Personality Cafe banner

Ti v Fi - A Closer Look

137K views 202 replies 131 participants last post by  HypernovaGirl 
#1 · (Edited)
Hello again, everyone :happy: Good to be back.

I'm unsatisfied by the descriptions of Ti and Fi that I see around in books or online. While generally the end result is somewhat correct, I know that each function goes deeper than it's external manifestation. I also want to assert that they are much more similar than they appear.

I'm not Ti, so I'm basing this on my interpretations of other people's introspection. Please correct me or elaborate. The more personal observations the better. Also, please correct me on any N bias I may be adding.

Ti is an abstract deductive reasoning process. Would it be correct to say that Ti focuses on stripping away at the superficial side of any given object/situation to find the inner and pure objective information? Ti then goes to define and ultimately fit the piece of information into an internal model of all objective information collected thus far. All done unconsciously for the most part until a particularly complex bit of information cannot fit in which case both the information and the internal construct are called into question until all inconsistencies are worked out and the puzzle is solved. The larger problems require varying amounts of time, energy, and logical processing until everything fits once again. This is how Ti can pinpoint inconsistencies from miles away, the information they received is not the proper shape or not even from the same puzzle as they understand the world to function.

Fi would then be an abstract integration process taking into account pure subjective information or 'feelings'. The internal world model is constructed less of logical systems as Ti. Fi focuses less on defining new information and more on simply understanding and then integrating it to the basic framework already in place. Like conducting and building a song one instrumental piece at a time. Fi is focused on how things work together, and dissonance is readily apparent. A distinction from the inconsistency targeting of Ti where things must fit, Fi can work with small inconsistencies as long as the bigger picture can still function as whole.

Objectivity and subjectivity are a large separation in the functions. Fi types are very close to their inner feelings, understand them, yet the objectivity of language prevents them from expressing this portion of their being. Fi then needs to take subjective viewpoints into account in their internal world model because that is the part world they best understand and they see it to affect their worldview greatly. This is not to say they ignore objectivity, yet a danger zone for Fi (DomFi especially) is to ignore objective truth that doesn't harmonize with their subjective truth resulting in either an overly-emotional or a self-centered person (or both, depending on your perspective). Ti, on the other hand, is either does not understand it like Fi can (much like Fi has a harder time with deductive reasoning of objective qualities), or deems it irrelevant. An unbalanced Ti would be entirely disconnected with the human element leaving their world model incomplete and too rigid for that sort of information. (ironically becoming too subjective in their objectivity)

I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.



It's a work in progress and I may not have organized my thoughts properly. Please tell me for personal view on how you use/experience these functions.
 
See less See more
#42 ·
I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.
Hi all!

I'm fairly new to all of this, but this thread really drew in my attention. I am nowhere near formulating a cohesive response as of now (I still don't have all of the functions straight); however, I'm curious about how your hypothesis relates to obsessive-compulsive behaviour. My partner (an INTJ) is quite obsessive. He won't change soaps, shampoos, laundry detergent, underwear type, haircut, etc. He is an avid collector and obsesses over his hobbies. Being an INTJ, he is extremely logical and one would need proof to change his mind about anything. It makes sense that he would be obsessed with keeping things the same given that he would have difficulties with anything that didn't fit into his understanding of the world. Not that he can't change his mind about things, just that it's not worth the effort for him to try new things because it risks that he may encounter something that doesn't fit in, and that causes him stress. I'm quite comfortable with change and am open to anything new. I'm sure that it's not just because of the T/F function, but I'm just getting to know all of this. Can anyone shed some insight on whether the T F spectrum may relate to the obsessive-compulsive spectrum?
 
#43 ·
I should also note that I'm quite curious if F's out-in causes F (and more particularly NF's) to lean more towards spiritual or religious (not that all F's are religious, I'm atheist borderline anti-theist myself). Perhaps we're more likely to jump to conclusions?

Check this video out:
 
#44 ·
Objectivity and subjectivity are a large separation in the functions.
Yes, sir! I think you're right on the money.

@Kohtumine,
INFPs like to think they are INTPs.

At least those ones who have intelligence stablished as a high value quality in a person.
Brilliant! That describes me perfectly.
 
#45 ·
Here's my personal description of Ti (gathered through introspection):

I am, above all else, a thinker. I am largely abstracted, theoretical, and analytical. Nothing enters my mind without immediate scrutiny, and nothing leaves it without a magnificent wake of terribly thorough musing. All data and information is instantaneously synthesized, filtered and processed into place, amongst all of the various internal categories of content which my mind has structured into a lofty mental palace of very organized and ordered material: as a vast library of numerous isles, with shelves stocked high — with this idea, or that theory, or some other random musing. And logic is ultimately the headmaster of this magnificent collection of material, having the final say-so on what stays and what goes, what is eligible for inclusion and what shall be omitted, discarded, or saved for another day.

