Please help an INFP describe Ti to people!

There's plenty of INFPs that mistype here as well. I can't blame them, the INFP descriptions are painting them as peace loving flower smelling hippies. INFPs are a diverse group of people, and what makes them diverse is the one thing that they all have in common. Fierce individuality.

Another thing is that a lot of INTP descriptions speak of a love of sciences that are more Te based than Ti. Physics, chemistry, all of those hard sciences where the foundation is in objective proof. Not that an INTP can't enjoy these, but they shouldn't be left out of the INFP descriptions because, hell, I've SEEN many INFPs embrace quantum physics with love and wonder!

The INFP I know, he gets all happy talking about this to me. He was telling me about planlenghts or something, (see, I can't even remember the right term) and I stopped him to say that it didn't make sense. After a LONG debate where I was trying to explain to him why what he wasn't saying didn't add up, and him pretty much repeating the same explanation and not really hitting the mark on what I was saying, I finally got him to see that his explanation was illogical. He was telling me planklenghts are a unit of measurement, and that the universe is made up of these. But a unit of measurement is only a means by which we measure something, it isn't a 'thing'! A room isn't made up of feet. The measurement of an actual foot may be the basis for which 1ft is established, but the unit and the measurement of the object that gives it it's name are two separate things.

So, basically, he screwed up is explanation, and didn't see the logical contradiction because he doesn't use Ti.

Then, he got mad at me because I was picking apart his explanation for reasons he thought where aside the point. According to him, I should have said "WOW what a neat concept. We live in such a wonderful universe, thinking about it makes me feel great!" and instead all I wanted to do was focus on whether or not it made sense.

My conclusion is that NP types understand abstract concepts and theory very well. But Ti judges according to logical principles, Fi judges according to feelings, and uses Te to determine what's correct (this person is an established scientist, they know more than me).


I think a key difference in our different views on what defines logic comes out when I tell him I'm logical, and he'll say "you need a job and sit around all day instead of looking for one, how LOGICAL is that???" But that's logical course of action, not quite the same thing.

Ti logic is less at home in the logical efficiency of the order of events. It thrives in the domain of Informal Logic, and Inductive reasoning. Te, though not primarily concerned with the logical structure of arguments and critical thinking, prefers the methods Inductive reasoning and formal logic. I would say that Ti is satisfied with either method of logic or reasoning, but finds fault with inductive reasoning and easily understands informal logic, for reasons Te does not.

A criticism of Inductive reasoning, highlighting it's crutch on Te methods.
Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".

Click to expand...

And a criticisms of Informal logic, from an obvious Te point of view.
Informal logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some hold the view that informal logic is not a branch or subdiscipline of logic, or even the view that there cannot be such a thing as informal logic. Massey criticizes informal logic on the grounds that it has no theory underpinning it. Informal logic, he says, requires detailed classification schemes to organize it, which in other disciplines is provided by the underlying theory. He maintains that there is no method of establishing the invalidity of an argument aside from the formal method, and that the study of fallacies may be of more interest to other disciplines, like psychology, than to philosophy and logic.

Click to expand...

Thing is, Informal Logic isn't based on the argument structure, it's based on the content and meaning. You can't pin it down to rules as Te would prefer, but if you use Ti, it doesn't matter, you just understand.

And with Inductive reasoning, the conclusion must be based on what's observable, but who's to say there aren't underlying factors that aren't at play which may not be readily apparent? Correlation does not equal causation!

I could go on and on, and this post is getting to long, so I'll wind it down.

In summary, what I would do, to the INFPs that think they are INTPs, is have them dissect a fallacious argument. Or, just ask if they enjoy pointing out the fallacies in their opponents argument during discussion or debate.

I'll enter a discussion just to point out a fallacy, regardless of whether I agree with the persons stance or not. (and doing so often results in me getting hit with argument after argument on an issue I don't give a crap about, because that flags me as an opponent, I guess, at least to people who think people only use their feelings/values to determine their views.)

Smallesque said:

Are you Ethically Subjective or Ethically Objective? Former is Fi, Latter is Fe.

Are you Logically Subjective or Logically Objective? Former is Ti, Latter is Te.

Simple.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it in those terms.

It seems simple enough, but Fi doesn't see it's views as subjective. I can relate. I used to say I preferred logic because it was objective, but when I learned about functions, I knew without a doubt that I used Ti. I just didn't understand why it was subjective. But it's easier to differentiate subjective vs. objective logic. Ethics and feelings just result from how someone feels.

Okay, summary of a conversation I had once.

Fi types will often point to objective criteria to defend their view. But from an Fe perspective, it's seems as if they're justifying an opinion as fact.

FI: The color red is wrong!

Fe: Perhaps you don't like it, but how does that make it wrong?

FI: It's the color of blood and that's gruesome and disgusting!

Fe: According to you. What if someone else sees it another way?

Fi: (inserts another reason why red is wrong)

Fe: It's your opinion, other people may love it for reasons that are valid to them. How can you say that what you feel about something is any more valid than what another person feels?

