Fi/Te & Ti/Fe Metabolic Differences

Forum3 Forums Type Specific Fi/Te & Ti/Fe Metabolic Differences

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #17789
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    split from: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/ji-ii-how-do-you-relate-to-this-profile/#post-17789

    Bella: I’ve often thought this to be one of the key differences between Ti and Fi? It has seemed to me that Fi seems to be more liberated from the need to align itself with ideas that may be discordant with its essence, and more comfortable with choosing the epistemology that its own essence intuitively leads to (and in that way it feels holistic more easily). This doesn’t necessarily mean that Fi would accept irrationality, but rather that it would intuitively be lead into the types of ideas that also resonate with its essence and may be less rigorous with questioning or poking that bias. I’ve personally termed this in my head as “Fi luxury” — something Ti leads would wish was possible, but sense they would betray truth via that form of operation.

    Ohh, this is a very curious topic. I think I've run into this dilemma on Discord a few times, and one of the counterarguments I've seen is that Ti itself also has biases in its axioms that it can be blind to. Actually, one of them relates to the use of Fe (as their Je) for the triangulation of truth.
    If Ti wants to subjectively arrive at the objective truth, while distrusting its own emotional register from the first-person perspective, it ends up still trusting that emotional register in the third-person (i.e. Je object-to-object interactions, with people being the objects). It then comes to rely on a pragmatic view of the emotional register's insights.
    So Ti may feel it's "objective truth" to evaluate their own, and everyone's, human nature from the aggregate object-collisions that describe humanity at large. Questions of meaning, purpose and truth are answered from this dimension, while Ti operates as a reactive/passive diagnostic agent to make sure this object-focused emotional register calibration (Fe) has internal consistency (Ti). But then who is to say.
    Je is reading the circumstantial and dynamic. What seems to be "human" truth at the local level may be contextually bound, and not absolutely true. In a world where homosexuality was seen as aberrant, a Ti lead might have concluded that it indeed was, by evaluating the emotional register of collectives. But the Fi approach is seeking for answers from the same source (the emotional register) but by a direct analysis of its nature.
    In this manner, the answers Fi feels it arrives at are rational, logical, and speaking about the absolute or essential reality of human-ness, and even further back into life-principles. So there's a methodological disagreement here which is unrelated to "rigorousness." The Fi users are no less rigorous in their thoughts than Ti users, but both types get their "a priori" assumptions (i.e. emotional register) from different angles. One (Fe) by the broad aggregate effects as observable in temporality, and the other (Fi) by the acute examination of essence at the individual level (which is also aggregated, as a set of individuals, rather than as collectives)
    Since Ti/Fe and Fi/Te are always a set, I find it important to look at the axiomatic assumptions of each pair as a whole. Both appear to be bias in different ways, which makes it challenging to say anything about who's more right. I think both are tapping into different facets of reality, and the reason this diversity in type may exist is partially because "both are right" in different ways. And together, the two paint a greater picture of reality than both could ever paint alone.

    #17797
    bella
    Moderator
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Ooh, this is interesting. Especially this:

    If Ti wants to subjectively arrive at the objective truth, while distrusting its own emotional register from the first-person perspective, it ends up still trusting that emotional register in the third-person (i.e. Je object-to-object interactions, with people being the objects). It then comes to rely on a pragmatic view of the emotional register’s insights.

