Fe and Te?

[SillySapienne]

Ti searches for things like internal consistency in logic while Te looks for external consistency. Te will be satisfied with a model that obtains consistent results, while Ti might find something logically 'wrong' with the model based on what is known about things in the model and discredit it based on that.

So Te is more concerned with the validity of held truths, while Ti takes it one step deeper/further and is concerned with the soundness of things being held true?

 

[Haphazard]

So Te is more concerned with the validity of held truths, while Ti takes it one step deeper/further and is concerned with the soundness of things being held true?

I think so.

 

[redacted]

So Te is more concerned with the validity of held truths, while Ti takes it one step deeper/further and is concerned with the soundness of things being held true?

even though it seems no one's really listening to me at this point, i'd say they're both concerned with validity and soundness.

Ti doesn't care about implementation, though.
Te does care about implementation.

so Te is more often used on information that can be concretely acted upon, whereas Ti is more often used to just figure out how stuff works.

for example, Te would be used to analyze the question "how many cigarettes can i fit into this cigarette case?". Ti would be used to answer the question "is this thing in front of me a cigarette case?"

 

[SillySapienne]

even though it seems no one's really listening to me at this point, i'd say they're both concerned with validity and soundness.

Ti doesn't care about implementation, though.
Te does care about implementation.

so Te is more often used on information that can be concretely acted upon, whereas Ti is more often used to just figure out how stuff works.

for example, Te would be used to analyze the question "how many cigarettes can i fit into this cigarette case?". Ti would be used to answer the question "is this thing in front of me a cigarette case?"

If that's the case, I feel bad for Ti dominants, living with perpetual doubt/uncertainty is *not* fun. :sad:

 

[Blackmail!]

If that's the case, I feel bad for Ti dominants, living with perpetual doubt/uncertainty is *not* fun. :sad:

Don't say it too loud, some INTP's might hear...

 

[redacted]

heh, Ti can be used for much more than that.

i was just trying to come up with a question who's answer isn't implementable.

 

[Haphazard]

Don't say it too loud, some INTP's might hear...

Yes.

They do not want your pity.

Trust me on this one. It's not Ni speaking on this, either -- it's past experience with a black eye to show for it.

 

[Jae Rae]

even though it seems no one's really listening to me at this point, i'd say they're both concerned with validity and soundness.

Ti doesn't care about implementation, though.
Te does care about implementation.

so Te is more often used on information that can be concretely acted upon, whereas Ti is more often used to just figure out how stuff works.

for example, Te would be used to analyze the question "how many cigarettes can i fit into this cigarette case?". Ti would be used to answer the question "is this thing in front of me a cigarette case?"

Te sounds practical, Ti sounds theoretical.

Jae Rae

 

[Eric B]

Well, a lot have already been said about Fe.

But there's a point I'd like to make clear. According to our type, we may not have the same perception of the same function, because we do not use it the same way, in the same order, and for the same purpose.

As an ENTP, the way we use our tertiary Fe is completely different from a Dom Fe like what you would expect in an ExFJ. It's the same function, we may both have a good amount of it, but it's not the same goal.

The "fake" Fe you describe probably rather refer to a tertiary Fe.

Anyway, an ExFJ will never use his/her Fe the same way I would, so he/she may describe a completely different point of view, and be genuinely perplexed when you say his/her dominant function is "fake" or "insincere".

These expressions you're talking about usually come with Ti or Fi being in the inferior (and sometimes tertiary) functions. Fi may be self-absorbed but in a dominant/auxillary position it respects that others are self-absorbed, too, and work on that assumption. Fe doesn't do that and rather looks at known expectations for behavior.

Fi will try to seek deeply into somebody for understanding and be quite merciful with what it finds. Fe, however, will find something 'wrong' and try to fix it so that the person is happier, whether the person wants it or not.

The distinction is between "preferred" and "nonpreferred" functions (the first and second pairs, respectively). The preferred functions seem to be more seriously used, while the nonpreferred are less serious. According to the Archetype theory, Tertiary is "eternal child' or "relief", while inferior is "aspirational". The first pair are "hero" and "parent".
So yes, they are very different. It has been observed how TJ's are the most directive, while FP's are the least so. Yet they share the same Te/Fi arm or spine in the primary range; only reversed in preference. And that makes them almost opposite. The same with The FJ's (the most cooperative) and TP's (most pragmatic) with Fe/Ti.

