Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe

[infinite]

(...) however, mixing JCF and Socionics isn't.

Well that's your opinion. You already know mine.

Fi, being an Introverted Judging function, rationally reasons out personal ethics and moral creeds. Assuming Fi is a conscious function, then Fi is 'conducted' by the individual to determine what is morally right, and what is morally wrong, so that the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment. The Fi users project ethical values onto situations in the environment to morally orient themselves and their position. They reason out in their minds why one side of a situation or controversy is morally in the wrong, while doing the same for the one that is morally wrong, with circumstantial evidence (provided by lovely Pe* which will be the subject of the Te vs Pe conversation in just a second). This reasoning can be provided by how the individual approached other topics in order to stray from being hypocritical (more common with Fi dominants, who are more dogmatic in their ethical imposing); for example, if I find that killing animals is morally wrong, then I should also find the consumption of animals mass slaughtered by factories wrong as well, since it causes the problem in the first place (product demand); ergo, I should become a vegan because veganism is morally right due to the fact that it reduces the demand (microscopically) and thus goes against the morally wrong action of mass slaughtering animals (started out with killing animals is wrong, got to veganism is right). By the way, veganism is stupid.

The bolded is very much like a Je function in MBTI/JCF. Je is pretty much defined this way, impose shit upon the external environment. So in this case this sounds like Fe, not Fi.

I get what you mean by the moral consistency idea, though. That's just like logical consistency for Ti.

Lol at the veganism example btw, yeah that sort of reasoning to go vegan is really stupid.

The reason I like to call it "Formal Logic" is because while it is subjective rationalization, it isn't really "subjective" since it focuses on objective truth that can be derived from pure logic (perhaps I should just call it "pure logic"?). Whereas Fi can work rather ambiguously due to the nature of morals, Ti is more forced to walk the road of pure logic so that it can reason out the machinations of the environment and project how the environment should be working accurately (pure logic is logical, after all) according to the pure logic that is conducted within. I rather enjoyed Augusta's description of Ti, for some reason I seem to have skipped over it before, so thank you for that. I would conjecture that the logical feelings arise from the projection of how the environment should be working according to pure logic onto the environment itself, how the object in the environment in question fits the standards of the pure logic model. If it is an unknown object, Ti flags it as such, and attempts to account for it after gathering circumstantial evidence through Pe. If there is an object leaning 70% off of a table, say a slender remote, the Ti user can use the Pe circumstantial evidence provided (the description) to project onto the object the concept of balance, or, rather, imbalance, thereby linking the idea of imbalance with the remote that is now probably falling off of the table. It is entirely logical to project the characteristic of imbalance onto the remote, due to the nature of the remote's position.

Glad you liked the Augusta Ti stuff

I guess "pure logic" would be a better choice for a name than "formal logic". "Pure" would of course not necessarily mean perfect here, just referring to the idea that Ti (as any other introverted function) is about abstracting away some - in this case logical - essence from objects. This is the original Jungian definition btw but the MBTI, various JCF-based theories and socionics do seem to make use of some very similar ideas when defining Ti.

Also, this is the reason why I don't really agree when you say Ti is about projecting "how the environment should be working accurately". I don't follow you here at all; I don't even know what you mean by environment working "accurately" here. Environment - the world - works whatever way it does and Ti is about abstracting away ideas about it, e.g. about how it works. As Jung said, introversion is about removing yourself from the object. This idea of actively imposing frameworks isn't quite the same thing. If you just mean that the perception of the world is a bit "filtered" through logical ideas then that's okay but I wouldn't directly link that to imposing anything on the external world - just like with your Fi description, same issue there IMO. I think you need quite a bit more than just Ti (or Fi) itself to interact with environment in such a way.

The example of the remote is pretty good, though I still don't agree about the projection idea. The feeling of imbalance is just abstracted away from the perception. At least that's how it seems to me. I think there is a difference in meaning here; or just your word usage is very different from mine.

The Te vs Pe debacle. (Ever wonder why there are a shit-ton of ESTp-ENTj mistypes in Socionics? Oh, and know that your nitpicking led to this wall of text under here)

You mean the MBTI ENTJ -> socionics SLE/ESTp correlation right? Or did you mean there's actually a lot of people who confuse LIE/ENTj with SLE/ESTp? I don't see those two types as being that similar tbh. In theory anyway.

No worries about wall of text I don't think it was nitpicking tho'. Effective communication is important, so when using generic words like "evidence", it's best to clarify what's meant by that. That's why I asked.

Anyway, thanks, the wall of text does clarify what you meant about that.

The Ti / Te difference though, a few things I'd like to note.

It's not clear what you mean by "static accuracy" for Ti. That again makes no sense to me. You also mention it lacks relevance to reality. I disagree, degree of relevance of "pure logic" to reality entirely depends on how well the logic is mapped to the phenomenon/environment/reality. How well you figure out the "logical essence" of things. And, because the quality of such mapping can be variable, I would never say that such logic is static in accuracy. Rather, its accuracy depends on the quality of the mapping, just like with relevance. I use the word "accuracy" in the sense of "correct", how about you though?

I don't know how purity of logic would help reveal where evidence lies; again, I'm referring to the issue of quality of mapping. Unless you mean that said evidence is inconsistent with current understanding of how things work, assuming that this current understanding is really good. But then, current understanding isn't perfect either so just because an inconsistency has been revealed, it doesn't mean the evidence is lying. Though sure, it could be. Anyway, mind giving an example where the Te evidence is lying and this can be discovered by Ti way of thinking?

I find it funny you call the Pe observations circumstantial evidence even when it's not a one-time observation. Te evidence as you describe it, is also pretty circumstantial in this sense. Many scientific studies just have some variables better controlled for but not perfect either. Think about science of nutrition for example. Or psychology, yeah

....Anyway I'll try to describe how I do observation for evidence; Say I have a question about how something works. I first think through previously observed data in my head and I get a theory assimilated off that. Then I go out to test that theory. If it gets refuted by the very first so-called "circumstantial" observation, then it's refuted, period. Back to drawing board then. If it's not (yet) refuted and further observations keep supporting it, I will still prefer to have some proper explanation why the theory is correct. My reductionist thinking comes into the picture here. That has a lot of frameworks included in it, mostly sciencey stuff, but the point is, if I can place my theory inside those frameworks and I can see through all levels of explanation down to the lowest level that's relevant for the theory being currently analysed, then I'm mostly satisfied. So yeah, you could say the entirety of these frameworks* is what determines what makes sense.

*: It's not likely that all of science from physics to biology will suddenly get refuted in one second based on some new little piece of evidence. Don't misunderstand me. Not saying that science is all-knowing either. But assume science all gets uprooted like that, well we do still need to put some other system in its place. Can't just let everything hanging in the air. (And honestly, most likely the new system would just be some paradigm shift in the way of explaining things, not invalidating previous stuff that has been shown to work within at least certain constraints.)

Anyway, what I describe above, do you see this as entirely Ti? Because going by your Te definition, it certainly seems to include some Te use by the willingness to look at results of scientific research. Though I would say, the way I look at that sort of research stuff usually involves withholding any kind of real judgment until it can all make sense together. So it's often just data that's partially analysed or not even analysed right away, depending. And honestly a lot of data in general that I encounter is just that, data left unanalysed until I can do it or want to do so for whatever reason.

And, I know the goatee example is just meant as some crazy funny example and I know it was Fi, not Ti, but I would never make a final judgment on people with goatees until I know why people with goatees try to hurt other people. That "model" there is so simplistic that it can't even be called a model. It's just connecting two things together without it being part of a real system. And surely Fi users, well at least Fi-doms, would try to place their Fi judgments inside a bigger Fi framework? Or not? Maybe I am asking too much from Fi types? I want to also say that I liked the Te reasoning in the goatee example. I really like that kind of logic, taking into account the size of sample and probabilities. I think a lot like that and so I would like to ask you why you think this is a Te thing and why it can't be a Ji and specifically a Ti thing.

Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing

You say the general difference between JePi and JiPe is also this: "You have absorbed the logical worth in other evidence produced by observations other than your own, realizing the authority of evidence in the environment itself rather than evidence gathered by the self from the environment personally." I have certainly read about this kind of distinction in some typology theories (both MBTI and socionics actually) so yeah I guess this is a pretty common definition. But I will say it never truly made sense to me. Just because someone else conducted an experiment and not myself, it doesn't mean it can't be a valid observation. Assuming they conducted the experiment using proper methodology, it's just as good as one done by myself. (Also that assumes that I care for proper methodology. Yes, I do, I like to try within whatever physical constraints.) I can read the data from this experiment done by someone else, I can analyse and interpret the results for myself just fine. Of course, it will feel more like "reality" if I directly experience it myself but that has nothing to do with goodness of data. So if I was to go by this definition of Ti vs Te (where Ti is supposed to disregard data gathered by someone else), I would not be preferring either function over the other. What do you say that is, then?

Unconscious Fe, noting people's emotional states and drawing in the emotions to be interpreted via people's facial expressions. Of course, this process isn't truly as unconscious as, say, the inferior function since Fe is the Tertiary after all of the ENTP.

How the hell is that Fe use there unconscious?! He readily verbalized all that emotional states stuff. That sounds very much conscious to me. If you say it's only so compared to me then I'll accept that argument as long as you can support it by comparing OP's Fe to more conscious Fe (dominant, auxiliary, whatever) and point out how it's less conscious than those stronger Fe functions.

 

[Agnes]

B - Nah, Suarez is a cunt and is the scummiest cunt on Earth. I wouldn't of handballed it, because I actually have some respect for the rules.

Me - Frankly, that's stupid. Your country is more important than some rules. Especially if you're representing your country in an international competition.

Me - The end justifies the means. And anyway, Suarez wasn't cheating, by definition. He did get his comeuppance for breaking the rule. I don't know about how you people prioritize stuff but in my opinion, ensuring your country's progression to the next stage is more important than preserving your moral integrity. The latter just sounds selfish. So, you would throw away a chance to propel your country towards glory in a global competition only to protect your character? Football is about teams, not individuals. I don't know what was going through Suarez's mind but I think he made a heroic sacrifice (okay, that's an exaggeration but hey, it is a perspective). Besides, Ghana is at fault here. They should have capitalized on the penalty, both the foul one and the shootout.

I think you're being Fe. I am no expert, but it seems to me that Fe operates that way. That was hard for me to understand about some people; about their way of thinking. I am actually opposite. I value my personal honor more. You can see it as selfish, but don't you think that he also sends an example for his entire team. He may be considered dishonorable and therefore his team too since they approve that what he did. They might get on top but is that really the way? If tables were turned they wouldn't like that kind of behavior either. That is called fair game. If you bend the rules, what is the point then?

 

[infinite]

If someone killed someone you love (projecting the ideal of love onto the environment, in this case, a special other), then you would hate them probably (projecting the ideal of hatred onto the environment, in this case, a murderer).

I forgot to ask... are you trying to say that a Fi-dom doesn't hate in an emotional way, just via this high-level "emotional concept" thingie?* What's an "emotional concept" anyway lol

*: I'm not saying you're wrong, I really don't know well what Fi is like. Just trying to see what you mean.

 

[Emperor Enigma]

I don't really value the team over myself, to be honest. In fact, I would be more inclined to be the other way round, the "community over individual" thing even repels me to a certain degree. I was just arguing from an objective perspective, with the intention of presenting an argument so as to justify Suarez's handball. I could have just as easily argued for the opposition. Since the defendants of Ghana were principally using the argument of morality (specifically about how morally despicable Suarez was, so I figured it would be best to capitalize on that statement), I simply twisted the focus on the significance of morality in that situation and used it against them. In the end, I believe that Suarez was fairly justified in his handball because of, well, I posted two more comments about it.

Rules are supposed to be flexible. By the way, no rule was broken that day. Sure, a handball is against the rules. But it is also in conjunction with the rule that the violator should be punished by being sent off. That's what happened. Suarez was sent off. Besides, it was a split-second decision. An instinctive decision. Imagine yourself in that situation. Your body reacts faster than your mind does, in general. While you would be thinking about your moral conundrum in that ephemeral interval of seconds, your instincts would have already taken control. Only a person with a tremendous sense of self-restraint would be able to prevent himself from committing a handball in such a situation. Sometimes, actions do speak louder than words (or thoughts, in this case).
Anyway, it's not like Ghanna were robbed of their victory. They did get an opportunity in the form of a penalty. And since we're talking about upholding the rules here, you can't really persuade the referee to just award you a goal.... right? Admit it. The only argument against Uruguay is that Suarez was a prick, and even that's just an opinion, not fact. In Uruguay (or anyone who wanted Uruguay to progress to the semi-final), the majority were probably lionizing him, so there goes away your 'fact'. Everything else is in Uruguay's favor. Also, don't forget that even Uruguay were in dire peril for a few minutes. Giving away a penalty only seconds before the conclusion of a game with no clear winner? That sounds like a frightening prospect.

As for the instance of analyzing the facial expressions from the Star Trek video... I think that was unconscious, at least initially. When I first watched the movie, I just appreciated the facial expressions, it was also a vague kind of appreciation. I did not even know the reason behind it. Then, when I got the opportunity to understand why I liked the shift in facial expression, I did an analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that sound more like unconscious Fe detecting the subtlety of those facial expressions and conscious Ti trying to decipher them?

Of course... there can also be an argument that I projected what could possibly be my Fe creative to the external world in my way of debating. I think if I really have Fe in my ego, I have it as a creative function. It definitely isn't my dominant function, more like a tool to manipulate or even use for recreation. That leaves IxFJ, which comes under the IP temperament in Socionics, renowned for being the one most prone to relaxation and passivity. In that vein, I identify with that temperament the most. But then again, I don't relate to both Te-PoLR (I'm more likely to just take in external sources of information and believe them to be true initially) and Ne-PoLR (maybe in the future trends department, but only in company, I don't like to share what I think about my future with others but I have almost made a hobby out of evaluating my past and present for future trends).

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Well that's your opinion. You already know mine.




The bolded is very much like a Je function in MBTI/JCF. Je is pretty much defined this way, impose shit upon the external environment. So in this case this sounds like Fe, not Fi.

I get what you mean by the moral consistency idea, though. That's just like logical consistency for Ti.

Lol at the veganism example btw, yeah that sort of reasoning to go vegan is really stupid.




Glad you liked the Augusta Ti stuff

I guess "pure logic" would be a better choice for a name than "formal logic". "Pure" would of course not necessarily mean perfect here, just referring to the idea that Ti (as any other introverted function) is about abstracting away some - in this case logical - essence from objects. This is the original Jungian definition btw but the MBTI, various JCF-based theories and socionics do seem to make use of some very similar ideas when defining Ti.

Also, this is the reason why I don't really agree when you say Ti is about projecting "how the environment should be working accurately". I don't follow you here at all; I don't even know what you mean by environment working "accurately" here. Environment - the world - works whatever way it does and Ti is about abstracting away ideas about it, e.g. about how it works. As Jung said, introversion is about removing yourself from the object. This idea of actively imposing frameworks isn't quite the same thing. If you just mean that the perception of the world is a bit "filtered" through logical ideas then that's okay but I wouldn't directly link that to imposing anything on the external world - just like with your Fi description, same issue there IMO. I think you need quite a bit more than just Ti (or Fi) itself to interact with environment in such a way.

The example of the remote is pretty good, though I still don't agree about the projection idea. The feeling of imbalance is just abstracted away from the perception. At least that's how it seems to me. I think there is a difference in meaning here; or just your word usage is very different from mine.




You mean the MBTI ENTJ -> socionics SLE/ESTp correlation right? Or did you mean there's actually a lot of people who confuse LIE/ENTj with SLE/ESTp? I don't see those two types as being that similar tbh. In theory anyway.

No worries about wall of text I don't think it was nitpicking tho'. Effective communication is important, so when using generic words like "evidence", it's best to clarify what's meant by that. That's why I asked.

Anyway, thanks, the wall of text does clarify what you meant about that.

The Ti / Te difference though, a few things I'd like to note.

It's not clear what you mean by "static accuracy" for Ti. That again makes no sense to me. You also mention it lacks relevance to reality. I disagree, degree of relevance of "pure logic" to reality entirely depends on how well the logic is mapped to the phenomenon/environment/reality. How well you figure out the "logical essence" of things. And, because the quality of such mapping can be variable, I would never say that such logic is static in accuracy. Rather, its accuracy depends on the quality of the mapping, just like with relevance. I use the word "accuracy" in the sense of "correct", how about you though?

