Explaining Ti to Fi types - Page 7

Explaining Ti to Fi types

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 65 of 65
Thank Tree180Thanks

This is a discussion on Explaining Ti to Fi types within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; Well, wait. You can't say Ti or Te is more objective, because each one ties with a different functions. In ...

  1. #61

    Well, wait.
    You can't say Ti or Te is more objective, because each one ties with a different functions.
    In some ways, I am more objective than my ISTJ father, because he's swayed by tertiary Fi values; whereas mine are predominant but balanced out by Se, which is a completely objective function. Just because he uses higher ranking Te than I do doesn't make him better at observing fact.

    Speaking as someone who thought she used Ti for a long long time, Ti and Fi are fundamentally similar. They are introverted judging functions; and while it is easy to normally tell them apart in an individual, it's not always so easy to tell them apart in yourself. In fact, I refused to think I used Fi for a long time because I was so attached to the word 'objective'--until individuals in reality pointed it out to me. And then I understood it.

    Both Ti and Fi like asking questions; Fi reacts, though, immediately to the answers--while Ti is altogether less impacted by those answers. Fi may continue to ask questions until it realizes how it feels about a certain topic, whereas Ti will continue pursue in order to conceptualize the information into a broader framework--pass it on to Se/Ne to figure out what to do with that information--and ultimately Fe to express its thoughts.

    As far as Te goes it likes empirical data and evidence. But if the first function is Si, then it is going to be biased. And if the first function is Ni, it is going to use whatever information it gathers to focus on a goal--which can be unhealthy. The same can be said if the functions are swapped. Just because a function sees reality objectively doesn't mean that the person using the function is being entirely objective because of the other functions that come into play.

    All in all that's why I don't like the use of the words objective and subjective functions; external and internal are much better terms, especially when learning how this stuff works.
    surgery and SigmaEffectual thanked this post.

  2. #62

    Quote Originally Posted by AdroElectro View Post
    I try really hard to see and understand different points of view. I think I understand Fe, and I don't have a problem with it. I can see the good and bad in both Fe and Fi.

    But I'm still having a really hard time wrapping my head around Ti. I think I'm getting it. Is Ti going through life observing, and making a logical framework out of the things you've observed? For example: "every time I see X + Y, Z occurs. So X + Y = Z" And then as you make observations or take in information that contradicts your framework, you have to alter it. I still can't figure out how you can form arguments with Ti though. Sure it might make complete logical sense, but it's only based off of your observations! Ahhh I can't figure out subjective logic!
    Quote Originally Posted by dizzycactus View Post
    The idea of a framework is Te again, so you're approaching Ti by trying to warp Te to fit it :p lol
    What I'm finding, is the best way to begin is to have a simpler description of what exactly the functions are, to begin with.
    Here I've recently discussed this for all the functions https://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...functions.html and now, the key points regarding Thinking and Feeling:

    For judgment:
    A determination of RIGHT or WRONG (neutral terms that can fit either):

    T dealing with impersonal qualities (true/false, correct/incorrect)
    F considering personal affect (good/bad, like/dislike)

    In a better definition, I've heard Fi described as "personal identification": "if that were me, how would I want to be treated?" This is seeing a situation, and judging something good or bad, and identifying with it, and acting accordingly as if it was you personally experiencing it. If "bad", then some course of action will be taken to correct it, even if encouraging someone else to do something; including perhaps the actual sufferer himself. If nothing can be done, then it's a more passive co-commiserating. If "good", then you just share the joy.

    Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values. This proper relationship will be the "good", and an improper relationship will be "bad".

    Ti for me figures heavily in a sense of "equilibrium". Looks at a logical pattern, and determines it should be consistent. So then other things will be judged as "correct" or "incorrect" based on this.
    Like I like 2D matrices: one object is expected to mirror the other. If it does; then "correct"; if not, then something must be "incorrect".

    When something is deemed "correct", then ego likes this, which is a "feeling" judgment. But it's not differentiated Feeling. It's not the ego's starting point; it's only a universally human reaction to a positive judgment.

    I was initially leery of associating F with “likes”, because I had seen this (and especially Fi) overgeneralized to the point that other types would not know what they like/want.