 

[htb]

Ti is what's in your head.

Te is what's in your face.

 

[proteanmix]

I have been reading some of the things said on this forum, and that has raised some doubts and question in my mind.
I am getting confused about Fe.
People were saying, its mostly 'fake', a lie. Its just to accommodate the other person/group by playing chameleon. This is making me paranoid! Its making me feel Fe is insincere! How do I believe a person who is Fe? Is it what they're actually feeling, or is it just some big show?
Maybe I dont know enough about this theory, therefore arriving at wrong judgment. Feel free to correct me please.
Also, how does the Te work?
Thank you

This thread is so funny. Only one ENTJ replied, no ESFJs, ESTJs or ENFJs.

It's so weird to read people telling you how you think, what's important to you, and how you evaluate the world. I'm sitting here smiling to myself. I have this thing about not speaking for other ENFJs or ESFJs so I'll make the usual disclaimer of saying this my rendition of Fe.

I guess the ability to get people to do things without banging them over the head or holding them at gunpoint automatically reeks of manipulation. There must be some kind of deceit involved! I'm just wishing apathy of how people conceive of Fe would completely take me over so I won't feel compelled to reply. But is it refreshing to know that my Fe is very much appreciated IRL. People seek me out to for advice or they say how comfortable they feel around me. I really pride myself in the fact that I can put people at ease. Shall I just chalk it up to envy? OK, that's just bragging so I won't!

Maybe I'll even acknowledge the manipulation part a little bit, inasmuch as I know exactly what I'm doing, how to do it, and when I'm doing it, so it's not particularly spontaneous. I think people like spontaneity because it's less planned and premeditated, but the motivation is usually pure. I want people to feel happy, relaxed, comfortable, at ease. "A good time was had by all." I like to lower defenses and no matter how long or brief our contact is, you'll feel a connection right then and there. Like we've known each other for a long time. So I do a lot of complementing because I genuinely think those earrings look nice on you, or because that presentation you gave was great, or because you have a wicked sense of humor, or I can tell you're really passionate about your work. I verbalize the good things and people remember that. When you're smiling the whole world smiles at you!

But it seems a highly complimentary person or someone who is genuinely interested in another person signals manipulation and ulterior motives are afoot. Sometimes so and sometimes no. I'm not going say that doesn't happen because it does. I'm not going to pretend that I my motives are always pure either. But the majority of the time they are.

The larger realization is knowing that I have the ability to arouse feeling in people. Which means that I know how to escalate and deescalate, make people happy or make them miserable. I have thrown a wet blanket on people with no regret and I've had people say that now the party can finally get started cause proteanmix has arrived.

Blackmail makes a good point when he says Fe is different depending on where it falls in your functions. As a dom-Fe, Fe is a very active and flexible function. Fe finds the common denominator (lowest or highest) and moves people towards commonalities. It's like when you set the thermostat at 75 degrees and you hear the AC or heat kick on and off because the temperature got too high or too low. Fe is constantly scanning the atmosphere and taking the temperature. It makes sure that it finds something mostly everyone can agree is reasonable and comfortable.

I have two different sets of feelings, group feelings and my own private ones. I would rather be reasonably accommodating and reach a solution that is palatable. There is some tamping down of my own feeling that occurs in order to gain this. Within the last few years I've realized how much disharmony and strife in my atmosphere can have adverse effects on me and I think when EFJs feel like this is when people start feeling the Fe hammer and cracking down because the EFJ may be struggling to regulate themselves via their environment. This is where the controlling part comes in. Sometimes EFJs need to get their external world in order sometimes to bring coherency to the internal one.

And I'd also like to differentiate between the various types of Fe. Did ya know Fe came in flavors?! I don't know any ENFJs that I've pinpointed as ENFJs so this is mostly based on ESFJs. There are some EFJs who are very cool, calm, and collected, always say the right thing, always polite, never go too hot or too cold. Kind of like game show hosts, everything is just perfect. Then you have the really exuberant EFJs who are bouncy and bubbly and involved in lots of activities and constantly organizing people into doing things. Then I think you have a type of EFJ who are the ones on the "disconnect" from people. I think they look like ITPs but aren't. They don't like people but they're always attracted to them. I don't really know how to explain this but I think I've observed this consistently in two of my coworkers. They express ambivalence in their interactions with people, but are always wanting to be around people. These are the most unpleasant EFJs because they are real pricks.