I don't know how purity of logic would help reveal where evidence lies; again, I'm referring to the issue of quality of mapping. Unless you mean that said evidence is inconsistent with current understanding of how things work, assuming that this current understanding is really good. But then, current understanding isn't perfect either so just because an inconsistency has been revealed, it doesn't mean the evidence is lying. Though sure, it could be. Anyway, mind giving an example where the Te evidence is lying and this can be discovered by Ti way of thinking?

I find it funny you call the Pe observations circumstantial evidence even when it's not a one-time observation. Te evidence as you describe it, is also pretty circumstantial in this sense. Many scientific studies just have some variables better controlled for but not perfect either. Think about science of nutrition for example. Or psychology, yeah

....Anyway I'll try to describe how I do observation for evidence; Say I have a question about how something works. I first think through previously observed data in my head and I get a theory assimilated off that. Then I go out to test that theory. If it gets refuted by the very first so-called "circumstantial" observation, then it's refuted, period. Back to drawing board then. If it's not (yet) refuted and further observations keep supporting it, I will still prefer to have some proper explanation why the theory is correct. My reductionist thinking comes into the picture here. That has a lot of frameworks included in it, mostly sciencey stuff, but the point is, if I can place my theory inside those frameworks and I can see through all levels of explanation down to the lowest level that's relevant for the theory being currently analysed, then I'm mostly satisfied. So yeah, you could say the entirety of these frameworks* is what determines what makes sense.

*: It's not likely that all of science from physics to biology will suddenly get refuted in one second based on some new little piece of evidence. Don't misunderstand me. Not saying that science is all-knowing either. But assume science all gets uprooted like that, well we do still need to put some other system in its place. Can't just let everything hanging in the air. (And honestly, most likely the new system would just be some paradigm shift in the way of explaining things, not invalidating previous stuff that has been shown to work within at least certain constraints.)

Anyway, what I describe above, do you see this as entirely Ti? Because going by your Te definition, it certainly seems to include some Te use by the willingness to look at results of scientific research. Though I would say, the way I look at that sort of research stuff usually involves withholding any kind of real judgment until it can all make sense together. So it's often just data that's partially analysed or not even analysed right away, depending. And honestly a lot of data in general that I encounter is just that, data left unanalysed until I can do it or want to do so for whatever reason.

And, I know the goatee example is just meant as some crazy funny example and I know it was Fi, not Ti, but I would never make a final judgment on people with goatees until I know why people with goatees try to hurt other people. That "model" there is so simplistic that it can't even be called a model. It's just connecting two things together without it being part of a real system. And surely Fi users, well at least Fi-doms, would try to place their Fi judgments inside a bigger Fi framework? Or not? Maybe I am asking too much from Fi types? I want to also say that I liked the Te reasoning in the goatee example. I really like that kind of logic, taking into account the size of sample and probabilities. I think a lot like that and so I would like to ask you why you think this is a Te thing and why it can't be a Ji and specifically a Ti thing.

Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing

You say the general difference between JePi and JiPe is also this: "You have absorbed the logical worth in other evidence produced by observations other than your own, realizing the authority of evidence in the environment itself rather than evidence gathered by the self from the environment personally." I have certainly read about this kind of distinction in some typology theories (both MBTI and socionics actually) so yeah I guess this is a pretty common definition. But I will say it never truly made sense to me. Just because someone else conducted an experiment and not myself, it doesn't mean it can't be a valid observation. Assuming they conducted the experiment using proper methodology, it's just as good as one done by myself. (Also that assumes that I care for proper methodology. Yes, I do, I like to try within whatever physical constraints.) I can read the data from this experiment done by someone else, I can analyse and interpret the results for myself just fine. Of course, it will feel more like "reality" if I directly experience it myself but that has nothing to do with goodness of data. So if I was to go by this definition of Ti vs Te (where Ti is supposed to disregard data gathered by someone else), I would not be preferring either function over the other. What do you say that is, then?




How the hell is that Fe use there unconscious?! He readily verbalized all that emotional states stuff. That sounds very much conscious to me. If you say it's only so compared to me then I'll accept that argument as long as you can support it by comparing OP's Fe to more conscious Fe (dominant, auxiliary, whatever) and point out how it's less conscious than those stronger Fe functions.

Firstly, to address the last question, he answered in the affirmative to my question on the thread, which posed whether or not he unconsciously draws in the emotions of others; unconsciously absorbing the emotional atmosphere to be interpreted in an Si manner (Fe-Si mechanism). Ergo, it explains the noticing of facial expressions (realize that you can "notice" something unconsciously, or much more accurately, subconsciously. Conscious Fe users would be more focused on actively reading facial expressions to ascertain emotions being displayed, whereas the Sub/unconscious Fe users can "pick-up" on the meaning of facial expressions passively without actively looking for them)

The second order of business is that you aren't an ISTP as suspected, you are more likely INTP in your style of reasoning (and why you don't particularly identify with the projection Ti I mentioned before hand, as that is the Ti-Se mechanism, I'll get to that here in just a second, and I've suspected this for a while). You remind me way too god damn much of Orange Fusion in your reasoning and thinking style, almost uncannily.

Thirdly, What you seem to be gallantly taking for as "Fe" with the Fi projection, is indicative of the judging function itself, which casts reasoned frameworks upon the environment. The difference lies in the origination of the frameworks, whether or not the frameworks are individually constructed by the self or the adoption of frameworks present in the environment that have been constructed by others or collaboratively been constructed. Introverted Feeling imposes the individual's opinion onto the environment through emotional "concepts"*, such as visceral feelings (Love, Hate, Evil, Good, etc), whereas Extroverted Feeling allows the individual to impose an externally reasoned framework's response onto the environment (for example, what society projects onto the environment). The difference is all in the origination.

*Just as seen in the Ti-Se mechanism, where the mechanical concept of imbalance is projected onto the remote. Fi projects the emotional concept of "Morally Right/Good" onto veganism, as mentioned earlier. This good, however, is reasoned out entirely by the individual. If society began to say that veganism is "Amoral/Evil", then Fe users who choose to adopt this framework will project the concept of Evil onto veganism. Now, if veganism happens to be considered futile, useless, and pointless (as extrapolated by handy Pi) by empirical studies, then we enter the domain of Te, which will then project the empirical studies's tidings of "bullshit" onto the practice of veganism. If you as an individual, rationalize on your own the faults of the practice of veganism without the citing of an empirical study or any studies that reveal credible evidence for or against the practice, then you are projecting, as a Ti-user, the carefully reasoned out analysis as to why veganism is faulty onto the practice itself.

The reason why you didn't particular identify with the Ti projection example, as aforementioned, is because it is the domain of the Ti-Se mechanism foremost. A concrete object in the environment spotted by Se, the remote, is subjected to Ti's projection of the concept of imbalance. Ti is being applied in the environment pragmatically (why it might often be confused with Te), and that is the birth of the mechanic stereotype of the ISTP and ESTP. It's easy to be a really good mechanic when you are constantly analyzing specific concrete things in the environment and projecting mechanical properties onto them that are relatively logical. A car, for instance, can be projected with several concepts ranging from acceleration, some aerodynamics, etc., and when something is wrong with say, a car, then a Ti-Se is able to logically project concepts onto what is being observed from the immediate environment, whether or not a loose cord means that something is disconnected or some such troubleshooting problem, but of course, it isn't robotic as it sounds, with the idea of "imbalance" immediately coming to mind when seeing the remote about to fall, but is "felt" as the description said, that the reason for the remote falling can be logically explained with a mechanical concept.

In the INTP, then, this projection limits itself to Ne possibility structures and differing angles of thought. A web of hypothetical scenarios dreamed up by Ne is fettered to logical concepts, or, more interestingly, Ne is used as a slave to demonstrate mechanical constructs in hypothetical action. The mechanical concept of "imbalance" for the remote then, can be felt, but under hypothetical examples and metaphors; where the Ti-Se mechanism projects imbalance onto the falling remote in the immediate environment, the Ti-Ne mechanism projects the concept of imbalance on that particular hypothetical example of the remote possibly hanging off of a table, perhaps a man standing on one leg swaying from side-to-side, perhaps a spinning quarter losing its velocity to remain upright, etc.