Often times, I'm not very aware of what's going on around me, but instead lost in a world of internal fantasy, daydreaming, and heavy imaginative rumination. Concepts seem to have a world of their own and I am frequently deeply submerged in the critical evaluation of various often times conflicting ideas, arguments, viewpoints, and positions. Understanding is my greatest and highest goal, and as such anything however slightly incongruous must be tackled and forced to submit to some coherent picture of things, where I can safely feel at ease, having boiled a giant problem down to a few basic principles or a grand conclusion of absolute conceptual harmony.

For me, the world is here to be understood, as much as possible.
 
#46 ·
That is Ti in combination with Ne. Just thought I'd note, because at least some of that is Ne. It may appear somewhat different in another pairing (Ti+Se).

This is my take on it (I may not have it perfect):

Ne is a sort of great chaos or whirlwind of possibilities. Where Ti-users try to catalog and classify and understand all of that (yet relatively aimlessly), a Fi-user is more focused on what is important (although that is subjective and depends on the individual). Rather than trying to classify, label or organize the entirety of chaos, Fi evaluates and prioritizes within it, determining and picking out what in the mess is worthwhile or worth paying attention to ("this is important"). While it might potentially seem a little more guided, it still doesn't hold a candle to the kind of focus you see in types with actual direction. (J types)

I do want to understand everything but I feel like I've made peace with this chaos, that I can live and coexist with it without necessarily needing to understand every little thing. I can figure it all out as I go. Like with wikipedia, why should I bother to learn everything in there? I can just look it up and take from it as needed. I trust that it will be out there when the time comes, all I really need to know is what's important in order do what needs to be done (and perhaps more importantly, what does or doesn't need to be done (or should or shouldn't). A bit of knowledge or information is de-emphasized (and potentially ignored or hard to focus on) if deemed inconsequential, and in the opposite case, highlighted (and maybe hard to look away from).

(or italicized :p)
 
#47 ·
I read somewhere that a good way of differentiating Fi is to be aware of what happens when you put something in your mouth. You know whether you like it or not in a millisecond. That instantaneous connection between received information and a subjective judgement is probably Fi at work.

I've read also that even though Fi is a judging function it can often feel like perception, I agree with that. The word 'Feeler' creates all sorts of incorrect assumptions. It's not about emotional feeling, Fi is an endless flowing river of concurrent, instantaneous subjective judgements in a million different shades of ... errr .... 'feeling'.

If you take a 'black box' view of some of the cognitive functions, Se and Ne for example can deliver exactly the same perceptions from the same information, even though they got there by completely different routes, and a similar situation exists with Fi and Ti.

Ti appears to strive for inner logical coherence whereas Fi just wants to know what doesn't feel right, so it can be avoided :laughing:


In the social area of course it's a whole different ball game...
 
#51 ·
I read somewhere that a good way of differentiating Fi is to be aware of what happens when you put something in your mouth. You know whether you like it or not in a millisecond. That instantaneous connection between received information and a subjective judgement is probably Fi at work.

Is this true? I have felt the slightest bit of frustration when people ask me to taste something, and then like one second after it enters my mouth they ask me if I like it. It usually takes me a good 10 seconds to judge the taste of any given food/wine/beer/etc.
 
#48 ·
Hmmmm...

As a dominant Ti user...

As far as the information's accuracy goes, I'm giving a definite maybe. I'm not sure I "databank" things, but this could be because I'm so focused on the problem that I don't think about what I'm doing. Instead of a list of facts, Ti seems to be more of a system. But maybe that's just how a Ti dominant likes to think of it.

Basically, I'd have to point out that Ti was what I was just using now, examining a point of view for flaws. I checked your post, then I checked my argument against it, then I checked my corrected explanation.

Ti also seems to examine reactions. If I do this, then this will happen. If I say this, she'll perceive it as this logically. This is the reason INTPs are picky about word choice. Unfortunately, most people don't always perceive things that the INTP says in a logical way. They go by emotion, which isn't always the same thing as Feeling. And since INTPs have a little-used Se, they won't notice if their expression is saying something they don't intend, which a Feeler will pick up on. Their carefulness about the words they use almost mitigates the fact that their body language might stink if they don't pay specific attention to it. But a person who is a visual learner and not an audial one will pay more attention to the body language than to the words that the Ti is speaking, and will see something that isn't intended. This leads to the INTP's fear, which is misunderstanding and untruth.

