Can't decide between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti valuing?

[Joy]

It may be helpful to use the role of Fe (emotional expressiveness, emotional environments) in your romantic relationships to figure it out.


For Te/Fi valuers, consistency between Fi input (verbal explanations of the status of the relationship) and actions is important, but Fe input (emotional expressiveness) is not.

Fi dominants are Fe ignoring, so the only connection between Fe and Fi for Te/Fi rationals is that the Te dominant may use Fe too much when they're not getting enough Fi. The Fi dominant is then like, "ew, what's all this Fe nonsense?" and, realizing that the Te dominant is feeling insecure, simply tells them that everything is fine. The Te dominant can believe this coming from a Fi dominant because what they say never changes, and their day to day actions (not emotional expressiveness) back up what they're saying.

As for Te creatives, how exactly are they of all types supposed to depend on Fe to know that the Fi is okay? The only connection between Fe and Fi for Te/Fi irrationals is that the Te creative feels safe with the Fi creative because the Fi creative thinks the Te creative's inability to read and utilize Fe properly is endearing. The Fi creatives finds Fe fun but unimportant, so they take care of reading Fe cues FOR the Te creative. There certainly isn't any expectation for the Te creative to be capable of reading or utilizing Fe situational cues in order to feel that their need for Fi is being fulfilled.


Fe/Ti valuers, however, are dependent on situational cues because the status of their relationships is defined with Ti, not Fi. Ti is "cold and objective" compared to the ethical information elements, so an additional ingredient (Fe) is necessary in order for them to know that the relationship is indeed functioning as it should be.

[Joy]

(Of course, this would only apply to relationships between two Te/Fi valuers or two Fe/Ti valuers.)

[1981slater]

[Gilly]

Fe/Ti valuers, however, are dependent on situational cues because the status of their relationships is defined with Ti, not Fi. Ti is "cold and objective" compared to the ethical information elements, so an additional ingredient (Fe) is necessary in order for them to know that the relationship is indeed functioning as it should be.

Ti/Fe valuers base their relationships on Ti? Sorry, but that is total horseshit.

[Joy]

Ti/Fe valuers base their relationships on Ti? Sorry, but that is total horseshit.

Define, not base.

[Gilly]

Explain.

[Joy]

Explain.

The status of a relationship (are we married? are we dating? etc.) is a Ti thing, not a Fi thing (Fi defines it more subjective terms). Though it would make sense to me if these definitions meant more to Fe/Ti rationals than irrationals?

Knowing you're "technically with" a person isn't sufficient though (as you said, a relationship shouldn't be based solely on Ti), so Fe expressions are extremely important. That's how Fe/Ti valuers know what's going on in the relationship. The absence of Fe expressiveness in any form might be taken by a Ti ego type to mean that the other person doesn't really care about them, no matter what their words are.

[Joy]

My ray of light in stormy, turbulent seas.

Interesting. I see Fi as my anchor in stormy, turbulent seas.

[1981slater]

My ray of light in dark, turbulent seas.

The hijacker is under control, Sir. Her name is Carla. Hey type, LII

[Gilly]

The status of a relationship (are we married? are we dating? etc.) is a Ti thing, not a Fi thing (Fi defines it more subjective terms). Though it would make sense to me if these definitions meant more to Fe/Ti rationals than irrationals?

Knowing you're "technically with" a person isn't sufficient though (as you said, a relationship shouldn't be based solely on Ti), so Fe expressions are extremely important. That's how Fe/Ti valuers know what's going on in the relationship. The absence of Fe expressiveness in any form might be taken by a Ti ego type to mean that the other person doesn't really care about them, no matter what their words are.

The problem is, you're making it sound like the Ti aspect of knowing "we're in a relationship" is the actual substance, and that affection ISN'T displayed in behavioral nuances and actions, so it's made up for by being HAPPY AND ENTHUSIASTIC AND YAAAAY, which simply isn't true. I don't expect that at all; I don't even want that most of the time. I care about trust, honesty, and the subtle warmth and emotional vulnerability that comes as a natural result of being with someone; not them being happy just for me. That's phony and disgusting.

For me, day to day I need to see that I can count on a person, that their everyday actions back up what they're saying. They can't ignore me, lie to me, make promises that they break, and then expect to suddenly make up for all of that with one big action. I just feel that they're dishonest, undependable, and don't actually care about me. I need to be shown that I actually matter to them, and I'm not just something extra slid into an open time slot when it happens to dawn on them. My time is important too, and I'm not going to invest it somewhere where it's not valued.

These things are important to Ti/Fe types too; we don't want to be with people who lie or cheat.

The point is, you're making it sound FAR more black-and-white than it really is.

[Joy]

lol

And then there's that.

For me, day to day I need to see that I can count on a person, that their everyday actions back up what they're saying. They can't ignore me, lie to me, make promises that they break, and then expect to suddenly make up for all of that with one big action. I just feel that they're dishonest, undependable, and don't actually care about me. I need to be shown that I actually matter to them, and I'm not just something extra slid into an open time slot when it happens to dawn on them. My time is important too, and I'm not going to invest it somewhere where it's not valued.

Life is every day, not events scattered here and there. If every day I feel undervalued, then I'm wasting my life being undervalued. And nothing really makes up for that. And certainly a bunch of words, no matter how emotional and sincere they may sound is going to make any difference to me. So yeah, emotional expressiveness really means jack shit to me, what really matters is the constancy of actions.

Exactly.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Danielle]

Thank you, this is quite useful information. For me. I predict somewhat less useful for "Fe/Ti valuers" (they got two sentences here), but maybe one of them can write their own.

[FDG]

Anyway, I think this - for cultural reasons - will play out differently if the female is the Fi dominant and the male is the Te dominant.

[Joy]

Anyway, I think this - for cultural reasons - will play out differently if the female is the Fi dominant and the male is the Te dominant.

How so?

[FDG]

Because women are more emotionally expressive than men (for either cultural or biological reasons), so an ISFj-INFj male is often less outward expressive - averaging over all situations - than an ENTj-ESTj female, while an ISFj female will be same, or more than, an ENTj male.

[Joy]

True. I've never observed a LIE/ESI couple, but I have a female ESI acquaintance who is a lot more openly friendly and social than the male Fi dominants I've known. (But I wonder what she's like around her close friends and family?) My Fi dominant sister is more like the Fi dominant males I've known though.

I have, however, known two LSE/EII couples, and they do fit into the description I wrote.

[Joy]

I didn't see what was negative about them. It's basically saying that Alpha/Beta types need Fe feedback to know what state things are in and Gamma/Delta types don't. I didn't write as much about Alpha/Beta as I did about Gamma/Delta because there are people far more qualified to describe Alpha/Beta relationships than I.

If there's a problem with the descriptions, I would say it's a bias toward rationality (and the aforementioned problem about Ti dominants identifying with the Te/Fi description).

[Gilly]

Alpha/Beta types need Fe feedback to know what state things are in and Gamma/Delta types don't.

This is where you come across as biased: "You need this and we don't." The flip side of this is, Te/Fi types need explicit gestures/declarations to show what state things are in; Fe/Ti types don't.

If you state the whole case, instead of just one side, you will get less of a negative response.

[Joy]

thank you

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Where did you get this particular word salad from? What one situation in real life did you analyze for all it's worth and came up with that...whatever THAT was.

We all do it I suppose. But I'm just asking.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Fe/Ti valuers, however, are dependent on situational cues because the status of their relationships is defined with Ti, not Fi. Ti is "cold and objective" compared to the ethical information elements, so an additional ingredient (Fe) is necessary in order for them to know that the relationship is indeed functioning as it should be.

That might make sense. Because that post you like gave no good examples to back up what you were talking about, so that's why I criticized you. It was just like complete mental jargon to me or something.

[Joy]

Sorry, no examples to offer (other than post #33, but those aren't the best example for reasons stated in that post). I couldn't give exact examples without posting personal stuff about people who probably wouldn't want me to post it. The Te/Fi stuff definitely is not taken from one situation though. It's taken from my understanding of the theory, from five years of being with Fi dominants, and from observing two LSE/EII irl couples I know.

Basically, this post came to be because someone said something about how Te types use Fe to determine how the Fi of a relationship is doing. I posted that in response.