And lastly, the distinction between Pe and Te is, truthfully, that Te is the adoption of external empirical evidence or external logically-reasoned frameworks (perhaps scientific fields that have been constructed by others) devised by other people than the self to base decisions and project upon the environment after Pi interpretation and extrapolation, and that Pe is the observation of the external environment for information to be analyzed or projected upon by the introverted judging function so that the introverted judging function has observations to reinforce its rationalizations.

 

[infinite]

I don't really value the team over myself, to be honest. In fact, I would be more inclined to be the other way round, the "community over individual" thing even repels me to a certain degree. I was just arguing from an objective perspective, with the intention of presenting an argument so as to justify Suarez's handball. I could have just as easily argued for the opposition. Since the defendants of Ghana were principally using the argument of morality (specifically about how morally despicable Suarez was, so I figured it would be best to capitalize on that statement), I simply twisted the focus on the significance of morality in that situation and used it against them. In the end, I believe that Suarez was fairly justified in his handball because of, well, I posted two more comments about it.

Oh alright. Go with ENTP, then. They're the best devil's advocates

Rules are supposed to be flexible.

+1 to that ...when rules get in the way, who the fuck cares about them

Besides, it was a split-second decision. An instinctive decision. Imagine yourself in that situation. Your body reacts faster than your mind does, in general. While you would be thinking about your moral conundrum in that ephemeral interval of seconds, your instincts would have already taken control. Only a person with a tremendous sense of self-restraint would be able to prevent himself from committing a handball in such a situation.

That just shows you're not a Fi-dom but we've already known that.

As for the instance of analyzing the facial expressions from the Star Trek video... I think that was unconscious, at least initially. When I first watched the movie, I just appreciated the facial expressions, it was also a vague kind of appreciation. I did not even know the reason behind it. Then, when I got the opportunity to understand why I liked the shift in facial expression, I did an analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that sound more like unconscious Fe detecting the subtlety of those facial expressions and conscious Ti trying to decipher them?

Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah it could be more unconscious Fe then. Btw mine is supposed to be unconscious Fe too but I never do analysis like you. I might like watching this sort of facial expressions stuff but I'm not the type who stops to think about them later. I'm not ENTP though

Of course... there can also be an argument that I projected what could possibly be my Fe creative to the external world in my way of debating. I think if I really have Fe in my ego, I have it as a creative function. It definitely isn't my dominant function, more like a tool to manipulate or even use for recreation. That leaves IxFJ, which comes under the IP temperament in Socionics, renowned for being the one most prone to relaxation and passivity. In that vein, I identify with that temperament the most. But then again, I don't relate to both Te-PoLR (I'm more likely to just take in external sources of information and believe them to be true initially) and Ne-PoLR (maybe in the future trends department, but only in company, I don't like to share what I think about my future with others but I have almost made a hobby out of evaluating my past and present for future trends).

Er, Fe-creative with Ne-PoLR, did you actually mean Ne-suggestive?

What you said here about Ni it does sound like Ni-ignoring kind of... you don't share it with others but you are good at it and you privately indulge in it a bit. For comparison - I have weaker Ni than you -, I do also sometimes like to evaluate my past in a similar way for trends but I stop short of actually thinking up a *future* trend in detail. Partly because I don't have enough of an inclination for such heavy Ni "production". It would require a lot of time and patience. There's another reason why I don't do it but that reason is kind of irrational, almost like a superstition, I don't really believe in it though. Yeah I have a strange relation to some stuff...

You certainly don't sound like Te-PoLR btw, based on what you said here.

I don't think MBTI IxFJ is necessarily an IP type in socionics. That stuff is less well correlating than EP. Be careful with mixing theories mindlessly.

 

[infinite]

Firstly, to address the last question, he answered in the affirmative to my question on the thread, which posed whether or not he unconsciously draws in the emotions of others; unconsciously absorbing the emotional atmosphere to be interpreted in an Si manner (Fe-Si mechanism). Ergo, it explains the noticing of facial expressions (realize that you can "notice" something unconsciously, or much more accurately, subconsciously. Conscious Fe users would be more focused on actively reading facial expressions to ascertain emotions being displayed, whereas the Sub/unconscious Fe users can "pick-up" on the meaning of facial expressions passively without actively looking for them)

Yeah okay. Btw there is this face emotion test online. I score pretty high in it, actually higher than average (32 out of 36), but I suppose the strong Fe types would be doing it more consciously. I just... looked at each face and to determine the feeling displayed, I - instinctively - tried to mirror the feeling internally which has a really weak effect on me - those mirror neurons of mine don't seem to fire strongly -, so I was straining a bit to "lock onto" what I was feeling. It's just a really weak something that's hard to grasp. Nonetheless, I did manage to do quite well on the test. Unconscious Fe, definitely

I would be curious to hear from strong Fe types, how they do that test, how well they do on it, and if they feel all that shit consciously while taking the test or whatever other method they use consciously.

The second order of business is that you aren't an ISTP as suspected, you are more likely INTP in your style of reasoning (and why you don't particularly identify with the projection Ti I mentioned before hand, as that is the Ti-Se mechanism, I'll get to that here in just a second, and I've suspected this for a while). You remind me way too god damn much of Orange Fusion in your reasoning and thinking style, almost uncannily.

Lol if you think you can tell everything about my thinking style from a few posts you're deluded. Maybe you can state more about my reasoning style as that's actually laid out here in words. My thinking style is however... not laid out so clearly. Bits of it maybe but certainly not all of it.

I have no idea who Orange Fusion is but tell me what is it that reminds you of his/her style, don't compress everything into four letters, just tell me using everyday words what you see my reasoning and thinking style as. Thanks.

Anyway, I'm no INTP, this is for sure. The example you give below about TiSe vs TiNe, I don't relate to "doing" hypothetical actions. I think you just didn't understand what I was trying to say in my post. It's ok, I'll retry.

*Just as seen in the Ti-Se mechanism, where the mechanical concept of imbalance is projected onto the remote. Fi projects the emotional concept of "Morally Right/Good" onto veganism, as mentioned earlier. This good, however, is reasoned out entirely by the individual. If society began to say that veganism is "Amoral/Evil", then Fe users who choose to adopt this framework will project the concept of Evil onto veganism. Now, if veganism happens to be considered futile, useless, and pointless (as extrapolated by handy Pi) by empirical studies, then we enter the domain of Te, which will then project the empirical studies's tidings of "bullshit" onto the practice of veganism. If you as an individual, rationalize on your own the faults of the practice of veganism without the citing of an empirical study or any studies that reveal credible evidence for or against the practice, then you are projecting, as a Ti-user, the carefully reasoned out analysis as to why veganism is faulty onto the practice itself.

I'm again a mix of Ti/Te here if we are supposed to go by these Ti/Te definitions. I do my own reasoning but I also do look at studies, though I'm often lazy to cite shit like that. Well sometimes I do bother with citing and I actually got really pissed recently when a friend of mine - most likely Te-PoLR in socionics - refused to even look at the links I gave him about studies on a certain topic (it was a topic on something about attitudes of men vs women, where he made a generalization that I thought was really stupid). He also got pissed, he was claiming this bullshit that his limited personal experience on the matter was worth a lot more than scientific studies conducted according to proper methodology. I tried to explain to him that I am not claiming that all these studies are to be taken literally, they always need to be interpreted and I also tried to explain that if someone else's experience differs from his then that needs to be looked into, to find the reason why the difference. But he just wouldn't hear me from the moment that I dared to give him links to studies. He really seems to have an allergy to that or something. It of course didn't help either that I told him that my own personal experience differed from his.

The reason why you didn't particular identify with the Ti projection example, as aforementioned, is because it is the domain of the Ti-Se mechanism foremost.

Lol you're deluded if you think you know the exact reason... I'm not saying I know but this sudden idea of switching my type from ISTP to INTP is not gonna explain it any better.

A concrete object in the environment spotted by Se, the remote, is subjected to Ti's projection of the concept of imbalance. Ti is being applied in the environment pragmatically (why it might often be confused with Te), and that is the birth of the mechanic stereotype of the ISTP and ESTP. It's easy to be a really good mechanic when you are constantly analyzing specific concrete things in the environment and projecting mechanical properties onto them that are relatively logical. A car, for instance, can be projected with several concepts ranging from acceleration, some aerodynamics, etc., and when something is wrong with say, a car, then a Ti-Se is able to logically project concepts onto what is being observed from the immediate environment, whether or not a loose cord means that something is disconnected or some such troubleshooting problem, but of course, it isn't robotic as it sounds, with the idea of "imbalance" immediately coming to mind when seeing the remote about to fall, but is "felt" as the description said, that the reason for the remote falling can be logically explained with a mechanical concept.

