Fe-Ti vs. Fi-Te and filtering sources of information

[Park]

Those types see having to "read between the lines" as a concession, and are glad when an interaction does not require that.

Geez, how can I not be. "Reading between the lines" and especially having to make a decision based on "between the lines" observation can be extremely stressful and energy-consuming. For me, that is.

[Expat]

Geez, how can I not be. "Reading between the lines" and especially having to make a decision based on "between the lines" observation can be extremely stressful and energy-consuming. For me, that is.

While, on the other hand, I've heard women say things like this:

"I shouldn't have to say it to you. If you were a sensitive man, you'd have noticed what's going on with me without my having to say it. If you don't notice it, it's because you don't care, we're not compatible, and there isn't anything to this relationship."

[Park]

While, on the other hand, I've heard women say things like this:

"I shouldn't have to say it to you. If you were a sensitive man, you'd have noticed what's going on with me without my having to say it. If you don't notice it, it's because you don't care, we're not compatible, and there isn't anything to this relationship."

The only time I would accept that as a valid and true statement is when it would be about (or would involve a lot of) Si disregards. Then it would make sense and I would probably agree. But taking it from a Fe perspective is..... I don't know, unfair, strange, even hurtful if I actually cared for the person...

[Park]

The point of “reading between the lines” is not to invent things that you don’t mean and annoy you by pointing these things out.

For instance if I say “ah ha! so you mean… x, y and z!” (borrowing from Winterpark), this doesn’t mean that I’m trying to read things into what you said or make things up…

Unfortunately, it comes out that way sometimes. For me personally it's often because I think that if you wanted to get on the same page with me, you would easily understand what I said even by just taking me literally and cannot think of any other reason for misunderstanding me but the one quoted above. Or I am automatically beginning to think you are a really stupid person and are lacking mundane thought-processing skills.

[Minde]

To the original post - a couple of things:

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

Second, in addition to narrow-mindedness, I think there can be mutual accusations of willful blindness to reality and lack of care for the other person. But that's already sort of covered.

Third... I think there's more to Fi-Te/Fe-Ti than what's described here.

[implied]

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

this is an extremely good point.

[Logos]

That chain started from that one. If it's even important anymore.

So let me go back and address it.

Body languages importance diminishes when it doesn't convey any meaningful message. Over-emphasizing it's importance means that you get lot of meaningless information, that you interpret as somehow relevant.

I definitely agree with that assessment, but once more, expressing words does not necessarily express meaning or coherence, and deemphasizing the importance of body language can be just as potentially harmful.

Nope. If you get 93% more e-mail but it's spam mail. It doesn't improve your e-mail communication.

If the people who send you spam mail, start instead sending you useful information in clear language, instead of concentrating on spamming you. It's more useful to you.

Fairly poor analogy. You do not miss what is going on in your e-mail without spam, but you do with non-verbal communication. And your e-mail that is not spam, may not always be particularly meaningful. The Mehrabian rule that you yourself posted indicates as much. But what you have you do not seem to get is that "word content" can be spam as well and that the body language and tone of voice can very much be meaningful. Yes there are the written words, but even the words and the 7 percent content contains a great deal of or more than you perhaps realize. Your word choice affects your message. You may say what you literally mean, but is that even literally possible? Words are laden with meaning, infused with connotation, reinforced by their context, evocative of experience and understanding, and agitators of our emotions. We are animals. Although we are animals who have developed more complex methods of communication, that does not mean that our biological programming has somehow become outdated, especially not when it is a potential survival mechanism to ensure the propagation of the species. It is still an essential mode of our operation and not something that can be turned off like a light switch.

We could like replace them with pie charts over heads, that say:" you have now 0.0000495% chance to get laid". Or: "I dislike you 43.4%". Now that would be progress

Or you are 4.56 percent beautiful.