On my previous subject, I think Si is probably more the "databank memory" function. It's hard to say.

I can't speak for Fi's workings, as it's my shadow inferior function. I'd probably overanalyze it. But I could tell you quite a bit about Ti.
 
#49 ·
The big difference between Fi and Ti is that Fi will choose beauty before utility (when choosing an object, shop, restaurant ..) , while Ti will be utility before beauty. Being introverted means you'll have a sense of all your introverted functions, yet as a Ti user I can't approach life with Fi, because I haven't a good control over it, and I often get depressed, and it gives me negative emotions (I hope it's not Fe, because it comes from the inside). In that way I think Ti is to objective for the dreamy, idealisitc Fi and would rarely be used.
 
#104 ·
Brilliant! A few posted on here about how using a heavy combination of Fi and Ti makes a person unbalanced. One person said TI was the INFP's demon function. I find this all to be very true. I can become very Ti-obssessive, and it's not healthy. When I start feeling the need for perfection in both form and function, I begin going mental. How can you live up to Ti and Fi when nothing even lives up to Fi?
 
#52 ·
Title

Alright, you said that Ti breaks apart the objective information and subconsciously looks for inconsistencies? Does this mean that the subconscious does not solve what is wrong but simply alerts the conscious that something IS wrong? This happens to me quite often. I know it is wrong, I just don't often take the time to work out why (unless I actually care).
 
#54 ·
By right, are you referring to logical inconsistencies or just that they are lying to you? The syntax you used seemed to be referring to a slightly different situation that mine was. I was referring to facts that are stated by people. Of course you can break apart if something is right or wrong if you read facial expression and body language. I make a hobby out of it.
 
#55 ·
I view the two functions as then starting from the same point when given piece of information and going opposite directions (not necessarily to opposing conclusions, however). Fi preferring to work outward only going inward when harmony is not achieved, and Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit. Thus, they are almost mirror processes, neither being more or less rational than the other; only as rational as the information going in.
i liked this exept to much detail for me haha realy like last paragraph
isn't the line i put in bold oposite in what you said their or did you mean it this way?
 
#57 ·
Ti, on the other hand, is either does not understand it like Fi can (much like Fi has a harder time with deductive reasoning of objective qualities), or deems it irrelevant.
I would say it's more a case of the latter, and that applies both ways. For me (INFP), I'm perfectly mentally capable of rigorous logic, I just question its value and the claim to objectivity. As I see it, the purely rational way of understanding the world is just as much based on irrational assumptions as a purely emotional one - the axiomata on which logic is based are not self-evident if one does not accept self-evidence. They're just as consistent as one another, with all of the Ti knowledge base cohering according to the rules of logic and all of the Fi knowledge base cohering according to principle and integrability with the ideal. As a dominant Ti type can dismiss the Fi knowledge base as irrelevant, so can an Fi dominant type dismiss the Ti knowledge base as irrelevant: e.g., I'm an INFP and an apatheist, meaning that if someone makes an objective and logically defended claim about the existence of God, I'm more likely to respond, "Why should I care? I know right from wrong on my own and it wouldn't change how I behave or what I believe," than to pick apart their argument. I could do the latter, but it's not necessary. Conversely, an INTP may need to pick apart their argument, because it would be insufficient to challenge that they wouldn't care even if it were true: they're interested in the truth for its own sake.

Both seek to achieve a qualitative understanding, but they prioritise different qualities. That's the ultimate difference, I suspect.
 
#59 ·
if it helps with anything, i remember reading on a site that quoted m.-briggs herself, saying that the feeling (and N) functions were the least understood out of the group. she also made the distinction that F is cortical (dealing with the cortex to make decisions, just as T is), and not limbic as some people seem to think--that's to say that while base emotions may come from the limbic region, you aren't necessarily making decisions based off of a lower/more primitive section of your brain when using F as a preference. T decisions and F decisions are coming from the same source (as far as i understand it :p).
 
#60 ·
I find the above post really enlightening.

So could it still be true though that an F type is more likely to take their emotions into account while they utilize their cortex to make decisions?

Say, like, both a Ti and a Fi person experience the same emotions while making the same decision (say they are identical human beings only one uses Ti and the other uses Fi) will the Fi person be more likely to include the emotions in the decision making process, while the Ti person will attempt to prevent the emotions from affecting the decision?
 