I relate as far as "constantly analyzing specific concrete things in the environment"* and "feeling" the e.g. "imbalance" etc. I however still say I don't project the result back onto the environment. I take something from the environment by analysis of it and I do use it in practice but projection is a strong word. That sounds like "overwriting" reality with concepts. I most certainly don't do that - reality comes before concepts. When an idea doesn't turn out to align with reality, you need to change the idea to stay aligned with reality. Or you're in psychosis. I repeat what I said previously, the map is not the territory.

So I'm ok with a Ti definition if it's put as abstracting away concepts from the object and even further than that, I agree that Ti involves filtering out certain information, focus on specific information and discarding the rest. However, none of this is actual projection back to the environment. If you happen to be talking about the same thing I am then I would say find a different word for it.

*: OK, "constantly" is an overstatement, I just do it when I'm absorbed in my interests. I don't do it when I'm just having fun with someone for example.

In the INTP, then, this projection limits itself to Ne possibility structures and differing angles of thought. A web of hypothetical scenarios dreamed up by Ne is fettered to logical concepts, or, more interestingly, Ne is used as a slave to demonstrate mechanical constructs in hypothetical action. The mechanical concept of "imbalance" for the remote then, can be felt, but under hypothetical examples and metaphors; where the Ti-Se mechanism projects imbalance onto the falling remote in the immediate environment, the Ti-Ne mechanism projects the concept of imbalance on that particular hypothetical example of the remote possibly hanging off of a table, perhaps a man standing on one leg swaying from side-to-side, perhaps a spinning quarter losing its velocity to remain upright, etc.

I don't have any web of whatever hypothetical scenarios. My mind is just not wired like that. That Ne thing is just really weird to me. My mind is pretty one-track and I don't like analogies, who needs analogies** when you can just take an example of the actual topic and explain the logical concept through it.

**: I was talking about myself of course. Describing how I operate. I know N types prefer analogies.

And lastly, the distinction between Pe and Te is, truthfully, that Te is the adoption of external empirical evidence or external logically-reasoned frameworks (perhaps scientific fields that have been constructed by others) devised by other people than the self to base decisions and project upon the environment after Pi interpretation and extrapolation, and that Pe is the observation of the external environment for information to be analyzed or projected upon by the introverted judging function so that the introverted judging function has observations to reinforce its rationalizations.

If this Pe can include observation of the Te scientific studies, alright. In that case we are on the same page. I'm just tired of the stereotype that science = Te. It's not!!

I take an issue with the wording in bolded. That just sounds too black and white, comes off too strong, similarly to the word usage of "projection". No, the Ji function should be able to update its framework if the observations tell it that something's off. Maybe it's not always going to happen very fast but it will happen sooner or later. Or if not, the Ji-dom is a nutcase.

Talking about black and white views, you didn't answer this: "Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing "

Can you tell me if it was just a bad example or if you really think that Ti/Fi are more black and white than Te?

And I had a couple other questions actually; e.g. what did you mean by "static accuracy"? And, have you got an example of Te evidence lying that can be detected by Ti?

Thirdly, What you seem to be gallantly taking for as "Fe" with the Fi projection, is indicative of the judging function itself, which casts reasoned frameworks upon the environment.

In MBTI, only Je does that. There is a reason why Ji-doms are categorized as "P" types in MBTI.

In socionics, Ji types also do this, yes, but that's socionics, not MBTI. And yep in socionics, Ji-base types are categorized as "j" types. This isn't by accident.

The difference lies in the origination of the frameworks, whether or not the frameworks are individually constructed by the self or the adoption of frameworks present in the environment that have been constructed by others or collaboratively been constructed.

In MBTI, yes that's the difference between Je and Ji, origin of framework. (Socionics is of course different again )

 

[Mal12345]

The title is self-explanatory. Only that the 'Versus' implies differences or discrepancies, not battles or arguments (gotta take measures against the jests).

Incidentally, I'm fairly certain that I'm an xNxP (leaning towards ENP), or even an xSxJ (leaning towards ISJ), if we are to consider every possibility. Basically, I've arrived at the conclusion that my perception functions are Ne and Si.

You are making this too difficult. JCF makes personality typing more difficult than it should be. In this respect, JCF is fun to learn and speculate about, but it's not very practical.

Fe and Fi are both concerned with morals, so let's consider just the F. So in this respect: Do you consider others in your decision-making process? Which are you more impressed with, feelings or logic?

As for S and N, are you more 'concrete' and practical or 'intellectual' and impractical?

 

[infinite]

You are making this too difficult. JCF makes personality typing more difficult than it should be. In this respect, JCF is fun to learn and speculate about, but it's not very practical

I think the entire JCF doesn't have to be thrown out the window. I do find it more fun than just the four letters. Not because of more chance to speculate, I'm not so interested in that, but because it's somewhat more personalized than the four letters. My functions just seem more interesting than the dichotomies. It's hard to explain. I do get sick of certain parts of the theory and especially if there's too much speculation. Example, I'm not quite convinced that it's all a neat order of functions for everyone as the theory puts it. So, when someone gets typed e.g. INFJ because they seem to be using Ni and Ti but not much Fe, it's all so off IMO. That person essentially doesn't have a standard JCF type as their function order isn't standard.

 

[Mal12345]

I think the entire JCF doesn't have to be thrown out the window. I do find it more fun than just the four letters. Not because of more chance to speculate, I'm not so interested in that, but because it's somewhat more personalized than the four letters. My functions just seem more interesting than the dichotomies. It's hard to explain. I do get sick of certain parts of the theory and especially if there's too much speculation. Example, I'm not quite convinced that it's all a neat order of functions for everyone as the theory puts it. So, when someone gets typed e.g. INFJ because they seem to be using Ni and Ti but not much Fe, it's all so off IMO. That person essentially doesn't have a standard JCF type as their function order isn't standard.

I find JCF to be fun as well. I love speculating on how Si and Se manifest themselves differently - things like that. But can it be used typologically? Not very well. But Jung himself had a distinct advantage at it. He could sit in his office and ask his paying customers pointed questions about their lives and personalities. I have to do the same with often recalcitrant forum posters who just want to argue and waste my time.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Yeah okay. Btw there is this face emotion test online. I score pretty high in it, actually higher than average (32 out of 36), but I suppose the strong Fe types would be doing it more consciously. I just... looked at each face and to determine the feeling displayed, I - instinctively - tried to mirror the feeling internally which has a really weak effect on me - those mirror neurons of mine don't seem to fire strongly -, so I was straining a bit to "lock onto" what I was feeling. It's just a really weak something that's hard to grasp. Nonetheless, I did manage to do quite well on the test. Unconscious Fe, definitely

I would be curious to hear from strong Fe types, how they do that test, how well they do on it, and if they feel all that shit consciously while taking the test or whatever other method they use consciously.




Lol if you think you can tell everything about my thinking style from a few posts you're deluded. Maybe you can state more about my reasoning style as that's actually laid out here in words. My thinking style is however... not laid out so clearly. Bits of it maybe but certainly not all of it.

I have no idea who Orange Fusion is but tell me what is it that reminds you of his/her style, don't compress everything into four letters, just tell me using everyday words what you see my reasoning and thinking style as. Thanks.

Anyway, I'm no INTP, this is for sure. The example you give below about TiSe vs TiNe, I don't relate to "doing" hypothetical actions. I think you just didn't understand what I was trying to say in my post. It's ok, I'll retry.




I'm again a mix of Ti/Te here if we are supposed to go by these Ti/Te definitions. I do my own reasoning but I also do look at studies, though I'm often lazy to cite shit like that. Well sometimes I do bother with citing and I actually got really pissed recently when a friend of mine - most likely Te-PoLR in socionics - refused to even look at the links I gave him about studies on a certain topic (it was a topic on something about attitudes of men vs women, where he made a generalization that I thought was really stupid). He also got pissed, he was claiming this bullshit that his limited personal experience on the matter was worth a lot more than scientific studies conducted according to proper methodology. I tried to explain to him that I am not claiming that all these studies are to be taken literally, they always need to be interpreted and I also tried to explain that if someone else's experience differs from his then that needs to be looked into, to find the reason why the difference. But he just wouldn't hear me from the moment that I dared to give him links to studies. He really seems to have an allergy to that or something. It of course didn't help either that I told him that my own personal experience differed from his.