    *Thinks* Does a Ti lead trust the Fe as an objective emotional register in the same way an Fe lead would?  Wouldn't the Ti lead be more wary as to transcend the contextually bound nature of Fe dynamics?
    You mentioned homosexuality as an example, so let's use that.  Let's take two theoretical scenarios.  In one, science discovers it to be a distortion of some kind, and objectively destructive to society.  In the other, science discovers it to be normative and beneficial for humanity at large.
    Would a Ti lead reject the truth in the second scenario in the case that society still finds it aberrant because of Fe, despite a possible internal dissonance within the Ti user? Would an Fi lead choose in the first case scenario, to align itself with that truth or reject it as it feels misaligned to the Fi's nature - from a sense that what feels aligned must also be true verses what feels "off" ethically must be false?  Or perhaps - each would find their personal way of reconciling the tension that would be created?
    *ponders*
    I think, unlike an Fe lead, the Ti lead is more likely to stick with what is perceived to be evidenced as true regardless of Fe/society standards.  And the Fi lead is more likely to stick with what aligns with their compass..
    It seems as though Ti is an essentialist function - being that it's introverted and seeks the core principles that underlie reality -- it seeks a timeless truth that is transcends contextual properties, in some sense.  Yet, it is untrusting of the truth intuited by one's personal emotional register, as it wants to know everything 'objectively' (with the bias that such a thing must 'exists').
    So maybe something like..?
    Fi: I am part of reality, and if something aligns with my compass, this is indicative that the information that my emotional register has calculated is pointing at an objective truth within this reality.
    Ti: I am part of reality, and if something aligns with my compass, this is indicative that my emotional register has calculated some partial information which may or may not be pointing at an objective truth outside of my personal reality.
    ??
    I agree with your last (Hegelian 😉 )paragraph -- we are all biased in different ways, as we are each tapping into different facets of reality -- on our path to an ever-evolving synthesis.
    (Clarification: what I meant by a lack of rigorousness above is not in the thought process itself or in the search for truth, but towards poking the very bias of *personal alignment is equal to or is indicative of truth*)

    #17803
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Hey 🙂
    I don't know about Fe-Ti and don't yet understand very well how both functions work together, so it's wonderful you are exploring it more !!
    One observation about Fi - I would not associate it with looking for alignment to objective truth.
    To me objective truth is something I arrive to using Te ! Fi seems to rather point to what is good, what is valuable, what is ideal...what is true, yes, but what is true for me ...and then I might suppose it is objectively true too (and could even be right 🤔) but I don't think this is the main focus of Fi or at least that it is usually felt by us as such.
    Though I must say there is a big difference between seelie and unseelie Fi users and I suppose unseelie Fi users might object to what I just said...
    I think at least in my case it would be very dangerous to consider pure Fi ethical constructions as pointing to objective truth 🤔 ...the facts must always be checked and causal thinking determines what is objectively true ! Or else I risk to make purely subjective decisions based on how my emotional register is pinged or what is aligned to my inner essence ! 😅
    Fi at least for me rather determines what is right. With homosexuals it would determine that they carry the same spark of life and humanity like myself and hence deserve equal treatment and equal rights. 🌈 But this starts pretty much as an emotion that I then translate into words by using Fi. I might have the impression that this is the objective truth too but... basically what Fi did was to translate in words and clearly define an emotional reaction as  well  as draw my principles regarding this issue. If I am honest, this could be called "subjective" by someone who uses purely facts and logic to determine the scientific truth about homosexuality !
    This is complicated though because we could ask what is objective truth ! Also how come I can draw pretty decent principles if they are not also reflecting the objective truth? But then Te and Fi work together as a team and inform each other...
     

    #17818
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    My goodness... our ability to discuss a priori categorizations of truth and the topic of homosexuality in the same breath is what elevates the CT community to the very peaks of enlightenment... only half-joking here btw XD. Serious response to follow.

    • To begin with, T>F appears to me as the most salient dimension to isolate a fundamental, Ti-sourced bias.

     

    • It seems to me that Ti (when conferred a priori rank above all other functions) holds a deeply flawed assumption that through concentrated thought alone, the emotionless aspects of the brain can override the emotional aspects of the brain, such that the mind and body can both be controlled through some kind of totalitarian grip on rationality; in short, it's nonsense. Sustaining psychic unity through consistent domination by Ti isn't possible, it's an unhealthy dictatorship and such a one-sided attitude will not be healthy as long as we are primarily organic creatures; the different cognitive systems through which we labor and err are there for irrevocable reasons: they appear to be necessary for coordinating higher-order, conscious functioning (at least in primates like HSS), and are intended to reach functional truth(s) of survival through a system of never-fully-resolved conflicts and compromises.