#61 ·
Hello everyone. I am brand new to these personality type identifiers, and also (obviously) to this site. Being new to these classifications/concepts/theories...etc., I have a number of questions and thoughts on all of this, and I would appreciate any feedback you can offer.

I will list the various thoughts and questions seperately, and when responding please just make reference to the part (A,B,C,...) that you are commenting on. Hopefully, this will be a lot of fun. Haha.

*While writing this my mind was all over the place on tangents and such, so these questions may not be expressed as clearly as they could be. So I hope you can see the what I am getting at and just take it from there.


A) Aren't these classifications based on preferences? If so, what would make them inherently mutually exclusive?
I had some trouble trying to classify myself (before taking the test) partially because I felt that descriptions of both INFP and INTP described aspects of my thought process equally. So being that I am an INFP, and therefore Fi dominant, why could I not also be Ti? Using Psilo's analogy (wonderful post by the way) from above couldn't you use the Ti process to see if you had a puzzle peice (new information) that fit, so found to be free of inconsistencies... you could then add this puzzle peice (which would magically transform into a violinist) to the orchestra you are conducting... This process would serve to audition the new musicians to see if they can play with the proficiency required, or at least check that their instrument is in tune, before you add them to the Unified Theory Orchestra? So you would be both Fi and Ti, while accurately testing INFP because you simply prefer Fi over Ti?

B) Existentialism
Ok, so if INFP's are subjective, and INTP's are objective, can only the INFP's be existentialists? If existentialists, such as prominent INFP Kiekegaard, believe the existance is inherently absurd and meaningless, and therefore one must assign value to their life subjectively, how can purely objective individuals define themselves subjectively?


C) I read somewhere in my personality type cram session that one aspect of Ni is trying to synthesize sound axioms into paradoxes. However, as a Ne, I do this constantly and it seems that this would be a natural extention of the Ne process. Thoughts? (I know this is off topic, but thought I would throw it out there anyway.)
My favorite that I wrestle to a stalemate regularly is if "the unexamined life is not worth living" and "ignorance is bliss" how could you have a happy and meaningful life?

I am going to end it there because it is obvious even to me that this is all over the place, and surely riddled with spelling errors, haha. Hopefully we can get something out of this. Thank you.
 
#62 ·
This is a very good point about Ti:
...Ti working inward venturing outward when the pieces do not fit.
I have, however, experienced some "subjective defensiveness" with my ideas in the past. I will always listen to a person's point, and nowadays if someone disputes something I find to be generally valid, like personality theory, I will tell them that it is good to be skeptical. When I was younger, however (16 maybe), I would become somewhat defensive of the MBTI and enneagram in dispute. It wasn't so much that they were destroying some security-providing intellectual system, but that I believed they were not looking at it objectively because it simply seemed silly, like astrology or something along those lines. I believe that if one looks deeper at personality theory, not dismissing it outright, they will find some valid applications. However I can see how there are certain minds that do not see the application and validity of personality theory because they are different from mine (not a value judgment, just a difference).
 
#92 ·
Slightly off the subject, but:

This is a very good point about Ti:

I have, however, experienced some "subjective defensiveness" with my ideas in the past. I will always listen to a person's point, and nowadays if someone disputes something I find to be generally valid, like personality theory, I will tell them that it is good to be skeptical. When I was younger, however (16 maybe), I would become somewhat defensive of the MBTI and enneagram in dispute. It wasn't so much that they were destroying some security-providing intellectual system, but that I believed they were not looking at it objectively because it simply seemed silly, like astrology or something along those lines. I believe that if one looks deeper at personality theory, not dismissing it outright, they will find some valid applications. However I can see how there are certain minds that do not see the application and validity of personality theory because they are different from mine (not a value judgment, just a difference).
I could essentially say this exact post, but on the subject of astrology. I have some subjective defensiveness about astrology because I study and practice it, and people dismiss it outright without looking at it objectively and deeply. The thing is, astrology essentially is typology and personality theory; it works with the same principles and in the same ways. But, like you, I agree it is a good idea to be skeptical, and I can see how to someone who knows little about it it could seem on the surface to be silly.
 
#63 ·
I think this might have been a great thread, but recently we've really been trying to define more of the words we are using in our descriptions, and this description is pretty outdated I think. I'll definitely come here and write up a thorough description of where I'm getting confused due to lots of language not being defined and there being no consensus on how these words are defined, in the future.
 
#68 ·
Sure. But personal preference can be the very basis for what is rational and what is irrational.

Do you see where I am going with this?

These definitions are far too flawed, simple, almost childish.
 