Fe to me is all about connecting with people. It's not about rules and manners, and thank yous and pleases and all that crap. If that's all it amounts to with some people then that's all you'll ever get out of it.

 

[htb]

Does Fe, I wonder, primarily connect those for which it's a cognitive function?

I've been meaning to report this, as it seems to be a more effective identifier by the day: in salutation, one type of behavior (driven by Fe?) irritates me unless I'm in a mood to gladhand; while another (driven by Fi?) disarms me with the same consistency. It's difficult to describe the difference between the two, since phraseology is often interchangeable (as simple as "How are you?"). And, too, my reactions seem independent of my opinion of the person. Were I to distill each pejoratively, suspected Fe would be unctuous; while suspected Fi would be peculiar. Favorably: Fe is decorous, Fi spontaneous.

 

[The WhimWham]

I've only skimmed the thread, so if I'm repeating something, I apologise.

I want to challenge the idea that Ti is "deductive" as opposed to being "inductive".

Even a casual observation of INTPs will reveal that inductive reasoning is their primary mode -- deriving underlying principles (Ti) from perceived patterns (Ne). The very assumption that there is always order in the "chaos" is due to an inductive reasoning process.

ISTPs do this, too, but the stimuli tends to be much more physical/tangible.

 

[redacted]

I've only skimmed the thread, so if I'm repeating something, I apologise.

I want to challenge the idea that Ti is "deductive" as opposed to being "inductive".

Even a casual observation of INTPs will reveal that inductive reasoning is their primary mode -- deriving underlying principles (Ti) from perceived patterns (Ne). The very assumption that there is always order in the "chaos" is due to an inductive reasoning process.

ISTPs do this, too, but the stimuli tends to be much more physical/tangible.

how can a rational function be inductive?

inductive reasoning is all about making connections, which is intuition.

Ti can calculate how likely something is, for example. but it can't say, hey, maybe this is the pattern behind those occurrences. it takes an intuition function to do that. AFTER intuition makes the connection, Ti can analyze it.

 

[The WhimWham]

how can a rational function be inductive?

inductive reasoning is all about making connections, which is intuition.

Ti can calculate how likely something is, for example. but it can't say, hey, maybe this is the pattern behind those occurrences. it takes an intuition function to do that. AFTER intuition makes the connection, Ti can analyze it.

Exactly, but it's precisely that process of analysis that is induction.

As a rather simple (simplistic?) example, take a sequence such as...

0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35, ...

Ne can throw up guesses (something to do with squares?), but it's Ti that does the work in this case, formulating the actual underlying principle behind the perceived pattern with cool precision: (n^2 - 1).

This is, as you note, a process of reasoning -- that is, it's about the "why's" of life, which is absolutely rational. iNtuition, as an irrational function, wouldn't be concerning itself with explanatory principles.

 

[nightning]

Exactly, but it's precisely that process of analysis that is induction.

As a rather simple (simplistic?) example, take a sequence such as...

0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35, ...

Ne can throw up guesses (something to do with squares?), but it's Ti that does the work in this case, formulating the actual underlying principle behind the perceived pattern with cool precision: (n^2 - 1).

This is, as you note, a process of reasoning -- that is, it's about the "why's" of life, which is absolutely rational. iNtuition, as an irrational function, wouldn't be concerning itself with explanatory principles.

I disagree... your example is deduction, not induction.

Ti is testing a guess induced by Ne. The nature of the testing process is deduction.

 

[redacted]

Exactly, but it's precisely that process of analysis that is induction.

As a rather simple (simplistic?) example, take a sequence such as...

0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35, ...

Ne can throw up guesses (something to do with squares?), but it's Ti that does the work in this case, formulating the actual underlying principle behind the perceived pattern with cool precision: (n^2 - 1).

This is, as you note, a process of reasoning -- that is, it's about the "why's" of life, which is absolutely rational. iNtuition, as an irrational function, wouldn't be concerning itself with explanatory principles.

in your example, Ti isn't doing any induction at all.

it's like this.

Ne says "maybe this has to do with squares".

then Ti says:
premise 1: this is a sequence of squares
premise 2: this sequence is: 0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35
conclusion: false (there are some steps in between, but they're deductive)

then Ne says "maybe this is squares plus a constant factor."

so Ti says:
premise 1: this is a sequence of f=n^2 + B, where B is a constant
premise 2: the sequence is: 0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35
step 1: f(1) = 1^2 + B = 0, so B = -1 here
step 2: f(2) = 2^2 + B = 3, so B = -1 here
step 3: f(3) = 3^2 + B = 8, so B = -1 here
...
conclusion: B = -1 in all cases
conclusion: the pattern is f=n^2 - 1

all of the inductive steps are done by intuition. Ti just deductively calculates.