     

    • My observations on the question of sexual/gender identity align with this pattern: individuals who display the traits and values of conscious Fi tend to embrace their personal truths of gender and sexual identity earlier, and begin integrating those aspects of themselves scorned by society at a faster pace, than conscious Ti users generally seem to display. Here specifically I think Fe plays a large role in why this is so, as Auburn has made reference to, because the F dynamic of a Ti-Fe user's functioning is permanently set against a backdrop of object/group relations. If we take a global survey of different societies' attitudes towards homosexuality, we can see that societal punishments range all the way from torture and death, to a simmering disgust from individuals and subgroups which aren't allowed to express hate towards these "deviants" in "polite" society. Meanwhile, the positives of accepting a deviant gender identity or sexuality are almost entirely intrinsic, excepting some real-world and online subgroups which encounter various degrees of success and failure in supporting queer people with words/actions. For the Ti-Fe user, being non-deviant would seem to be the objective or "rational" answer to gender/sexual identity given these external metrics, assuming this Ti-Fe user isn't living in some hitherto unheard of society where the majority of their interactions with other human beings concerning sexual or gender identity gave them the impression that all were equally "good". But that is not a message broadcast by any society I've looked at (when analyzed at a broad, or nation-based level), and human beings are not inherently rational. The mind is always made sick by the cognitive dissonance that results from subordinating a reality which has depth and weight in the psyche to one which has only societal pressure to sink into the Self.

     

    • It would seem to me that the advantage of Fi>Ti in this specific domain would be that because the F>T attitude is introverted, the severe practical, external impediments that come with being queer are inherently secondary to the individual alignment of the Self, as Te does not operate based on the sort of "people-based-math" that Fe operates on, and as such it doesn't directly factor in its practicalities until Fi has already made its ethical judgments. Te can then step in where it is needed, and begin applying Fi's judgments to the external world, which in this scenario might look like (to illustrate the polar extremes which ethical judgment is capable of reaching): forming and maintaining an organization directed towards queer advocacy VS consistently stonewalling legislation that would include gender identity as a protected status for hate crimes.
    #17822
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I won't go back into the past and dig up names, but an FiNe said that the scientific community doesn't respect Jordan Peterson and that CT would be more accepted if JP wasn't a core aspect.
    I mentioned that JP's should have an equal voice [where if his logic fits then it shouldn't tampered with].
    Are there any Fi users that understand how that attitude toward JP might somehow be okay?

    #17823
    Aletheia
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    "If Ti wants to subjectively arrive at the objective truth, while distrusting its own emotional register from the first-person perspective, it ends up still trusting that emotional register in the third-person (i.e. Je object-to-object interactions, with people being the objects). It then comes to rely on a pragmatic view of the emotional register’s insights."

    Yes and no. What about when a Ti user is analyzing something that doesn't have to do with the human question? I don't think that just because Fe is associated to the emotional register, that Ti/Fe users can't comprehend an objective version of reality. Just as I don't think Fi/Te users are incapable of dispassionately analyzing their own internal content, etc. As you point out in your OP, the functions operate as pairs, and this means that both judgement sets have the same capacities.
    I do see what you mean about Fe tending to form a pragmatic view of emotions, and ethics in general. This is in contrast to Fi's tendency to form a personal, empathetic view, although when Te is lead or strong I've seen it where Fi users can have just as pragmatic an approach to ethics as Fe users. Pragmatism is a general Je trait, I think.

    "The Fi users are no less rigorous in their thoughts than Ti users, but both types get their “a priori” assumptions (i.e. emotional register) from different angles. One (Fe) by the broad aggregate effects as observable in temporality, and the other (Fi) by the acute examination of essence at the individual level (which is also aggregated, as a set of individuals, rather than as collectives)"

    ^ I think this is a brilliant description of the difference in conceptual formation between Fe and Fi. I haven't read all of your literature on the ethical functions, but the way you put it here really makes sense 🙂

    "I think both are tapping into different facets of reality, and the reason this diversity in type may exist is partially because “both are right” in different ways. And together, the two paint a greater picture of reality than both could ever paint alone."

    Now, so this.. irks me :p *Ji tweak-out mode activated* What do you mean by "facets of reality"? Is reality not one whole complex phenomenon? If I'm reading what you're saying right, wouldn't it be more accurate wording to say Fe and Fi are *interpreting* the same reality in different ways? Maybe they're describing different poles of the phenomenon of human causality?.. As introversion and extroversion are a duality, perhaps each respective function describes its take on the personal and collective realities of experience, ethos and the world?
    Also:

    "the reason this diversity in type may exist is partially because “both are right” in different ways."

