conflict management, anger management, leadership, followership, rank, pecking order, etc.

Again, these tend to be top-heavy, leadership-style tools. They aren't touchy-feely like F skills, and they have lots of applications beyond people-handling: For example, the concepts of structure and hierarchy can be used in science to create models of organization like the table of elements or tables of species or whatever. (That's the direction that Ti tends to go in, by interiorizing and intellectualizing what started out as social interaction tools.)

But in the Jungian universe, this all initially and originally develops in a *social* setting, and the core concept driving the T stage is the desire for asserting oneself in social settings: Where do I fit in, and how do I self-actualize myself while still respecting the needs of the group as well? Well, the answer is through things like pecking order and leaderships skills. And Te-Doms in particular tend to remain fairly true to this starting point, with their traditional focus on fields that involve leadership and management.

To sum up:

I described all that developmental background (above) so that I can show better why I would put T skills in the realm of "social" or "group leadership" skills, as opposed to F being in the realm of "personal relationship" or "one-on-one interaction" skills.

This idea of seeing F and T as developmental stages naturally raises a number of other questions, such as: Can one in fact associate the different functions with childhood developmental stages? And where do N and S fit in, in such a scheme?

I haven't found anything definitive on functions versus developmental stages. But that's probably because my reading on the subject is kind of random and hit-and-miss. Maybe an expert could speak definitively here. But traditional MBTI theory on the development of the different functions does say that the different functions develop at different ages. And I did see one Jungian text that said Jung called N&S the "irrational functions" because they developed very early in infancy, whereas F&T are the "rational functions" because they are developed later. So the jury is kind of out on that question: I still need to do more reading on the subject.

And I'm not even going to go into N and S. That's for another thread at some other time.

But I figured that I would describe this scenario of how F and T develop here at TypoC, and you all can decide for yourselves. You can determine whether it passes your personal "sniff test." Again, as I said in the OP, it's just something I'm toying with. I don't have anything official to back it up. It's just something that feels good to me, and I was curious if it worked for anyone else as well. Thus, I'm interested in any and all feedback on the subject.

Meantime, I still owe the thread some ideas on Fe vs Fi (and tangentially Te vs Ti). That's coming up. I'll try to tie that material into the concepts of F and T as people-handling skills (in the developmental sense, anyway).

 

[Tilt]

I am still struggling with the group vs. 1 on 1 distinction. BOTH Fe and Te are about the "objects" (people, environments) outside themselves because they are directed outwards (hence extroversion). Fe focuses on the interpersonal dynamics within groups and between people. Te focuses on the impersonal structures and efficiencies within systems.Of course, people are to be part of the system. However, the personal/interpersonal aspects aren't going to factor in as much when it comes to planning for efficiencies.

Hell, my TJ friend was expressing to me how incompetent he felt when it came to people but I proceeded to point out how his ability to set aside personal issues/struggles to accomplish tasks was one area of emotional intelligence where he excelled.

 

[cascadeco]

I am still struggling with the group vs. 1 on 1 distinction. BOTH Fe and Te are about the "objects" (people, environments) outside themselves because they are directed outwards (hence extroversion). Fe focuses on the interpersonal dynamics within groups and between people. Te focuses on the impersonal structures and efficiencies within systems.Of course, people are to be part of the system. However, the personal/interpersonal aspects aren't going to factor in as much when it comes to planning for efficiencies.

Hell, my TJ friend was expressing to mehow incompetent he felt when it came to people but I proceeded to point out how his ability to set aside personal issues/struggles to accomplish tasks was one area of emotional intelligence where he excelled.

Re the bolded - I'm curious if this is true or not, but I think TJ's would need to chime in.

For me, I really feel I have a decent grasp of efficiency/operations, but part of what makes things optimally efficient is knowing where to put people / where strengths lie and who works better with whom, who hates doing certain things (so I'll try to accommodate preferences when deploying), but also recognizing when I have no better option so someone ends up needing to do something they don't particularly enjoy. Is what I'm describing simply an F bent on efficiencies? fwiw I'm not a strong F either, going by dichotomies.

 

[Tilt]

Re the bolded - I'm curious if this is true or not, but I think TJ's would need to chime in.

For me, I really feel I have a decent grasp of efficiency/operations, but part of what makes things optimally efficient is knowing where to put people / where strengths lie and who works better with whom, who hates doing certain things (so I'll try to accommodate preferences when deploying), but also recognizing when I have no better option so someone ends up needing to do something they don't particularly enjoy. Is what I'm describing simply an F bent on efficiencies? fwiw I'm not a strong F either, going by dichotomies.

It would be awesome to hear more TJ input. I wanted to clarify what I meant by efficiency.😀

From all my discussions with TJ friends, they seem to rarely do a full on analysis of how person A clashes with person B, why or why or why not? How does it affect the company culture? They seem to view it as speculation and unreliable data (whereas I dig deeper to find the meaning behind the dynamic). It's more like what assets and liabilities are both person A and B bringing to the company and its goals?

 

[Sacrophagus]

To some extent, it sounds like some posters are arguing over semantics, that is, the definition of "leadership." That is, some posters seem to be saying that they don't think of Te as leadership or as people-handing skills because it's not a touchy-feely or people-friendly style in the same sense as Fe.

I think those definitions are primordial to skim parts of the personality of each one, or at least, have a grasp on their current mindset.

Ask me what leadership is and I'll say leadership is going your own way with conviction, carving your own path detached from the influence of men, and those aligned with your vision will follow on their own. You lead the way. That's what it's all about.

It's goal-oriented in its essence, it does not concern itself with people, and only the drive to make things happen is what fuels that relationship in a managerial context.

"I will highlight your strengths and I will see how I can put them to use."


Just like Coriolis mentioned, Te is about efficiency and it should make note of the frustration of other people under poor leadership and drive whoever is in charge to either optimize their approach or allocate the task to someone else who knows better since the end result is all that matters.

If I used Te the same arrogant way I did when I was an adolescent I would probably piss off half the population of the world and still not care. But that defeats the purpose.

The premise says that Reason is the main tool, and one would expect that everyone should follow it. However, it's not the case.
Upon searching I realized that in many cases, the content of the message does not matter as much as its recipient for many people. You would feel tempted to call them stupid until you give in to the truth that we humans are biased in nature and that is as fair as it gets.

Using these conclusions, you can steer many situations in your favor. It's purely instrumental in concept.

Now, if I had to make a comparison between the way I operate and my ENFJ friend's leadership style, I'd say she's a mother to all of them.

-If I am to deploy two people to do a task, she will comment that they do not get along, while I don't care about that since they're individuals who give results.
-I can infuse respect within a group, while she can infuse understanding and love.
-I will encourage each one of them to preserve their individuality even among the group, while she puts an emphasis on anything that does not scream the word differences.
-I have a sharp eye to read people's motivation and prognosticate their behavior, while she's more in tune with their feelings much like a sponge.
-I care more about substance, while she cares more about its delivery.
-She's also the kind of person who reads something disconcerting and types "...". It's hilarious.
-In some rare occasions we might do the same thing, but with different intentions in mind.

Regarding group dynamics, in times of turmoil and adversity, I am one who uses wisdom, knowledge, strength, determination, and leading by example to inspire them forward. In such times she feels useless because a harmonious atmosphere will not solve the problem nor pushes them to break their boundaries. She would still support them through everything even when support seems useless.

Those are some of the key differences I can come up with in this short lapse of time.

Some of your findings are on point. I will come back to you later.

 

[Fidelia]

I'm finding this an interesting discussion and am still collecting my thoughts on it. Thanks for starting it, [MENTION=22236]YUI[/MENTION].