#71 ·
Fi isn't actually so airy-fairy. It just uses its own criteria for rational decisions--body language, impressions of people, the sense that something doesn't look right, its own morals--and those criteria aren't usually easily quantified by logic very well, if at all. There's not really "evidence" for those. They just are.
 
#72 ·
It just uses its own criteria for rational decisions--body language, impressions of people, the sense that something doesn't look right, its own morals--and those criteria aren't usually easily quantified by logic very well, if at all. There's not really "evidence" for those. They just are.
Same goes with Fe.
 
#74 ·
That would suggest Te judgement rather than Ti.
Not really, because Te users also use Fi all the time. I even know EXTJs that write poetry or involve themselves in art of some form as a form of self-expression. I agree with @Kohtumine that the whole "self-expression" side of art is more in the domain of Fi (I mean, of course Fe users could like it, but I know some who actually like to express the views of other's feelings through art rather than their own, while the higher Ti users tend to be rather experimental with it, but it's almost never is a personal statement of their feelings and values - one INTP I knows likes to sort of socially-experiment in her art (maybe an inferior Fe release of doing things she would be less secure about doing around others) and draws her imaginary friend a lot. The Fe users I know don't seem to be as focused on art as a form of self-expression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyWay132
#75 ·
I was referring to 'if it has no use in the real world, then it's useless' Te judgement.

Art is indeed subjective; it is what you make it. It can be seen as both a form of self-expression and communication, among other things. A Ti user may not use art to express feelings or values but they could certainly use art as way of expressing thoughts or ideas. Sure there are more practical ways of doing so, like writing for instance, but a lot of people consider writing an art form as well.
 
#76 ·
A Ti user may not use art to express feelings or values but they could certainly use art as way of expressing thoughts or ideas. Sure there are more practical ways of doing so, like writing for instance, but a lot of people consider writing an art form as well.
Yes...I basically said or implied all of this in my last post...sans being more clear about the role of Ti (or Te for that matter) in art.
 
#84 ·
Yes...I basically said or implied all of this in my last post...sans being more clear about the role of Ti (or Te for that matter) in art
The Fe users I know don't seem to be as focused on art as a form of self-expression.
Ti user don't have anything about themselves to express
In my reply to you, I meant self-expression in general- not only art- as an expression of ones ideas for Ti (and inferior Fe) or values for Fi (inferior Te) since Kohtumine was referring to INFP and INTP.

Also, regarding: "I was referring to 'if it has no use in the real world, then it's useless' Te judgement," I should have stated that it suggested Se↔Ti judgement (which I was mistaking for Te, my bad), solely on the issues of practicality and disfavor of abstract qualities.
 
#79 ·
I think I had a sort of breakthrough after reading something in a different forum:

S and N are perceiving functions, the majority of thinking probably happens in the T and F functions, when we actually start to make sense of our perceptions.
I have been forgetting that Fi still requires thinking, and not just gut reaction (which may exist, but it would make sense that a judging function would discern by way of thought). So, Fi users can you please confirm or deny this "description? This also might make more sense for extroverted perceivers, as that is what I am more familiar with.

Fi thinks "how would I feel if that happened to me" — focus on emotional response
Ti thinks "what would I do if that happened to me" — focus on logical response (I don't feel this is the right phrasing, but I can't think of another word, except tangible, and that doesn't really work either)


Yes? No? Feel free to shoot me down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spades
#80 ·
Whoo~ glad I got you...thinking =P
Fi thinks "how would I feel if that happened to me" — focus on emotional response
Ti thinks "what would I do if that happened to me" — focus on logical response (I don't feel this is the right phrasing, but I can't think of another word, except tangible, and that doesn't really work either)
I don't think that's quite right though. T is logical analysis, F is evaluation. This would translate to:

Fi: How does this align with my values?
Ti: How does this align with my framework?
Fe: How does this align with the group's values?
Te: How does this align with the group's standards?
 
#82 ·
INFPs like to think they are INTPs.
This is like an epidemic at this forum and across the internet for some reason, even though the two types are pretty different, due to the vastly different judging function configuration they have (Ti-Fe in INTPs, Fi-Te in INFPs). There's no way dominant feelers should so easily mistake themselves for dominant thinkers and vice-versa. I rarely ever see this happen between Te doms and Fe doms.
 
#83 ·
Don't know the context of your response, but yes, INTP and INFP mix themselves up quite often. Emotional INTP's think they are INFP's and calm INFP's think they are INTP's. If one would only remove themselves from the emotionality bias (untruth), then you're right, it should be very easy to distinguish whether one uses a personal value system or a personal logical framework.
 
Top