But seriously, why retort to a communication system that's based on sending vague multi-interpretative cues, that you are supposed "to get". When there's far superior system available. People could just state the same messages. Speech & writing etc. should be the primary system of communication for everyone.

Because it is there not supplant or replace the meaning of what you say, but to support and supplement it. And sometimes although we are indeed saying something meaningful in the content of our words, sometimes our bodies are transmitting other messages. You once said in a past discussion that the ILI thrives in vagueness of what you said, as it allows you to be better debaters. Now you claim that ILIs say what they mean and that they hate such vagueness? Your inability to read these "vague multi-interpretative cues" by no means indicates that they are worthless cues or meaningless cues. Yes, you can and should not over-emphasize body language, but conversely you can also deemphasize its importance in communication. I am arguing that balance exists in terms of meaning and that such cues are more meaningful than you may think they are. While I am sure that you also think that I am placing too much emphasis on body language, I am not arguing for communication without verbal and written language.

Should I call useless, worthless, and stupid just because I myself do not place much focus or attention on it? If I cannot "read" it, does that mean that my actions do not contain or affect the sense of in others? I cannot draw or paint well, nor do I particularly like going to art museums, but that does not mean that I think that art is something the world would be better without or that art is not meaningful. And the same holds true in the case of body language, non-verbal communication, and tone of voice.

I think it does speak volumes, however I would hesitate to say it speaks volumes about what they mean. I will give you an example related to myself (hoping not to appear too boastful): most of the times my intonation, my gestures, my expressions and how many pauses I make while speaking are related to only one variable: how tired I am. By no means this reveals my attitude towards the person I'm speaking to - sometimes I might be slightly indifferent when speaking to a good friend of mine simply because I biked 150 kms the same day.

And while an ESE may listen to the content of what you say, that is what else they will pick up on and latch to: you are tired, how your emotional attitude (not necessarily towards that person) is affected by your physical condition of tiredness.

[marooned]

Unfortunately, it comes out that way sometimes. For me personally it's often because I think that if you wanted to get on the same page with me, you would easily understand what I said even by just taking me literally and cannot think of any other reason for misunderstanding me but the one quoted above. Or I am automatically beginning to think you are a really stupid person and are lacking mundane thought-processing skills.

It seems like you've automatically translated what I said into meaning that "reading between the lines" = "not understanding what you said." It does not.

[Expat]

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

That's not how it looks like to me, as an outsider.

Third... I think there's more to Fi-Te/Fe-Ti than what's described here.

Well, obviously. That's always the case in socionics.

[Logos]

No, you're not (wrong to see it), but you would be wrong if you actually believe it. I will tell you this; Even though I might disagree with you on many things, I still respect you very much, admire your intelligence and you're definitely not (yet) 'filtered out' as some others are.

I'll take that as a compliment.

The thing is that I know that Expat would never do that. But if, as you say, (for whatever reason) he did, then yes, I would disagree with him, but I know I would not need to insist because he wouldn't be so stubborn in defending his view like you are here. Hell, he might even agree with me, if I have some valid arguments.

I do not think that I am any more stubborn in this case than either your or Warlord. Have I not also agreed with Warlord when he presented valid arguments on over-emphasizing body language?

One of the things that got me thinking about this is that, according to my observations, the Gamma/Delta dualities develop precisely towards the direction of increasingly saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and becoming increasingly "robotic" to outside observers. Those types see having to "read between the lines" as a concession, and are glad when an interaction does not require that.

It may be less so with irrationals, and/or Deltas, perhaps Slacker Mom could comment.

My own observations of my Alpha parents, SEI and ESE, was that after decades of marriage, they still, indeed, did not say what they meant to one another.

Case in point: you are interpreting what I said in a manner that is not how I meant it. So I will explain myself and hopefully address some of the concerns that Warlord seems to be having.

I am lost.
I cannot find my way back.
I do not know which direction I need to go.

