I need someone to set the record straight for me on Fe vs Fi

[Park]

Well it's a dark side of Fi, not a universal thing, just one of the possible pitfalls. I type Trump as SEE, so don't see him as a counter example to that.

I'm not sure I agree that nepotism is a byproduct of Fi. Any type can be as equally self-serving and morally corrupt. Narcissists and sociopaths in particular.

Gamma SF's tend to operate extremely selfishly, within one's worldview without considering other's perspectives. If you just look at what Se and Fi evaluate (power and relational dynamics) it makes perfect sense as to why nepotism can be seen here.

Quite the contrary. As ethical types with Fi in their ego blocks, Gamma SFs would be inclined to consider other people's perspectives more than three quarters of the socionics types.

Just to be clear, suitability for a job isn't the same as competency to do that job, which is where Te's concerns lie.

What's the difference? What makes someone suitable to do a job if not their competency?

We share the same sentiment, but what's the intent of this commentary?

There isn't any.

[Milo]

I'm not sure I agree that nepotism is a byproduct of Fi. Any type can be as equally self-serving and morally corrupt. Narcissists and sociopaths in particular.

Nepotism is not much different from favoritism, which you yourself have attributed to .

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...564-Favoritism

Yay or nay? Good or bad? Right or wrong? Guilty or not guilty? Type or quadra related?

helllloooooooooooo

That's what I thought. I know this asshole who got offended and tried to tell me how wrong and distasteful it is to favor him over others. I go to him to express admiration for his work and tell him I'd be happy if he got elected for the job, just so that he acts like an ass and preach some sort of equality bullshit about how it should be all the same to me and I shouldn't have a personal preference. What a douche.

[Park]

Nepotism and favoritism are two, almost completely different things. Furthermore, nothing I've said there contradict anything I've said here.

[Myst]

We share the same sentiment, but what's the intent of this commentary? This is one of the things that helped me solidify the perception of me using : users always relate things back to themselves and seem incapable of separating their feelings from their intellect, this includes the Logical types as well. I can't relate to this at all, my personal feelings for something/someone don't compute in my analysis of it, so I guess that's why from a perspective, opinions are always subjective. Of course that from a perspective, it's that is too subjective. The irony

I find Te egos can separate the personal feelings just fine.

[LuckyOne]

I find Te egos can separate the personal feelings just fine.

I have been reading his posts on the forum for more than 18 months so I have observed this kind of behaviour many times before. Taking things personally and being defensive and reactive is not an exception for the SLIs I do know outside the forum either, it' a common occurance when discussing sensitive subjects.

I don't know any LIEs, ILIs or LSEs in real life though, so maybe they are different.

[Myst]

I have been reading his posts on the forum for more than 18 months so I have observed this kind of behaviour many times before. Taking things personally and being defensive and reactive is not an exception for the SLIs I do know outside the forum either, it' a common occurance when discussing sensitive subjects.

I don't know any LIEs, ILIs or LSEs in real life though, so maybe they are different.

Actually that reminds me, what I said is more easily true for Te leads, Te creatives can get stuck in their Fi HA yes, then I can't reason with them objectively anymore. With Te leads, they could get weirdly pissed off or something but it's easy (for me anyway) to pull them back to the logical route of discussing/arguing and sorting out things. Other than those issues though, Te creatives will also be objective by default, not mixing in personal feelings.

[Singu]

I think Ti-valuers' reasoning is more objective, but their facts start to fit their reasonings more. Te-valuers' facts are more objective, but then their reasonings start to get subjective and arbitrary.

Ti-valuers say things that are plausible, but still could nonetheless be potentially false. They're focused more on "objective" logic, like "In principle..." "I've analyzed it and that's impossible" "Justice" "Fairness" etc. They're logically true but are still ideals of this world. Te-valuers would say "Here, look, here are the FACTS! This is what's true!", but their own reasonings are not so important. It's kind of the same with Fe vs Fi.

How exactly does Fi "analyze"?

[Park]

I don't think facts can be "more" or "less" objective. They are just objective.

Te quadras value objective, observable, provable, dynamic (changing), factual logic. Ti quadras value logical structures, rules, axioms, theorems, consistency. Te egos actively collect and use factual data, Ti egos build and maintain logical systems with solid, interrelated (and interdependent) components. Te egos follow trends and changes in order to adapt and function (productively and efficiently) in their environment, Ti egos use their internalized logic to understand the external world and discover underlying patterns and principles.

[Myst]

I don't think facts can be "more" or "less" objective. They are just objective.

Te quadras value objective, observable, provable, dynamic (changing), factual logic. Ti quadras value logical structures, rules, axioms, theorems, consistency. Te egos actively collect and use factual data, Ti egos build and maintain logical systems with solid, interrelated (and interdependent) components. Te egos follow trends and changes in order to adapt and function (productively and efficiently) in their environment, Ti egos use their internalized logic to understand the external world and discover underlying patterns and principles.

Eh, no good assigning things to Te only or to Ti only that actually applies to Logic itself (both Te and Ti), like, objectivity, factuality, rules. And the part on underlying patterns sounds like Intuition. I don't really see myself as very good at that.