Lol you're deluded if you think you know the exact reason... I'm not saying I know but this sudden idea of switching my type from ISTP to INTP is not gonna explain it any better.




I relate as far as "constantly analyzing specific concrete things in the environment"* and "feeling" the e.g. "imbalance" etc. I however still say I don't project the result back onto the environment. I take something from the environment by analysis of it and I do use it in practice but projection is a strong word. That sounds like "overwriting" reality with concepts. I most certainly don't do that - reality comes before concepts. When an idea doesn't turn out to align with reality, you need to change the idea to stay aligned with reality. Or you're in psychosis. I repeat what I said previously, the map is not the territory.

So I'm ok with a Ti definition if it's put as abstracting away concepts from the object and even further than that, I agree that Ti involves filtering out certain information, focus on specific information and discarding the rest. However, none of this is actual projection back to the environment. If you happen to be talking about the same thing I am then I would say find a different word for it.

*: OK, "constantly" is an overstatement, I just do it when I'm absorbed in my interests. I don't do it when I'm just having fun with someone for example.




I don't have any web of whatever hypothetical scenarios. My mind is just not wired like that. That Ne thing is just really weird to me. My mind is pretty one-track and I don't like analogies, who needs analogies** when you can just take an example of the actual topic and explain the logical concept through it.

**: I was talking about myself of course. Describing how I operate. I know N types prefer analogies.




If this Pe can include observation of the Te scientific studies, alright. In that case we are on the same page. I'm just tired of the stereotype that science = Te. It's not!!

I take an issue with the wording in bolded. That just sounds too black and white, comes off too strong, similarly to the word usage of "projection". No, the Ji function should be able to update its framework if the observations tell it that something's off. Maybe it's not always going to happen very fast but it will happen sooner or later. Or if not, the Ji-dom is a nutcase.

Talking about black and white views, you didn't answer this: "Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing "

Can you tell me if it was just a bad example or if you really think that Ti/Fi are more black and white than Te?

And I had a couple other questions actually; e.g. what did you mean by "static accuracy"? And, have you got an example of Te evidence lying that can be detected by Ti?




In MBTI, only Je does that. There is a reason why Ji-doms are categorized as "P" types in MBTI.

In socionics, Ji types also do this, yes, but that's socionics, not MBTI. And yep in socionics, Ji-base types are categorized as "j" types. This isn't by accident.



In MBTI, yes that's the difference between Je and Ji, origin of framework. (Socionics is of course different again )

First, the Judging function JUDGES the environment, not just the extroverted judging function, and not just the introverted judging function. The only thing I-E does is tell you where the Judging comes from. If you challenge this, I will cease answering your questions, as then it is pointless for me to even try if you can't understand that. The Introverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an internally reasoned model. The Extroverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an externally adopted model. They are called "JUDGING" functions for a reason. Would you like me to refer to "projecting" as "judging"? It's the same damn thing. This is not Socionics, this is basic Jungian Cognitive Functions.

Second, Introverted Thinking judges the environment according to how things are rationally reasoned internally and judges the environment based on internally *logically* reasoned principles and conclusions (it does not *overwrite* the environment). If 5 + 5 = 10, and there are 5 boxes being put next to 5 other boxes in the environment, how many boxes are there now? With Ti, the mathematical model of 5 + 5 is applied to the sensory observation (5 boxes are being put next to 5 other boxes), reasoning that since 5 + 5 = 10, and 5 same entities are being put next to 5 of the same entities, then there are 10 of the same entities in the environment. Of course it doesn't work this clear cut for everything, as Ti works fast and people aren't stupid and can figure something out like that easily. A better example would be something much more complex. Let's say that you don't remember the surface area formula for a cube, and you need to figure it out with the given Edge = 5 cm. First, you try to figure out what the concept of Surface Area is (logical analysis), the total area on the surface of a 3-dimensional figure (in this case). Reasoning that a Cube has 6 faces that are each 2-dimensional squares, you logically conclude that if you add the areas of the 6 squares, then you will also have the entire surface area of the Cube, 150 sq cm. You have observed the problem, analyzed it, and judged (because projected apparently doesn't compute) internally *logically* reasoned knowledge onto the environment (the algorithm, that the 6 squares' area will equal the cube's surface area) to solve the problem that has been observed. Congratulations, you have just applied/judged/projected a principle/concept onto the environment to solve a problem/mystery.

Because I'm psychic and somehow know that you have read the above and thought "but what does Te do then" (I at least hope you thought of that, because if you are still stuck on the whole projection = judging I'm somewhat disappointed). Thinking as a function is responsible for logical analysis and judging. The Te approach to the problem would either be based off the Si recollection of previous methods or the Ni realizations of the circumstances producing a general idea to solve surface area that have been gathered from an external source (Te, adopting external logical frameworks/knowledge). Another approach would be identical to that of the Ti function's reasoning in the sense that the Te-user will organize the environment and use examples to prove points that will lead to the answer, as well as logically laying out the steps as to how to reach the solution in a clear-cut fashion, usually documenting details. The Te user would have an easier time visualizing or actually having a hollow cube at their disposal to break apart into 6 separate squares (so would Se types, which only adds to the confusion), proving to the Te user that the surface area of the cube (surface area's analytic meaning being reasoned out from prior knowledge or through unconscious Ti use, everyone uses the function to some extent) is the exact same as the area of the 6 squares. Furthermore, the Te user will often work through problems such as these externally, working in a Ti-ish fashion except entirely external, usually with either writing down and organizing information or logically engaging in an explanation to another party that can offer more information and allow the Te user to logically work through the problem via explanation.

Also, for the facial expression thing, pretty much everyone without specific deficits as seen in disorders such as ASD will do fairly well in extracting the emotional implications from others' faces. The Fe-Pi mechanism is more about extracting other's attachments to certain things and interpreting the emotional affect objects in the environment have on others (objects being both animate and inanimate), as well as adopting external ethical models from the environment to be interpreted and subsequently applied.

"Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing "

Use of probabilities is the domain of both Thinking functions (and I like to call Ni zeroing "probability analysis", but it is more the extraction of meaning from probabilities gathered from an external source). The difference in that argument is that the Fi type is likely to come to its own conclusions based on ethical reasoning (people with goatees are evil because all the ones I've ever seen hurt people) judging the people with goatees with the concept of evil (but, this, of course, also usually leads to the conclusion, "well, I haven't met every single person with a goatee, I've only met the ones I've met; therefore it is still possible that there are ethically good people with goatees", which is a more Ne perspective and even the dichotomial Perceiving argument to keep options and possibilities open), and that the Te type is more likely to appeal to credible empirical studies conducted by others to interpret the data and judge the environment based on the interpretation, and from these people, you can expect "studies show" kind of arguments that appeal to other frameworks that have been adopted rather than created internally as is seen in introverted judging processing.

 

[infinite]

I find JCF to be fun as well. I love speculating on how Si and Se manifest themselves differently - things like that. But can it be used typologically? Not very well. But Jung himself had a distinct advantage at it. He could sit in his office and ask his paying customers pointed questions about their lives and personalities. I have to do the same with often recalcitrant forum posters who just want to argue and waste my time.

How are you with the differences about Si in original Jungian theory vs MBTI theory? Uhm, this sounds kind of off topic but I'm just asking you what your solution to that was. Just curious.

I do think it's the best way to type someone if you can have a deep interview with them

 

[infinite]

First, the Judging function JUDGES the environment, not just the extroverted judging function, and not just the introverted judging function. The only thing I-E does is tell you where the Judging comes from. If you challenge this, I will cease answering your questions, as then it is pointless for me to even try if you can't understand that. The Introverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an internally reasoned model. The Extroverted Judger JUDGES the environment according to an externally adopted model. They are called "JUDGING" functions for a reason. Would you like me to refer to "projecting" as "judging"? It's the same damn thing. This is not Socionics, this is basic Jungian Cognitive Functions.

Now, let's be very clear. It's not an issue with my capabilities for understanding. Don't confuse communication issues with capability of understanding things. So concentrate on clearing up communication instead of getting upset over how I don't "understand" your wording. I do appreciate you trying to communicate your thoughts, though.