If I were to say what I mean, in all cases these three statements may adequately express that, but only approximately. The first statement is about the state of the person. The second statement is about the orientation of the person. The third statement deals more with what the person knows. We may be trying our hardest to say what we mean, but by no means does this mean that we are successful in fully doing so.

Or if I were to say to my dream girl, "I love you," would that three word statement truly get across how I feel in that moment? Is the extent of my emotional attachment to her and the state of my relationship capable of being expressed in these simple words? I may very well love her, but would saying that be enough for her to understand what I truly mean in that moment and in that connection? If I do not have the appropriate words to express what I mean in my feelings or thoughts, then how could I possibly say what I mean?

Or why should I try and say anything when the look of my face says it all? Does this not exist between couples in / relationships? To know the person so well that you can understand them with an unspoken glance? Even then, of what value are my words if they cannot reach the person to whom I am speaking? I may try and literally say what I mean, but will the listener find any meaning in it? We adjust our language to attempt to match between individuals. We subtly alter our language

Perhaps I say, "I think her dress is ugly," but what I was really trying to express with my words (if I had the proper words at the time or vocabulary) is "I think that her dress is distasteful for our present setting." Or what if I said, "My basketball team was annihilated."? Would you take that literally? Was the existence of my basketball team destroyed and brought to a state of ruin? Or do I simply mean that my basketball team was defeated by a perceived large amount of points?

The overall point: People never say what they truly mean, because we are limited by the very nature of language.

This is not an issue about vs. , or the development of "robotic" Gamma relationships, or Expat's Alpha parents, but of language. If your parents are not saying what they mean to each other there may be a problem, but just because you say what you mean does not mean that there is not one. Nor should you necessarily assume "it's a Gamma or Alpha thing," when the dynamics of reality reveal themselves to be far more complex than how we want them to be.

It seems like you've automatically translated what I said into meaning that "reading between the lines" = "not understanding what you said." It does not.

Well there seems to be the assumptions that "reading the lines" = "understanding what you said," which is definitely not always the case. If it were so, then there would be far less clarification and discussion on this discussion board.

[Minde]

That's not how it looks like to me, as an outsider.

What's the truth - inner perception or outside?

Well, obviously. That's always the case in socionics.

Yes, I know it's obvious, but it hadn't been said that I had read so far, so I thought I'd say it.

[Expat]

What's the truth - inner perception or outside?

The truth is out there.

[Minde]

The truth is out there.

"Out there" is right...

..."Perception is reality"?


Anyway, I still have problems with that part.

[Logos]

"Out there" is right...

..."Perception is reality"?


Anyway, I still have problems with that part.

I think it might be best to say that perception in part defines our reality.

[Minde]

I think it might be best to say that perception in part defines our reality.

Yes, that works for me.

"Perception is reality." The first time I heard that phrase was from an ESTp critiquing me on how I present myself, how I come across to other people. For my job I needed to be more forward and enthusiastic, and while I was feeling all the right things on the inside, it wasn't making its way adequately to the surface. I do agree in theory - that what people see in you is reality to them, and that's how they'll interact with and react to you, thus putting it into your reality. The thing is, different people see different things even when looking at the same object at the same time, which is a big part of what this thread is about. Because he knew me, the ESTp understood how I was from my perspective - happy and giving - but he also had the (as I see it in hindsight) Ti-Fe perspective as described here and because of that also saw me as being withdrawn, shy, and weak. He believed other people, particularly the ones for whom my job was meant, saw me that way, too, and that was unacceptable to him. I needed to change "reality."


But I'm not sure that has much to do with how I don't consider myself an exemplary discerner of character and how placing such an expectation on me seems a bit unfair and frightening.

[marooned]

bah

[xyz]

Is saw what you deleted Loki. I liked it better

[marooned]

Is saw what you deleted Loki. I liked it better

Well, Carla deleted what I was quoting... so I had to in turn delete my quoting her... I do not like to quote things others have deleted, because it holds them in place when they shouldn't exist anymore.