Fi: It's just how I feel about it. The feelings are what make it REAL.

I'd say if you ever justified something because "it's how I feel", there's probably a good chance you use Fi.

And the above example is something I've gone through many times with the INFP that I reference. He doesn't actually have Fi values on colors, but he does on art, music (things that are usually considered a matter of personal opinion) and then of course, the ethical views too.

Jung gives a very precise description of Ti. Check it out. All of it is well worth reading, but I have excerpted a piece that hopefully is crystal clear when compared to Fi :
"disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements."

Fi
"Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness."

you only need to spend a little time on the INTP forum versus the INFP/ISFP forum (the ISTPs are apparently too busy doing stuff to be bothered to post on their forum) to see the marked difference. On the ISFP forum it is pretty much a live and let live attitude. Numerous times I have found them talking at cross purposes to one another and almost no one attempts to point out contradictions or inconsistencies. On the other hand on this forum, the INTPs are like a bunch of cats, claws unsheathed, perceived slights to their logic dismissed as illogical, a marked tendency to view people as being rather unnecessary and getting in the way of a proper order.

to be honest, it is almost impossible to mistake an INFP for an INTP. An INTP is virtually impervious to criticism of any form. Criticize an INTP and it is more likely that she will think you are the one who needs to get his head checked. Criticize an INFP and that pretty much ends the conversation right there, except that they will continue to engage at a superficial level (perhaps they feel bad to behave like cold fish or something).

Algorithmics said:

You only need to spend a little time on the INTP forum versus the INFP/ISFP forum (the ISTPs are apparently too busy doing stuff to be bothered to post on their forum) to see the marked difference. On the ISFP forum it is pretty much a live and let live attitude. Numerous times I have found them talking at cross purposes to one another and almost no one attempts to point out contradictions or inconsistencies. On the other hand on this forum, the INTPs are like a bunch of cats, claws unsheathed, perceived slights to their logic dismissed as illogical, a marked tendency to view people as being rather unnecessary and getting in the way of a proper order.

to be honest, it is almost impossible to mistake an INFP for an INTP. An INTP is virtually impervious to criticism of any form. Criticize an INTP and it is more likely that she will think you are the one who needs to get his head checked. Criticize an INFP and that pretty much ends the conversation right there, except that they will continue to engage at a superficial level (perhaps they feel bad to behave like cold fish or something).

Click to expand...

ISTPs aren't on their own forum because they think they're INTPs and are posting here...

But that's aside the point.

You're right about being impervious to criticism. It's very hard to offend me. I'm not perfect, so why would I be offended for pointing out my flaws? I see it as an opportunity to improve! On the other hand, it's almost too easy to offend an Fi dom. Between the two, I'd say ISFPs are more easily offended. I think Ne gives INFPs a different way of looking at things that allows them to overcome the offense.

Proper order? LOL. Sounds ISTJ-ish. But yet, when someone says something that muddies up clarity, I have this strong compulsive urge to jump in and clarify. It's not about order, but about making sure things make sense. >_< Which is order to some degree, but see, I have to clarify, because someone else might think order == rules, and it's not about rules, it's about making sure everyone understands what makes an INTP an INTP and not an ISTJ >_> (at least in this case). INTPs are hardly orderly, at least not in the way that 'order' is usually implied.

But I disagree with you about mistaking INFPs and INTPs. We have the same perceiving functions, in the same position, and since our main difference is introverted, to an outsider, we ARE much alike. Hell, people tell me all the time that I'm just like my INFP friend. Of course we differ in Ti/Fi and even Fe/Te ways, but unless an issue has come up where these functions are utilized to their full extent, we pretty much act just alike. We're both pretty big dorks and ramble on about nonsense that no one else gets but us. Ne randomness is silly!

That, and we're both ALWAYS running late, and always getting distracted by things, and ALWAYS semi-oblivious of our surroundings, making stupid mistakes because we're Ne-ing off on some random tangent and not paying any attention at all to what we're doing. We're a couple of derps, and it's fun.

We always both have the creative drive that comes with Ne, and the strong desire to learn everything we can about our topics of interest that comes with Ne/Si.

Ti vs. Fi is the biggest difference between us, but unless one knows what to look for, they may not be aware of what they're seeing.

Jung's descriptions are not the best to go on, btw. They're exaggerations, done so to better characterize the type. That, and they simultaneously describe both types that are dominant introverted thinkers/feelers, so differences due to perception functions are ignored.

IMO, the best way to understand a type is to find that type in the wild, and interact with them. Learn them, analyze them, theorize about what makes them tick. It's easy to understand INFP, imo, because what makes us similar is Ne/Si, and where we differ are the functions we don't share, so cancel out issues where we see eye to eye on, and what's left are usually the results of our dominant functions. Analyze them, comprehend how they relate to Ti and Fi, and the connections are pretty easy to see. It just makes sense.