    First off, what makes you say there's any reason for the manifestation of the types besides the fact that there are four cognitive functions and two energetic vectors possible in the human psyche? Couldn't humanity exist if there were only one possible set of functions, just as any individual exists with their one set? And if what you're saying is true, that neither set of functions is more correct in its analysis of reality, then how can it be said that we're any closer to the truth collectively with the diversity of the functions than if we all had the same sets?
    I think I get what you're trying to indicate here, that both function sets are capable of conceiving the truth of things. And I do think you're right in general about the extroverted and introverted perspectives together being more of a holistic description of reality. But dammit, I've been around too many hippies saying "we're all right maaaaannn" and often having that pov go into full out Solipsism.. it just bothers me when your wording edges on saying that, that no answer is more correct than another >,<

    #17828
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @alerith - Lol at "Ji tweak-out". Yeah, I'm not trying to be a postmodernist here.

    First off, what makes you say there’s any reason for the manifestation of the types besides the fact that there are four cognitive functions and two energetic vectors possible in the human psyche? Couldn’t humanity exist if there were only one possible set of functions, just as any individual exists with their one set?

    I didn't mean to say that both are "necessary", or nor do I mean "reason" as justification, as much explanation for their co-existence. So one way to think of my statement is via evolution, where whatever path survives does so because their 'solution' to reality is an acceptable one within the constraints of reality. I do think a different history of homo sapiens may have seen one function pair vanish, but we have this diversity because their solutions are both good enough. And I think we're fortunate to have both.

    I think I get what you’re trying to indicate here, that both function sets are capable of conceiving the truth of things. And I do think you’re right in general about the extroverted and introverted perspectives together being more of a holistic description of reality. But dammit, I’ve been around too many hippies saying “we’re all right maaaaannn” and often having that pov go into full out Solipsism.. it just bothers me when your wording edges on saying that, that no answer is more correct than another >,<

    Right. When I say "both are right in different ways" I don't mean to say both are right in the same domain. They're both "right" (i.e. they have acceptable metabolic solutions) but in separate departments.
    Fi/Te and Ti/Fe appear to be cognitive instruments with some degree of overlap but also discrete aspects. So if we can imagine a telescope that works in the infrared spectrum, and another one that works in the visible light spectrum, both are measuring the same reality but from different angles. And the question of "who is more right" doesn't make sense if there are areas of non-overlap that each accounts for, which the other doesn't. The combined set of both images reveals a greater picture of reality than either does separately, even though there is substantial overlap in the general shape and form of what they're seeing.

    As for how this relates to Fi vs Fe specifically, the truth of humanity isn't essentialist only, neither is it pragmatic only. The pragmatic view of humanity, if taken to the extreme, would postulate that "what we do is what we are", and a species' nature is their purpose as a vector through life; we are defined by our aim and behavior towards aims. Peterson very much articulates something like this, going as far back as the definition of "life" itself as a vector with an aim, and motion forward from an "A" to a better "B."
    But the essentialist view of humanity, if taken to the extreme, would postulate a discrete, self-existent humanness (and life more broadly) which is in some ways defined by an irrevocable qualia, an not dependent on the acts themselves nor aggregate effects, but on its static "is-ness." But I think the answer is that these two ontological priorities are measuring at different resolutions, microscopic and macroscopic. And they can both be correct in their examination of the phenomenon at their specific resolution, so long as they're careful not to over-extend the boundaries of their logic and extrapolate from the macro to the micro, or micro to the macro. 🙂

    I haven’t read all of your literature on the ethical functions, but the way you put it here really makes sense 🙂

    Ah, well there's one recently thread in particular that I'm referencing, which might be of interest 🙂 https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/hierarchy-as-ontological-priority/

    #18711
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I'm in the process right now of trying to understand what Fi/Te and Ti/Fe are and how they differ. This thread has offered a lot of food for thought. Here are a few of the thoughts I've had so far in relation to this thread:

    I’ve often thought this to be one of the key differences between Ti and Fi? It has seemed to me that Fi seems to be more liberated from the need to align itself with ideas that may be discordant with its essence, and more comfortable with choosing the epistemology that its own essence intuitively leads to (and in that way it feels holistic more easily). This doesn’t necessarily mean that Fi would accept irrationality, but rather that it would intuitively be lead into the types of ideas that also resonate with its essence and may be less rigorous with questioning or poking that bias. I’ve personally termed this in my head as “Fi luxury” — something Ti leads would wish was possible, but sense they would betray truth via that form of operation.