[xyz]

Let us never speak of this ill again.

[marooned]

Do you want me to delete what your quote, too?

What? No. I don't care either way.

[Phaedrus]

I think it might be best to say that perception in part defines our reality.

An typical illustration of the differences. To say that "perception in part defines our reality" or "perception is reality" (or something similar to those phrases) is unacceptable from a Te perspective.

[Warlord]

You once said in a past discussion that the ILI thrives in vagueness of what you said, as it allows you to be better debaters. Now you claim that ILIs say what they mean and that they hate such vagueness?

Vagueness of creating a model of the universe and the parts that it consist of inside your head is a different thing. And the goal would be to sharpen that model. So there I meant molding the underlying models relating to the issue being discussed. But vagueness in communication hampers mutual understanding. All communication shouldn't be about winning debates. Se+Ti's often win arguments purely by non-verbal means

Also it's entirely possible that I just disagree with myself

Should I call useless, worthless, and stupid just because I myself do not place much focus or attention on it? If I cannot "read" it, does that mean that my actions do not contain or affect the sense of in others?

By all means if you want to. I think overall you are taking the functions too personally. If you didn't know about socionics, my guess is that you would agree with me. I'd say that the LII's I know irl would agree with me. They don't know they are supposed to like things related to Fe, it's entirely unconscious for them.

You probably are better at Fi than me, we just value it differently.

I cannot draw or paint well, nor do I particularly like going to art museums, but that does not mean that I think that art is something the world would be better without or that art is not meaningful. And the same holds true in the case of body language, non-verbal communication, and tone of voice.

And in performance arts body language and tone of voice are key elements. But the function of art is different, than reaching efficience in communication.

[Warlord]

I think that Fe/Ti types may communicate somewhat differently… I generally like it when people read between the lines of what I say. In person my way of communicating is less direct… I don’t generally care as much about which words I use as long as the meaning gets communicated… When I care to, I do try to say what I mean, but sometimes I can’t seem to express it adequately. When someone else tries to read between the lines of what I say (or analyze it) and find my meaning, this is extremely helpful to me. Fe/Ti logical types tend to be more sensitive to the meaning behind your words, and won’t discount what you’re trying to say because you haven’t been able to precisely state it in the precisely correct words. They don’t invalidate your Fe perception and I find this very helpful. If their analysis of your Fe perception informs them that it’s way off the mark, they’ll explain why. I don’t expect people to do this—the burden of expressing what I mean when I care to fully rests on me. It just takes more effort to get it across to some people than it does to others (which probably happens with everyone).

So the humankind is held back by your inability to speak Evolve, it's time to move away from smoke signals to digital high definition!

Also I find it difficult to formulate my toughts to speech, but I don't blame other people for my failures. You aren't doing that either, but some people do.

[Logos]

Vagueness of creating a model of the universe and the parts that it consist of inside your head is a different thing. And the goal would be to sharpen that model. So there I meant molding the underlying models relating to the issue being discussed. But vagueness in communication hampers mutual understanding. All communication shouldn't be about winning debates. Se+Ti's often win arguments purely by non-verbal means

Also it's entirely possible that I just disagree with myself

By all means if you want to. I think overall you are taking the functions too personally. If you didn't know about socionics, my guess is that you would agree with me. I'd say that the LII's I know irl would agree with me. They don't know they are supposed to like things related to Fe, it's entirely unconscious for them.

You probably are better at Fi than me, we just value it differently.

But I have no real reason to do so, because I recognize that it is an essential component of human relations. It is in my role-function, so for me it is more of a social ritual. I greatly appreciate since it is an aspect of , and I greatly appreciate as it is an aspect of . I do not think that I devalue these functions, but they are not where my concern is focused. If they are aspects of reality, then why should I devalue or ignore all functions that form a full spectrum?