    So “liking” in that sense, while technically a “feeling” judgment, and one that in that case is internally based, is not quite the “Fi” that we use to determine a type preference. Everyone “likes” things. It’s a normal human reaction. There are no types who have no likes or dislikes because “Fi” is buried deep in their shadow.
    This “liking” judgment is an undifferentiated “feeling” that supports the ego’s dominant Thinking judgment.



    Both Ti and Fi deal in terms of "consistency". Logical (impersonal, technical matters) consistency is "correct" or proves something "true"; inconsistency is "incorrect" or proves something "false".
    With person-related ("humane") matters, consistency determines "good", and inconsistency makes something "bad".

    Te and Fe can be seen as looking for consistency, but this is more external; about assuming that conclusions allocated for a particular situation are carried out always and everywhere specified. It's not the evaluating itself that deals with consistency.


    Ji both extracts universal principles from nature, then uses them to determine what's "right" or "wrong" through the internalized “principles”. [Hence, AdroElectro's example "every time I see X + Y, Z occurs. So X + Y = Z" and then referencing this in future observations].
    You seek to learn what’s “correct” or “good” from nature, and then that becomes the “blueprint” to judge the rest of the variables that emerge from experience as true or good, or make them so, if you’ve determined they don’t measure up (and are thus false or bad).
    Je is about applied strategies —harnessing (rather than learning from) nature for the sake of a predictable result that has value in a particular place and time. You learn from the environment what is “correct” or “good”, and then apply it as necessary back in the environment.

    So if we see something like a symmetry, we can judge it right or wrong in different ways. We can simultaneously “like” it for some reason. (“Good” according to an internal sense), but the REASON it’s “good” might be because of its mathematical precision. Now, that’s no longer an “Fi” perspective; is it? That’s more of an impersonal “true” or “correct”. Others can see the symmetry is inefficient for some practical reason: “incorrect” from an external, localized perspective. Another person can see it’s somehow “good” for a social purpose.

    Hartzler and Hartzler Functions of Type, p40 (discussing Ti, and comparing it to Fi) uses as an example “it is wrong to kill other people because if I can kill arbitrarily, I create an environment where it is okay for me to be killed arbitrarily—but that is arriving at a principle, not a value“.

    To break this down, “If I kill, I can be killed” is basically a symmetry. [which is an impersonal mathematical element]. Thus, killing is judged “incorrect”, and is “bad” only by virtue of being logically incorrect. What’s being called “value” is the judgment of “bad” in and of itself. Therefore; it’s incorrect by virtue of being “bad”.
    [This, folks, is what you really need to look for in determining T/F!]
    You “just know” inside that it’s wrong, even if you never got caught, or could even barricade yourself so that no one could ever kill you likewise; and thus, might never have to worry about that symmetrical element of “justice” coming back to you.

    And “what you really believe in” often used for Fi (in addition to “what’s important”, etc.), is assuming “belief”, regarding what’s “good” (they really, really should clarify some of these terms more).

    I myself “like” things and have strong “beliefs” about them, but still, it has to have some logical basis behind it, or I’ll feel stupid and ashamed for liking or believing them. (And from that state, it enters the “inferior” part of the psyche and then extraverts into a need to have my likes and beliefs validated by others. For Te/Fi it will be the same, except the logical basis will be more externally focused, and the inferior Feeling will introvert into a need to have the likes and beliefs validated within, which is when Fi often becomes the stereotypical "screw what everyone else feels", and that's when it's sorely immature or "primitive").

    Also, "framework" is usually associated with Ti. It's the internal standard that the ego uses to determine what's "true" or "false". But I imagine it could be applied to the external standards Te uses as well. (The dispute shows the problem with describing functions by general terms like that).
    Last edited by Eric B; 12-10-2014 at 09:41 AM.

  3. #63

    @heartofpompeii good explanation! (as usual, you smarty pants)
    Acadia thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64

    Quote Originally Posted by SigmaEffectual View Post
    @heartofpompeii good explanation! (as usual, you smarty pants)
    hehe thank you :)

  6. #65

    This is a good thread for all the INFP's who think they're INTP. (too many)


     
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining NTs to normal people
    By Nightriser in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 07:19 PM
  2. [ENTP] Explaining Your Thoughts To Other People.
    By Ray Mabry in forum ENTP Forum- The Visionaries
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 03:58 PM
  3. Explaining Your Type to Others
    By rowingineden in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 05:24 PM
  4. [INTJ] Explaining Abstract Concept to Others?
    By Alaya in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 02:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0