- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
@fayest42 – I’m very curious as to what you think of these definitions?
I realize the comparison between IF and IT is a bit incomplete without knowing what the new computational terms for Ti and Fi are. But, extrapolating from this article on J-, Ti and Fi are both non-procedural and non-explicit in their registrations. They’re gestalt and idiosyncratic.
And the way that you’ve described yourself across other threads seems to perfectly fit the idea of lacking a rigid moral structure you measure yourself against (which is actually IF). Yet you possess very structured thought when it comes to exploring questions of abiotic causality principles (IT).
This is actually perfectly compatible with your Fi, if we realize that your Fi, insofar as it manifests as one side of the Fi/Te axis, is not heavily structuring matters of morality into an external code. Rather, Fi registers the monistic caliber of situations in real-time, statically, and gestalts their ethical purity based on a direct consultation of the mono metric– void of systematic deduction.
The irony here is that many times Fi users have less explicit awareness of their moral reasonings; they register like taste (palate) when they do. It’s similar to how, with Ti, the elegant simplicity of an idea is felt/sensed, decontextualized outside of a justifiable pathway to it.
And I’m curious to hear the thoughts of other members! @alana-chiusano – you mentioned a few things on Discord, but as an NiTe deeply interested in calculus I’d love to hear anything else you’d like to share – specifically about your view of IT? 🙂
Also, @calin – is it true that you hold yourself to a very strict code? And does IF resonate with you above? Do you think other Fe users do this too, such as athletes?