Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
342 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Explaining Ti to Fi types


I've recently come to a bit better understanding of the relationship between Ti and Fi, and I think I may be able to use it to help Ti make a little more sense to Fi-ers...so here we go:

As we already know, FeTi (used by xxTP and xxFJ) and TeFi (used by xxFP and xxTJ) represent two opposing (but equally valid!) ways of conceptualizing the nature of logic and ethics:

FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

TeFi prompts us to deal with logic and impersonal ideas collectively, according to a more generalized objective standard which we can all agree to use to quantify and measure impersonal ideas by the same method, while dealing with ethics according to an internalized and subjective standard, seeking only to find what feels right to the individual.


It's important to remember that Ti and Fi are both subjective, because they deal with an internal model as understood individually by the subject. Te and Fe are both objective, as they deal with external models as understood collectively by the larger group.


I've found that many disagreements I've had with TeFi types tend to come down to this:

1) I state an idea, theory or proposed framework for describing the logical relationships that make up a system, simply because it makes sense to me subjectively,
2) The TeFi type insists that I provide objective evidence and empirical backing for this idea before it can be taken seriously,
3) I get pissed because my ideas are being attacked.

I know that I am especially bad about #3, but it's only just recently occurred to me why: Ti types are attached to their logical frameworks in exactly the same way Fi types are attached to their personal values: When you attack them, you attack the user's very sense of identity.

What both sides need to recognize is that FeTi-ers constantly judge Fi ideas in Fe terms, and TeFi-ers constantly judge Ti ideas in Te terms, so each is fundamentally missing the point of the other's perspective.

This is the exchange I see again and again regarding F ideas:

1) An Fi type states his/her personal feelings regarding some sort of moral or ethical ideal because it makes sense to him/her subjectively,
2) An Fe type insists that this idea cannot be taken seriously until shown to be accurate according to popular opinion/objective consensus on ethics,
3) The Fi type gets pissed because his/her values are being attacked.


What we all need to recognize is that Ji (Fi and Ti, that is) is not looking for externalized or objective evidence, but seeks only to find a line of reasoning that makes sense internally for the individual in question.

Reread the first bolded section about the competing value systems. This is really where the vast majority of these disagreements come from.

If, right now, you're asking yourself: "But wait--how could it ever be reasonable to take collective logic/individualized ethics seriously? Logic is obviously something that should be understood personally, while ethics are obviously something that should be understood and agreed upon collectively!"

or:

"But wait--how could it ever be reasonable to take collective ethics/individualized logic seriously? Ethics are obviously something that should be understood personally, while logic is obviously something that should be understood and agreed upon collectively!"

then you have just stumbled upon the fundamental difference between TeFi and FeTi.

Now, the real challenge is to begin accepting that neither of these approaches is fundamentally more correct than the other.

And that's incredibly hard to do, but it's the only place to start if we are ever to begin truly appreciating the value in each other's perspectives.


So if you are an FeTi type, recognize that even though considering ethics through a collective/communal perspective seems obviously rational to you, you are attacking an Fi user's sense of identity when you insist that he provide objective evidence for his Feeling ideas. As an Fi user, his Feeling is focused purely on finding what feels subjectively right to him--appeasing external consensus or providing objective evidence for it is completely beside the point.

Likewise, if you are a TeFi type, recognize that even though considering logic through a collective/communal perspective seems obviously, you are attacking a Ti user's sense of identity when you insist that he provide objective evidence for his Thinking ideas. As a Ti user, his Thinking is focused purely on finding what seems subjectively consistent to him--appeasing external consensus or providing objective evidence for it is completely beside the point.


There are a lot of people on this forum, and indeed everywhere in life, who have not even begun to consider that their preferred judgment outlook (TeFi or FeTi) is anything other than 100% Objectively Correct, end of story. Most people have no idea that there might be any validity in the opposing perspective, because most people are (naturally) very threatened by any challenge to their concepts of logic and ethics.

And this is okay! It's natural for the opposing perspective to turn our stomachs. It's impossible to avoid this gut reaction--but the central idea of typology is to allow us to recognize these biases in ourselves and begin to understand that what seems obviously rational to us is not any better (or worse) than what seems obviously rational to others.

Unfortunately I find that some people use typology as further justification for their own deluded arrogance--rather than, "Okay, now I see that my values are ultimately relative, and that other people can look at the world differently and there's nothing wrong with that", it becomes: "Oh, now I see why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total moron. Good thing I now know that [insert my type here] is the best!"