Introversion according to Jung* means abstracting away things from the object. Going back to the subject. Not going back to the object. Projection, as specifically put by you, sounds like the latter to me. Overall, judging on its own is just judging, it does not necessarily include an act of projecting. As a reminder, we started from your original statement "the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment". This act of imposing is what you called projection later. This is where we seem to disagree. I see this as interpreted differently in different typology systems. This is one of the reasons why e.g. MBTI ISTP is depicted different from LSI/ISTj.

*: I use the Jung definition here because MBTI/JCF seems to line up with Jung in terms of that, as in MBTI/JCF it's the Je functions that deal with the environment directly. The Ji functions don't directly do so.

(Btw I forgot to address this earlier but when I say MBTI/JCF I just mean what you call JCF. MBTI has the dichotomies too, but when people use the term MBTI/JCF it means the functions. MBTI itself just has less focus on them.)

Second, Introverted Thinking judges the environment according to how things are rationally reasoned internally and judges the environment based on internally *logically* reasoned principles and conclusions (it does not *overwrite* the environment).

I can go with that statement just fine. Simply judging environment, yes.

If 5 + 5 = 10, and there are 5 boxes being put next to 5 other boxes in the environment, how many boxes are there now? With Ti, the mathematical model of 5 + 5 is applied to the sensory observation (5 boxes are being put next to 5 other boxes), reasoning that since 5 + 5 = 10, and 5 same entities are being put next to 5 of the same entities, then there are 10 of the same entities in the environment. Of course it doesn't work this clear cut for everything, as Ti works fast and people aren't stupid and can figure something out like that easily. A better example would be something much more complex. Let's say that you don't remember the surface area formula for a cube, and you need to figure it out with the given Edge = 5 cm. First, you try to figure out what the concept of Surface Area is (logical analysis), the total area on the surface of a 3-dimensional figure (in this case). Reasoning that a Cube has 6 faces that are each 2-dimensional squares, you logically conclude that if you add the areas of the 6 squares, then you will also have the entire surface area of the Cube, 150 sq cm. You have observed the problem, analyzed it, and judged (because projected apparently doesn't compute) internally *logically* reasoned knowledge onto the environment (the algorithm, that the 6 squares' area will equal the cube's surface area) to solve the problem that has been observed. Congratulations, you have just applied/judged/projected a principle/concept onto the environment to solve a problem/mystery.

When I analyse the cube's surface, I will withdraw into my mind and will operate on logical concepts there. I don't see this as an act of judging "onto" the environment. It's more like judging "away" from it. Ti particularly is a pretty detached function. Though of course you can use the result as a solution for some problem in real life. But I would say, that as Ti user, the point is not the object(s) associated with the problem itself/themselves, the point is the internal process or analysis. This is why I don't agree with "mixing" together the MBTI Je with Ji in this way.

With the simpler example of 5+5, assuming the boxes are actually in front of me, I will first just see an approximate quantity, I will feel that quantity though, yeah, I guess this is a pretty basic function actually, like, everyone has that much Ti. Btw, to express it as the discrete number of 10, you do have to go beyond the basic impression of approximate quantity. I don't know if people with less strong Ti just use numbers as some really dry uninteresting "words", e.g. only use them to solve whatever task. I personally "feel" numbers too. Again, using numbers for problem solving is great because of the logic itself.

As for the bolded. It was really unnecessary for you to make that crappy comment. I absolutely don't need any of that sarcastic stuff.

Because I'm psychic and somehow know that you have read the above and thought "but what does Te do then" (I at least hope you thought of that, because if you are still stuck on the whole projection = judging I'm somewhat disappointed).

Lool Ni being psychic eh?

I know you were joking

Thinking as a function is responsible for logical analysis and judging. The Te approach to the problem would either be based off the Si recollection of previous methods or the Ni realizations of the circumstances producing a general idea to solve surface area that have been gathered from an external source (Te, adopting external logical frameworks/knowledge). Another approach would be identical to that of the Ti function's reasoning in the sense that the Te-user will organize the environment and use examples to prove points that will lead to the answer, as well as logically laying out the steps as to how to reach the solution in a clear-cut fashion, usually documenting details. The Te user would have an easier time visualizing or actually having a hollow cube at their disposal to break apart into 6 separate squares (so would Se types, which only adds to the confusion), proving to the Te user that the surface area of the cube (surface area's analytic meaning being reasoned out from prior knowledge or through unconscious Ti use, everyone uses the function to some extent) is the exact same as the area of the 6 squares. Furthermore, the Te user will often work through problems such as these externally, working in a Ti-ish fashion except entirely external, usually with either writing down and organizing information or logically engaging in an explanation to another party that can offer more information and allow the Te user to logically work through the problem via explanation.

Yeah that paragraph sounds rather like MBTI Te here.

Just a question, where do you think Ti figures out from what the concept of Surface Area is? The way you phrased that cube example already brings up that concept and so it sounds like it's a requirement to consult external sources for its meaning. E.g. what's the dictionary meaning of the words surface and area. Or some faint memories of what you were taught in school.

The way I did the cube question here was actually by visualizing the cube to remember the surface area formula. The meaning of "surface area" I did not have to figure out, I already knew what it meant, I just visualized the cube to see the sides. So I guess according to your theory on how visualizing something like this must be Te or Se, it kills the idea of that INTP typing for me.

It's an interesting thought that visualization of logic would be related to Se preference too. It's just imagination, it's not really that direct physical but I will admit I do like to visualize logic stuff a lot so I happen to fit your theory; I do it in some abstract-ish way, shapes, forms, colours, whatnot. Not by imagining actual physical objects much. The latter at best is an illustration of some specific example I think of. (That example then can be analysed)

What did you mean by Ti organizing? You say Te organizes the environment similar to Ti. See the bolded. Otoh If you just meant that Ti organizes data inside the mind, fine. Ti I think is just getting the concept of 10 about 10 boxes or figuring out the cube stuff. None of that involves organization of the environment. That's usually attributed only to Te in MBTI. I know, in socionics it's also attributed to leading Ti with creative Se - but you know how that's a different system. In MBTI, Ti xxTP types are not J types.

Btw Ti for me doesn't work by simply logically laying out all the steps in some crappy linear fashion. This is another reason why I like Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. Jung's description as well, it again doesn't mention anything about clearly laid out logical steps. I can of course do that, when communicating my thoughts to others but it's always a bit of a PITA. I'm perfectly willing to do it, communication is important; just it's not what comes to me naturally.

Note when I say I like those Ti descriptions, I'm not trying to say that everyone's got to be thinking in the same way I am. Someone else could relate to some other definition more than me. I'm just saying the fact I relate to these means that these descriptions talk about something that actually exists, at least in my case.

Also, for the facial expression thing, pretty much everyone without specific deficits as seen in disorders such as ASD will do fairly well in extracting the emotional implications from others' faces. The Fe-Pi mechanism is more about extracting other's attachments to certain things and interpreting the emotional affect objects in the environment have on others (objects being both animate and inanimate), as well as adopting external ethical models from the environment to be interpreted and subsequently applied.

Sounds like a lot more advanced MBTI Fe use than what I could ever imagine. Heh.

Use of probabilities is the domain of both Thinking functions (and I like to call Ni zeroing "probability analysis", but it is more the extraction of meaning from probabilities gathered from an external source). The difference in that argument is that the Fi type is likely to come to its own conclusions based on ethical reasoning (people with goatees are evil because all the ones I've ever seen hurt people) judging the people with goatees with the concept of evil (but, this, of course, also usually leads to the conclusion, "well, I haven't met every single person with a goatee, I've only met the ones I've met; therefore it is still possible that there are ethically good people with goatees", which is a more Ne perspective and even the dichotomial Perceiving argument to keep options and possibilities open), and that the Te type is more likely to appeal to credible empirical studies conducted by others to interpret the data and judge the environment based on the interpretation, and from these people, you can expect "studies show" kind of arguments that appeal to other frameworks that have been adopted rather than created internally as is seen in introverted judging processing.

As for the bolded. So you say this simple logical step would require use of Ne or Pe in general. I think it's more Pe than just Ne.

Personally I use a lot of empirical studies to interpret data but I like to take it further by internal analysis, comparing it to my own observations in my personal experience too. I do score high on Te too in function tests because MBTI Te is certainly defined in this way as you put it here. So yeah. I'm just a hybrid Ti&Te lol but I still think Ti > Te because I just use Te as some kind of good tool. Never for its own sake.