 

[The WhimWham]

in your example, Ti isn't doing any induction at all.

it's like this.

Ne says "maybe this has to do with squares".

then Ti says:
premise 1: this is a sequence of squares
premise 2: this sequence is: 0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35
conclusion: false (there are some steps in between, but they're deductive)

then Ne says "maybe this is squares plus a constant factor."

so Ti says:
premise 1: this is a sequence of f=n^2 + B, where B is a constant
premise 2: the sequence is: 0, 3, 8, 15, 24, 35
step 1: f(1) = 1^2 + B = 0, so B = -1 here
step 2: f(2) = 2^2 + B = 3, so B = -1 here
step 3: f(3) = 3^2 + B = 8, so B = -1 here
...
conclusion: B = -1 in all cases
conclusion: the pattern is f=n^2 - 1

all of the inductive steps are done by intuition. Ti just deductively calculates.

To be honest, this (to me) is the problem with trying to separate specific parts of complete cognitive processes into different functions.

Again, it's the INTPs (not the ENTPs) who are most obsessed with discovering the underlying explanatory principles in the world -- that is inductive reasoning in the strictest sense: generalising from particulars. To me, that suggests that it only makes sense to tie the bulk of the inductive process to Ti rather than Ne.

We're both talking about the same process here, but we're divvying it up along different lines. All I can suggest is that induction, being a process of abstraction, is thus introverted (as it moves inward away from the object), whereas deduction is necessarily extraverted.

In other words, deduction is application of the general to the particular (thus outwardly focused), and we all know how uninterested INTPs are in actual application.

 

[redacted]

To be honest, this (to me) is the problem with trying to separate specific parts of complete cognitive processes into different functions.

Again, it's the INTPs (not the ENTPs) who are most obsessed with discovering the underlying explanatory principles in the world -- that is inductive reasoning in the strictest sense: generalising from particulars. To me, that suggests that it only makes sense to tie the bulk of the inductive process to Ti rather than Ne.

We're both talking about the same process here, but we're divvying it up along different lines. All I can suggest is that induction, being a process of abstraction, is thus introverted (as it moves inward away from the object), whereas deduction is necessarily extraverted.

In other words, deduction is application of the general to the particular (thus outwardly focused), and we all know how uninterested INTPs are in actual application.

the way i look at it is that ENTPs do less deductive work -- they spend way MORE time on inductive jumps than INTPs. they'll connect two things (extroverted intuition), send that to Ti to analyze, and then before they're even done, they've moved on to the next connection.

Ti doms make way fewer connections than Ne doms, they just analyze those connections to death.

(someone else back me up on this?)

plus, seeing the specific in terms of a larger picture cannot be thought of as either introverted or extroverted, as it's the primary purpose of both Ni and Ne. the difference between introversion and extroversion here is that Ni sees the present specifics in the context of an abstract picture of the past, and Ne is less concerned with an encompassing abstract picture of the world -- it just cares about making as many connections with the things it sees as possible, even if they go against any kind of overall picture.

 

[SillySapienne]

the way i look at it is that ENTPs do less deductive work -- they spend way MORE time on inductive steps than INTPs. they'll connect two things (extroverted intuition), send that to Ti to analyze, and then before they're even done, they've moved on to the first connection.

Ti doms make way fewer connections than Ne doms, they just analyze those connections to death.

and it's the connections themselves that are extroverted (about the outside world in the present moment). the analysis is introverted, because there's no concern with application.

(someone else back me up on this?)

plus, seeing the specific in terms of a larger picture cannot be thought of as either introverted or extroverted, as it's the primary purpose of both Ni and Ne. the difference between introversion and extroversion here is that Ni sees the present specifics in the context of an abstract picture of the past, and Ne is less concerned with an encompassing abstract picture of the world -- it just cares about making as many connections with the things it sees as possible.

Great post, and I think I agree with you here.

Finding and seeing "everything" in every thing, identifying analogous systems/structures, where "truth" is revealed in "this is like that", and "that is like this" moments, is how I would loosely define, or explain the gist of my Ne thought process.