And in performance arts body language and tone of voice are key elements. But the function of art is different, than reaching efficience in communication.

But is the goal of communication efficiency or understanding and meaning? (And I was not really talking about performance arts, but just the "drawing and painting" art mentioned in the prior clause.)

Fair enough.

That's the sort of thing that I almost expect -- for example I think that strangers and acquaintances are justified in ignoring me or not taking my advice because I haven't given them any reason to trust them yet, and I treat other people in pretty much the same way so I probably hurt a lot of people like you without intending to do so.

On the other hand, it particularly hurts if someone who should trust me discounts what I have to say just because they don't like it or I didn't make it pretty enough or whatever. (For example -- you tell someone you love them but they don't believe you because you're not "passionate" about it or whatever the fuck).

Fair enough.

[marooned]

So the humankind is held back by your inability to speak Evolve, it's time to move away from smoke signals to digital high definition!

GRR!

[aestrivex]

It probably works on ILEs. Just don't say that to me, should we one day end up in a romantic relationship.

i don't think dolphin is particularly interested in women.

[Warlord]

But is the goal of communication efficiency or understanding and meaning?

I see communication as information exchange. And I can't see how anything else could have any importance than the efficiency of the net gain of information between the two information systems.

[discojoe]

Well what the fuck happened here.

[Logos]

Well what the fuck happened here.

I happened.

[Phaedrus]

According to Julian Barbour, nothing happened.

[Expat]

This is not an issue about vs. , or the development of "robotic" Gamma relationships, or Expat's Alpha parents, but of language. If your parents are not saying what they mean to each other there may be a problem, but just because you say what you mean does not mean that there is not one. Nor should you necessarily assume "it's a Gamma or Alpha thing," when the dynamics of reality reveal themselves to be far more complex than how we want them to be.

Well fair enough, things are always more complex than they may seem when we try to explain them in a few paragraphs in socionics; but, still, from my point of view, I think there is a difference (as would be expected, imo) between how Gammas and Alphas, in a longer-term close relationship, tend to use the tools of language that are available to them.

[Expat]

I'm reconsidering this now. I think I might be Te/Fi.

This may sound self-serving, but I just thought of something.

I'd expect the Ti and Fi PoLR types - SLE, ILE, SEE, IEE - to have the most difficulty with this concept, for this reason -- SLEs and ILEs tend to use Ti as a replacement for Fi; and the other way around for SEEs and IEEs.

In other words, they have one "over-used" and another "under-used" filter. SLEs and ILEs will have the most difficulty even seeing the point of using the Fi filter, and SEEs and IEEs, of using the Ti filter.

To these four types I say, "yeah, some people are indeed as crazy as that".

[mm]

You do imply, though, that there is always something between the lines that the person is trying to convey. Believe me if I say that the majority of - for example - my posts do not have this as a component.

There *always* is But you guys are seeing it too narrowly, I think. You only seem to consider the case of saying one thing, but meaning something else, which is actually quite rare I'd say. In the majority of the cases, what someone says, their body language and what can be read between the lines is complementary and fits nicely together. For instance, what I read between the lines in your post, actually I would say, the feel I get from your post is (expressed in words) neutral, with a pinch of unfamiliarity (with the concept) or uncomfortableness (with the idea of someone reading between the lines).

I think it does speak volumes, however I would hesitate to say it speaks volumes about what they mean. I will give you an example related to myself (hoping not to appear too boastful): most of the times my intonation, my gestures, my expressions and how many pauses I make while speaking are related to only one variable: how tired I am. By no means this reveals my attitude towards the person I'm speaking to - sometimes I might be slightly indifferent when speaking to a good friend of mine simply because I biked 150 kms the same day.