I hope that helps the thread starter. You explained Te very nicely. And I tried to explain some of Ti. Obviously the bottom line for the OP's question about which one he/she prefers is really this, which function is used as a tool and which one is indulged in for its own sake.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Now, let's be very clear. It's not an issue with my capabilities for understanding. Don't confuse communication issues with capability of understanding things. So concentrate on clearing up communication instead of getting upset over how I don't "understand" your wording. I do appreciate you trying to communicate your thoughts, though.

Introversion according to Jung* means abstracting away things from the object. Going back to the subject. Not going back to the object. Projection, as specifically put by you, sounds like the latter to me. Overall, judging on its own is just judging, it does not necessarily include an act of projecting. As a reminder, we started from your original statement "the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment". This act of imposing is what you called projection later. This is where we seem to disagree. I see this as interpreted differently in different typology systems. This is one of the reasons why e.g. MBTI ISTP is depicted different from LSI/ISTj.

*: I use the Jung definition here because MBTI/JCF seems to line up with Jung in terms of that, as in MBTI/JCF it's the Je functions that deal with the environment directly. The Ji functions don't directly do so.

(Btw I forgot to address this earlier but when I say MBTI/JCF I just mean what you call JCF. MBTI has the dichotomies too, but when people use the term MBTI/JCF it means the functions. MBTI itself just has less focus on them.)





I can go with that statement just fine. Simply judging environment, yes.




When I analyse the cube's surface, I will withdraw into my mind and will operate on logical concepts there. I don't see this as an act of judging "onto" the environment. It's more like judging "away" from it. Ti particularly is a pretty detached function. Though of course you can use the result as a solution for some problem in real life. But I would say, that as Ti user, the point is not the object(s) associated with the problem itself/themselves, the point is the internal process or analysis. This is why I don't agree with "mixing" together the MBTI Je with Ji in this way.

With the simpler example of 5+5, assuming the boxes are actually in front of me, I will first just see an approximate quantity, I will feel that quantity though, yeah, I guess this is a pretty basic function actually, like, everyone has that much Ti. Btw, to express it as the discrete number of 10, you do have to go beyond the basic impression of approximate quantity. I don't know if people with less strong Ti just use numbers as some really dry uninteresting "words", e.g. only use them to solve whatever task. I personally "feel" numbers too. Again, using numbers for problem solving is great because of the logic itself.

As for the bolded. It was really unnecessary for you to make that crappy comment. I absolutely don't need any of that sarcastic stuff.




Lool Ni being psychic eh?

I know you were joking




Yeah that paragraph sounds rather like MBTI Te here.

Just a question, where do you think Ti figures out from what the concept of Surface Area is? The way you phrased that cube example already brings up that concept and so it sounds like it's a requirement to consult external sources for its meaning. E.g. what's the dictionary meaning of the words surface and area. Or some faint memories of what you were taught in school.

The way I did the cube question here was actually by visualizing the cube to remember the surface area formula. The meaning of "surface area" I did not have to figure out, I already knew what it meant, I just visualized the cube to see the sides. So I guess according to your theory on how visualizing something like this must be Te or Se, it kills the idea of that INTP typing for me.

It's an interesting thought that visualization of logic would be related to Se preference too. It's just imagination, it's not really that direct physical but I will admit I do like to visualize logic stuff a lot so I happen to fit your theory; I do it in some abstract-ish way, shapes, forms, colours, whatnot. Not by imagining actual physical objects much. The latter at best is an illustration of some specific example I think of. (That example then can be analysed)

What did you mean by Ti organizing? You say Te organizes the environment similar to Ti. See the bolded. Otoh If you just meant that Ti organizes data inside the mind, fine. Ti I think is just getting the concept of 10 about 10 boxes or figuring out the cube stuff. None of that involves organization of the environment. That's usually attributed only to Te in MBTI. I know, in socionics it's also attributed to leading Ti with creative Se - but you know how that's a different system. In MBTI, Ti xxTP types are not J types.

Btw Ti for me doesn't work by simply logically laying out all the steps in some crappy linear fashion. This is another reason why I like Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. Jung's description as well, it again doesn't mention anything about clearly laid out logical steps. I can of course do that, when communicating my thoughts to others but it's always a bit of a PITA. I'm perfectly willing to do it, communication is important; just it's not what comes to me naturally.

Note when I say I like those Ti descriptions, I'm not trying to say that everyone's got to be thinking in the same way I am. Someone else could relate to some other definition more than me. I'm just saying the fact I relate to these means that these descriptions talk about something that actually exists, at least in my case.




Sounds like a lot more advanced MBTI Fe use than what I could ever imagine. Heh.




As for the bolded. So you say this simple logical step would require use of Ne or Pe in general. I think it's more Pe than just Ne.

Personally I use a lot of empirical studies to interpret data but I like to take it further by internal analysis, comparing it to my own observations in my personal experience too. I do score high on Te too in function tests because MBTI Te is certainly defined in this way as you put it here. So yeah. I'm just a hybrid Ti&Te lol but I still think Ti > Te because I just use Te as some kind of good tool. Never for its own sake.

I hope that helps the thread starter. You explained Te very nicely. And I tried to explain some of Ti. Obviously the bottom line for the OP's question about which one he/she prefers is really this, which function is used as a tool and which one is indulged in for its own sake.

Introversion is bringing what is from the outside internally to be analyzed, but I have one last proposition for you to consider.

Think of Ji as like "standards".

Fi holds the environment to internally reasoned ethical "standards".
Ti holds the environment to internally reasoned logical "standards".

The environment then is "held" to specific "standards".

Now, if this were Je, then we'd say society's "standards".

Fe holds the environment to society's ethical "standards".
Te holds the environment to society's logical "standards". (usually in regards to efficiency, systems managing, etc.)

Either way, there is still the "projection" of "standards" onto the environment no matter how we look at it. Now, if we were to debate who is probably going to follow through with a physical projection on the environment (as in actually doing something), then we'd lean in favor of the Je users, as Ji users aren't typically known for their charisma and action.

Also, in relation to your noticing of my sarcasm, I need that to stay sane. Don't take that away from me.

What I meant in the bolded is that Te essentially organizes the environment similarly to how Ti ruminates over a problem internally. Imagine the Ti analyzing process being conducted on like a whiteboard or like a private detective's spiderweb of conspiracy on a wall. There is a need to literally extrovert the thinking done.

Of course Ti doesn't work clear-cut and linearly like I emphasized. The Ti process itself is usually quick, complex, and unconcerned with documentation.

It is Pe in general, but I for whatever reason thought it was more apt to say "Ne" at the time. No idea why I said that. Apologies.

 

[infinite]

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]

Been a bit MIA... back now

Introversion is bringing what is from the outside internally to be analyzed

Yeah that's a good summary too. Though, it's not entirely that simple. Introversion involves more than just the object, it actually goes past the object.

but I have one last proposition for you to consider.

Think of Ji as like "standards".

I feel that's a bit of oversimplification to just call Ji that, but I can see what you mean.

Fi holds the environment to internally reasoned ethical "standards".

(...)

Either way, there is still the "projection" of "standards" onto the environment no matter how we look at it.

Yes I understand your idea and this reasoning can be entirely logical but I think it's not the same as Jung's idea. This is more like socionics. Not saying that's a problem... but my original point was primarily about Jung and MBTI. Socionics is sometimes a really weird animal

Now, if we were to debate who is probably going to follow through with a physical projection on the environment (as in actually doing something), then we'd lean in favor of the Je users, as Ji users aren't typically known for their charisma and action.

Hmm but that then - as mentioned in my previous post - means it requires more/other factors beyond Ji. Extraversion or something else.

Also, in relation to your noticing of my sarcasm, I need that to stay sane. Don't take that away from me.

Haha alright

What I meant in the bolded is that Te essentially organizes the environment similarly to how Ti ruminates over a problem internally. Imagine the Ti analyzing process being conducted on like a whiteboard or like a private detective's spiderweb of conspiracy on a wall. There is a need to literally extrovert the thinking done.

Interesting, this need. I guess you have this need yourself?

Of course Ti doesn't work clear-cut and linearly like I emphasized. The Ti process itself is usually quick, complex, and unconcerned with documentation.

+1

Btw I do like to document some thoughts sometimes when I'm in the mood... perhaps when I feel it's especially insightful

It is Pe in general, but I for whatever reason thought it was more apt to say "Ne" at the time. No idea why I said that. Apologies.

No worries