From the things you listed I value collecting observable/measurable facts to create objective, provable fact-based reasoning that's structured so that rules are systematized in a consistent way. It's Ti over Te simply because I pay attention mainly to the "invisible" structuring of the data (that's not tangible like a piece of fact is, but instead has to be explained). But that doesn't work without facts as its raw material (for both Te and Ti, again), and it's an objective, not a subjective process, obviously. And the focus on rules cannot be divorced from that "invisible" structuring, while for Te the rules are the same external thing as any other facts are. I think Golihov here has a decent account on how Te base approaches external rules (described without Intuition, though, so it's going to sound a bit more inflexible than many LIEs are).

[Park]

Eh, no good assigning things to Te only or to Ti only that actually applies to Logic itself (both Te and Ti), like, objectivity, factuality, rules.

And I wasn't doing that. I wasn't implying those things are completely independent or exclusive to one or the other. The Te/Ti divide is about focus (preference) and context.

And the part on underlying patterns sounds like Intuition. I don't really see myself as very good at that.

What Ti does is systematize. And when you systematize you inevitably discover things like structural patterns, correlations, dependencies, arrangements, etc.

But that doesn't work without facts as its raw material (for both Te and Ti, again), and it's an objective, not a subjective process, obviously.

It's a subjective process because you are adapting (or "fitting") the facts to a system you have created, based on your personal values, priorities, preferences, goals, etc.

And the focus on rules cannot be divorced from that "invisible" structuring, while for Te the rules are the same external thing as any other facts are.

I would say that Ti is responsible for establishing and organizing rules, while Te applies and utilizes them to reach objectives in a pragmatic way.

And I think whether the structuring is visible or invisible is immaterial. You could be arranging lego bricks by applying certain rules and you would be engaged in the same exact mental activity.

I think Golihov here has a decent account on how Te base approaches external rules (described without Intuition, though, so it's going to sound a bit more inflexible than many LIEs are).

I don't think I have read that. Later, maybe.

[Myst]

And I wasn't doing that. I wasn't implying those things are completely independent or exclusive to one or the other. The Te/Ti divide is about focus (preference) and context.

I didn't think you were implying that, however where I pointed out that some aspects apply to both Ti and Te, it really isn't about what's preferred more. It applies to both types of Logic, simple as that.

What Ti does is systematize. And when you systematize you inevitably discover things like structural patterns, correlations, dependencies, arrangements, etc.

Logic in general systematizes. Te still has to organize its facts but to me (from my pov) it seems like more direct links between the facts than for me with Ti. Like, X fact results in Y fact. That's what I call a direct linking of facts, and is still a way of organization of them but without organizing them in the manner Ti does it. Let me know if this was clear enough to you.

As for the "underlying patterns", "underlying" is what sounded like an Intuitive thing to me. Looking beyond the concrete.

The wording "pattern" is too general, every information element sees patterns of its own kind of information.

Yes, "structural patterns" (though I don't like this wording, still too ambiguous) or logical dependencies is what a Ti type of "pattern" would be. A "correlation" to me is too loose to really see it as logically following on its own, but I can work with them, sure.

It's a subjective process because you are adapting (or "fitting") the facts to a system you have created, based on your personal values, priorities, preferences, goals, etc.

In that sense it's subjective in the sense of being introverted, yes. However it being logical is still objective. It's not subjective in the sense of not being actually about the personal side of things like Ethics is. But I think you know that of course, I'm just making it clear what kind of objectivity I was talking about myself.

I would say that Ti is responsible for establishing and organizing rules, while Te applies and utilizes them to reach objectives in a pragmatic way.

What kind of rules do you have in mind here?

And I think whether the structuring is visible or invisible is immaterial. You could be arranging lego bricks by applying certain rules and you would be engaged in the same exact mental activity.

I think a misunderstanding here - where I was talking about the "invisible" structuring I didn't mean it can't be applied on concrete objects in the world. Obviously it can be applied on them but the structuring itself is still not "in front of you" in the same way an actual object is. If you arrange those lego bricks in some way, the rules and the reasoning behind used are not in front of you like the lego bricks themselves are even though yes someone else will hopefully be able to deduce what rules were used in organizing the lego bricks and why those rules. Or all this can be conveyed by explaining it to them.

[Singu]

I think one of the advantages of Te is that you can just quickly analyze some data by simply looking at the facts, statistics etc. and say "Look, this is what's happening, it's obvious that this is what's true", while Ti might have to rely on previous "understandings" based on related data, their logical relationships & consistencies, what's logically correct or incorrect, what's possible or not possible, etc. before you can move on to the new data which could be potentially correct or factually/objectively true. Ti might initially be skeptical or reject the data if the data is not yet "understood" to be true. I'd suppose this is most typical of Ti-dom. Te-dom might also be skeptical until the person has actually checked the facts by himself, while irrationals would care a little less about those things in general. But the obvious advantage of Ti is that you can apply those "understandings" in a generalized way, while the disadvantage of Te is that it might just end up being accumulating many new facts and data, but it doesn't really create any new data or "understandings" in a way that Ti does. Once Te has "understood" something to be factually or objectively true, then it just moves on to some new data without furthering its understanding.

This is also kind of similar for Fe, where Fe would just look at the person and say "Look, it's obvious that this is what the person is feeling" and make subjective judgments based on those data. Fi I'd suppose, would create more generalized subjective information that can be applied in a general way, such as how people should act or behave in a society.

So in general, Te and Fe are a lot quicker in their analysis, but somewhat shallower. They don't do the kind of "analysis" that static types do.

Te and Fe also seems to be concerned with optimization... Fe optimizes people's emotions... and Te optimizes outside rules?

[wasp]

Fi is suicide
Fe is bullying