    I don't think this is true for me. It's hard to know for sure, but my interpretation of what I'm doing in my head is that I'm quite rigorous about questioning my own biases. This interpretation is supported by the fact that I often don't like the conclusions I end up coming to.

    It seems as though Ti is an essentialist function – being that it’s introverted and seeks the core principles that underlie reality — it seeks a timeless truth that is transcends contextual properties, in some sense.  Yet, it is untrusting of the truth intuited by one’s personal emotional register, as it wants to know everything ‘objectively’ (with the bias that such a thing must ‘exists’).

    This is true of me as an FiNe too though. I do not trust my emotional register to tell me what is true. It's subject to way too many biases. Everything my emotional register tells me must be checked out with logic. As Bera said,

    I think at least in my case it would be very dangerous to consider pure Fi ethical constructions as pointing to objective truth 🤔 …the facts must always be checked and causal thinking determines what is objectively true ! Or else I risk to make purely subjective decisions based on how my emotional register is pinged or what is aligned to my inner essence ! 😅

    I also want to note that it seems like there is an intermixing of truth and values here where I would view them separately. In the homosexuality example, I recognize that my personal value system is in favor of letting homosexual people live and love freely, but that's not really something I can check logically because it doesn’t really have anything to do with truth. It's just a personal value, not a logical proposition. Truth and falsehood can come into play when you consider what will have a more positive impact on society. We could imagine hypothetically that while my personal values are in favor of freedom for homosexuals, that perhaps that would have a negative impact on society. And then the question is whether I would come down on the side of my personal values or what objectively would be better for society. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy answer to that. It is something I would have to grapple with and I might decide differently in different situations.
    A real-life example of this is the issue of whether businesses should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals. When I first heard about this controversy, my brain's initial response was to come down on the side of individual freedom for the business owners (in spite of the fact that I am a) liberal, b) not generally one to favor businesses over customers, and c) a supporter of gay rights and a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself). I just have a strong preference for individual freedom. But then I thought about it and realized that if that were allowed, it would not be a good thing for society. It would lead to situations like we had in the past when many businesses would not serve black customers, and that obviously led to lots of bad outcomes. So in that case my Te process of figuring out the logical consequences won out over my Fi personal value (though it was probably also influenced by my Fi personal value of not wanting inequity within society, so it's a bit muddy, I suppose).
    Now my question is, how would a Ti-lead think about this kind of situation? Bella says,

    Does a Ti lead trust the Fe as an objective emotional register in the same way an Fe lead would?  Wouldn’t the Ti lead be more wary as to transcend the contextually bound nature of Fe dynamics?
    You mentioned homosexuality as an example, so let’s use that.  Let’s take two theoretical scenarios.  In one, science discovers it to be a distortion of some kind, and objectively destructive to society.  In the other, science discovers it to be normative and beneficial for humanity at large.
    Would a Ti lead reject the truth in the second scenario in the case that society still finds it aberrant because of Fe, despite a possible internal dissonance within the Ti user?

    So would it be accurate to say that for a Ti-lead the question to grapple with here is whether to follow the lead of Ti and thus the objective truth that homosexuality is beneficial for humanity or to follow the lead of Fe and thus the societal value against homosexuality? That's not quite what I would expect. Both of those choices are looking at society at large and not the individual level. Wouldn't it be Te (or perhaps a directive Fe) that would want to follow the scientific evidence about what effect the decision would have on society? Would Ti not take a more individualistic approach in some way? What would that look like though?

    #31286
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Interesting topic on the metabolism differences.

    From a general point of view,  I think that every truth at which we arrive at is inevitably influenced by the society at large, our history and our experiences, so isn't possible to think to arrive at an universal truth, because an universal truth will always be a result of small steps toward an hypothetical universal truth.

    From a personal point of view, I prefer to go in search of the truth from a sort of detachment from the emotional register, although this isn't completely possible because we are one, logic+emotions in this regard.

    What I mean is that I don't think to voluntarily share an emotion to come to a conclusion/truth, for example during a speech with someone else,  this is in sharp contrast with the sharing of personal emotion/feeling that I saw in other people, the latter seems more an Fi feature, if I correctly understood the previous posts.

    I prefer a social weight of a truth, which has an objective source, instead of an emotional source.

     

     

     

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
bookcommentsgroupenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram