Musings on Fe and Te

[The Ineffable]

Although not strictly related to the topic, there's no better context to explain the nature and difference between the Dynamic Bodies information aspects, namely Te and Fe.

Deducing from the above, the difference between Te and Fe must be something about the completeness of the conclusion based on observation. However, they differ from the Static IAs in the respect of being synthetic observations (telling new things about the objects), instead of observations intended to identify/describe/portray the them.

Let's use the above apple example to expand it to the Rational Bodies elements and naturally, as we talk about synthetic knowledge, we need a new detail that is not contended in the identification of the object, in our case the apple misses a piece:
- Te: "this apple is bitten"
- Fe: "this apple appears to be bitten"

Similarly, these functions are incorrectly used again, fallaciously, if the second is used on known information (you know for a fact that someone bit it) or the first on unknown (there's no proof to believe that, but appears so). These types of information conflict, when they're applied on the same thing, especially when their conclusion differ. The Te fact/evidence antagonizes the Fe appearance/impression/perceived phenomenon, and the other way around. As "the appearance is an incomplete fact" or "the fact is a complete appearance", they contradict each other, as any such synthetic conclusion can't be based but on the premise that either the information is complete, stating a fact, or that it's incomplete, stating only an impression, an appearance.
---

As I hinted in the above article, we should not assume that Te Egos take any piece of synthetic information as fact, nor that Fe Egos take them as impressions, our observations is that it's often the other way around, Fe types are inclined to draw conclusions based on impressions. The actual difference is that Te Egos, as a rule, dismiss the impressions as "nothing" (exactly as in the case of Se Egos), while to Fe types it is the most important and revealing part (exactly like Ne).

But maybe the most important conclusion of this case, as I stated with other occasions, is that Fe is not equivalent with emotions. It is not and never was. All people use Fe to be able to use incomplete synthetic/factual information, it is an incomplete/unverified knowledge (belief) which is often very revealing and useful. That does not mean that their beliefs are "baseless" or "emotional", however, people who value and use such information very much may come across as subjective, emotional or hasty (especially when they're described by those who strictly value exclusively "verifiable" facts - the quotes are because that kind of truth is contingent).

[redbaron]

I like apples.

[jughead]

So you might say Fe uses more hieuristics in perception? In relation to what you said I know is when I'm forced to conform to Te types standards I usually fail because it interupts my own supposition as if it were non-existent. Ne polrs also do this in a way. It's like my perception just doesn't count.

"incomplete/unverified knowledge (belief)"
What are you specifically referring to in this link.

[The Ineffable]

So you might say Fe uses more hieuristics in perception?

I didn't try to address that, but apparently yes, both Fe and Ne (as psyche using these functions) normally do.

"incomplete/unverified knowledge (belief)"
What are you specifically referring to in this link.

To what kind of belief I was talking about, that it's not like believing in ghosts or god, etc.

Normally, empirical knowledge has two forms, the belief that something is true based on justification, and the belief that something is true, based on observations, but without necessarily verifying it externally, you just have reasons to believe it's true. The latter is our case. So belief is mandatory in knowledge of truth, too, one can't acknowledge something as true while not believing it - in simple terms, Internal functions deal with the same info that External functions do, while lacking their rigor/strictness/thoroughness.

Note that this thoroughness is simply not the case/not applicable for Internal IEs (Ne, Fe, etc), you don't need it to claim "this looks like an apple", but for the External IEs it is assumed as existing - "this is an apple", even if it's not necessarily the case (false propositions), the type of information contains the reference to this thoroughness itself.

[Satan]

omg u talk a lot

[DividedsGhost]

Thanks Bolt! I'll add this information to my MONOCLE OF KNOWLEDGE!

Monocle of Knowledge starts glowing


*Wearers Wisdom bonus has increased from +30 to +31*