And I would really like it if we could start to undo that counterproductive mentality.

If you find yourself thinking, "Well that's stupid, anyone who sees logic as individualized and ethics as collective [or the other way around] is simply an idiot who doesn't understand how the real world works", then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your understanding.

;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
932 Posts
wow, excellent explanation of the distinctions between the functions!! This is very helpful and makes good sense.


I also completely agree with you that there is no right or wrong way and that we should all understand that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
Very interesting. Now I understand why a young, true ENTP, that I used to interact with, was so depressed and down on life, because her ideas were constantly being attacked. Also, just more proof, that I'm TeFi.
 

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
Very informative!
Plus, some of those ideas have made me even more sure than I'm an ENTP and not an ENFP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,691 Posts
Well there went the tiny final question mark over my being an INFP - thanks :laughing:

It also gives me something to ponder as I embrace the world without.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
This was an excellent article! It also helped deduce that I'm most likely not an Te-Fi user. I get so angry when I feel someone 'attacks' my logic or my 'logical systems' that I spend so much time creating in my mind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Hm, I definitely am more bothered by someone going after my way of thinking, I think mainly because it's a more vulnerable process of mine, and I have to spend a lot more effort on it. In terms of feeling, I've always viewed some forms of ethical situations as collective, and I've viewed others as being personal. I suppose what I'm saying is that I do feel Fe and Fi both, depending on the situation, but I think for issues that I deem... more important? I have a collective stance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
74 Posts
Is Fi just about personal ethics?

I thought it was more generally about one's own individual 'spiritual' welfare, expression or ''manifestation' (not necessarily in a religious sense), but I guess this is insufficiently technical-sounding, and probably sounds too wishy-washy or vague to most other people anyway (oh to be understood....)

It just so happens that a person cannot fully do this if they sense they are not morally 'proper'', ethics being at the top of the spiritual hierarchy. So (it was my understanding) that if an Fi-dom attends to another's suffering in whatever way, it is usually because it has upset the Fi-type personally (and they use this personal upset as their moral 'barometer'), rather than because of societal standards (or logic - morality is often logical as well).

But nevertheless I think Fi is a driver for FP artists, musicians and performers (not that they are necessarily FPs), and these vocations are about self-expression rather than ethics. I would like to give other examples of what I am talking about, but they probably wouldn't make sense to anyone else, particularly TPs.

So either I've got this wrong (and I am willing to admit that I might have), or this is a fitting example of how inexplicable Fi can be to Ti users, who because they don't really understand the nuances of Fi, simply label it personal (or subjective) ethics (and Ti wants to label as much as possible, which Fi thinks is ham-fisted and even twisted).

Another possible angle:
Ti when 'differentiated' leads to understanding of logical (or definitional) nuance?
Fi when 'differentiated' leads to understanding of 'spiritual' (or moral) nuance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I have some pride in both my logic and values and I tend to be threatened when either of them are put in question. Thus, this thread doesn't seem to help me. I go back and forth over whether I am T or F, but to no final conclusion. I've been more steadily testing INFP (FiTe) than INTP (TiFe) recently but it still is questionable.
 

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
If you're trying to decide whether you're more Fi-Te or Ti-Fe, you may also want to look at Fe and Te rather than just Ti and Fi. Te and Fe are both considered objective.

FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

TeFi prompts us to deal with logic and impersonal ideas collectively, according to a more generalized objective standard which we can all agree to use to quantify and measure impersonal ideas by the same method, while dealing with ethics according to an internalized and subjective standard, seeking only to find what feels right to the individual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
I think I go back and forth about whether I consider ethics collective or individual. I need to figure out which one I use so I can be disgusted at the other one...

subjective logic, though? That seems like a oxymoron to me. o.o I'm trying to figure out the purpose...or its probably an end rather than a means, but that just makes it more difficult to understand. How logic can have value? no, value is an Fi word, but I only have Te and Fi to crossreference to try and understand it. Gah *fails at Ti* XD

so 2+2 could equal 5 if they woudln't have decided that it equals 4? I've actually heard that from a Ti user before. I asked him if he had two objects and I had two more objects and we put them together, could they ever become five objects? He just said I didn't get what he was saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
FeTi prompts us to deal with ethics and morality collectively, according to a more generalized standard that we can all agree to be bound by, while dealing with logic and impersonal ideas in a more individualized and subjective way, seeking only to find what makes sense logically to the individual.

TeFi prompts us to deal with logic and impersonal ideas collectively, according to a more generalized objective standard which we can all agree to use to quantify and measure impersonal ideas by the same method, while dealing with ethics according to an internalized and subjective standard, seeking only to find what feels right to the individual.
When I first read this, I understood what you were getting at, but it seem slightly over generalized. As I began to mull it over, I finally found the missing puzzle piece I had been looking for.

I have always been okay with Fi as long as it wasn't dangerous(being an ISFJ and all), however I have always had a problem with Te and I never knew why. I would see my TeFi friends discussing things and it would drive me insane. My mind instantly went to tearing apart the inconsistencies in their thinking, but if I ever brought up an idea, I was usually shut down or ignored. I once even had a friend tell me that I just "think wrong"; he could not explain it though.

This also explains why TeFi individuals sometimes seem oblivious to social nuances. I have had INFP's ask why are people telling me not to do something in public, and that they are not socially inept. Congruently, this also explains why some people see FeTi users as prudes.

As long as things are not harmful, its fun to have a TeFi user around, they make things interesting, but its also good to have a FeTi user to keep things grounded. Its all about balance, and respecting what other individuals have to offer. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."(Romans 12:18)

Thank you, this was really helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R22

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
I really love your articles. They are always informative and well written.

There is just one aspect of Ji/Je that seems to be missing:
Ji wants to find out what is inherently true, and Je wants to find out what works.

I'm an INTJ, and when someone presents an idea to me, the first thing for me to judge about is whether it could ever reasonably be applied. I would, for example, never ponder the system of communism, because it has been tried and failed. I see the merit in ideas that are not directly applicable, but ideas that contradict what I see as reality have no value for me, and sometimes even seem offensive. When it comes to moral values, however, I feel that some things are just true, and though we cannot always act after them (my Te keeps them in check), they are the ultimate "right" in an abstract way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
I've had a problem debating with conservatives over capitalism, which they (likely J's) see as working. When I show it does not work for everybody, and that they have skewed certain truths of the situation (especially in placing blame for the things they are complaining about, which then are apparently not working, and then talking about stuff like who deserves, or does not deserve, or is getting/taking something wrongly), they accuse me of "trying to implement socialism". But I see that that system did not work either.

To them, you must choose one or the other, and they become frustrated that I don't seem to "take a stand", and can only find fault, but not suggest anything better. I want to teach them about type, and the fact that I'm a Perceiver, and inclined to react to what I see as wrong in people's judgments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,999 Posts
Yes, I definitely have difficulty understanding Ti. It is impossible for me to understand the concept of "subjective logic" - it is an oxymoron. In order to be logical, a conclusion or statement must be backed by empirical, objective evidence (scientific logic) or it must be... immaculately reasonable and rational in structure (philosophical logic). The standards for logical argument are an institution which has been agreed upon collectively by scientists, philosophers, etc. The only room for subjectivity is how one interprets the data or the conclusion/statement, if that. :shocked:
 

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
^ Yeah, that sounds...misled to me. That's why I'm pretty sure I'm an ENTP rather than an ENFP lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Yes, I definitely have difficulty understanding Ti. It is impossible for me to understand the concept of "subjective logic" - it is an oxymoron. In order to be logical, a conclusion or statement must be backed by empirical, objective evidence (scientific logic) or it must be... immaculately reasonable and rational in structure (philosophical logic). The standards for logical argument are an institution which has been agreed upon collectively by scientists, philosophers, etc. The only room for subjectivity is how one interprets the data or the conclusion/statement, if that. :shocked:
Here is a treatment I did on Objective vs Subjective:

"Objective" and "subjective" are sometimes used to describe both the functions themselves, and their orientation.

"Extraverted attitudes" (external orientation) are considered "objective", while introverted attitudes are considered "subjective", because they are taking place within the person. Jung had originally defined the attitudes as being focused on "the object" and "the subject". (For perception, the attitude is the "source" it is taken from, and for judgment, it is the source of the "standard" it is based in, and in some descriptions, the "realm" it is used in).

Thinking is also frequently condsidered "objective", based on logic and facts, while Feeling is considered subjective "values".

Sensing (concrete perception) is also occasionally considered more "objective", while iNtuiting (abstract) is considered subjective, because it involves the person drawing from patterns and stuff.

Then, perception in itself can be considered objective, because it is taking information (of an object) in, while judgment is what the subject does with the information.

With this:
Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

The eight functions are then expressed as:

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

This basically reduces the four dichotomies down to one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,967 Posts
/facepalm x_x
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top