Good Fe-Ti use figures that out. Fe-Ti looks for which hypotheses can be trusted (Ti) to explain Fe behaviour, whereas Te-Fi, if I understand this thread correctly, looks for which people or, in general, information sources, can be trusted (Fi) to explain Te behaviour. Problems between Te-Fi and Fe-Ti happen when Fi or Ti try to take shortcuts. The other will see that as being prejudiced and finds that annoying. Say, in the case of Ti, your being indifferent means you don't care for me very much, because that's what it often means with other people. Or, in the case of Fi, I don't trust you on this, because you look like this other guy that turned out untrustworthy.

[Expat]

Good Fe-Ti use figures that out. Fe-Ti looks for which hypotheses can be trusted (Ti) to explain Fe behaviour, whereas Te-Fi, if I understand this thread correctly, looks for which people or, in general, information sources, can be trusted (Fi) to explain Te behaviour.

Well, I used "information sources" to generalize, but I think "people" makes sense in most cases as far as Fi is concerned. I think it's also easier to understand.

But it's not about explaining Te behavior -- Fi says, "from this one person I can take that behavior as given, or at least I understand how to process it".

Problems between Te-Fi and Fe-Ti happen when Fi or Ti try to take shortcuts. The other will see that as being prejudiced and finds that annoying. Say, in the case of Ti, your being indifferent means you don't care for me very much, because that's what it often means with other people.

Yes, that's how I see it.

Or, in the case of Fi, I don't trust you on this, because you look like this other guy that turned out untrustworthy.

Oh no, not at all -- that's not how I see it at all. That's Ti, not Fi. Fi is an individual thing. Everyone - also Fi types - may, of course, go for such impressions like "you look like this other guy", but that's not Fi.

Fi is about, "I see in you character traits that tell me that I can trust you". Those character traits are Fi criteria.

[mm]

But it's not about explaining Te behavior -- Fi says, "from this one person I can take that behavior as given, or at least I understand how to process it".

I'm having difficulty understanding this. Could the reason you put it this way be related to the fact you are an accepting Te/Fi type? Because when Niffweed for instance says something along the lines of: "You're not making much sense trying to explain this or that," it does seem as if he sees people as capable to explain something or not.

Personally I'd also say I use Ti to try and make sense of Fe.

I can sort of see why accepting types would see Ti/Fe or Fi/Te as a given though, but it's kind of hard to imagine how it would feel to be like that.

Or, in the case of Fi, I don't trust you on this, because you look like this other guy that turned out untrustworthy.

Oh no, not at all -- that's not how I see it at all. That's Ti, not Fi. Fi is an individual thing. Everyone - also Fi types - may, of course, go for such impressions like "you look like this other guy", but that's not Fi.

Fi is about, "I see in you character traits that tell me that I can trust you". Those character traits are Fi criteria.

Ok, yes, agreed. But what would be a good example of an Fi prejudice?

[mm]

An typical illustration of the differences. To say that "perception in part defines our reality" or "perception is reality" (or something similar to those phrases) is unacceptable from a Te perspective.

I wonder what other Te types think of this, because I don't think it's true. I don't think Te types would deny it. I don't think they would have a problem with going with what is useful as currently perceived or something.

[FDG]

There *always* is But you guys are seeing it too narrowly, I think. You only seem to consider the case of saying one thing, but meaning something else, which is actually quite rare I'd say. In the majority of the cases, what someone says, their body language and what can be read between the lines is complementary and fits nicely together. For instance, what I read between the lines in your post, actually I would say, the feel I get from your post is (expressed in words) neutral, with a pinch of unfamiliarity (with the concept) or uncomfortableness (with the idea of someone reading between the lines).

True; I think we are concentrating on the case in which there's a mismatch because that's the one that causes the most trouble generally speaking.

Good Fe-Ti use figures that out. Fe-Ti looks for which hypotheses can be trusted (Ti) to explain Fe behaviour, whereas Te-Fi, if I understand this thread correctly, looks for which people or, in general, information sources, can be trusted (Fi) to explain Te behaviour. Problems between Te-Fi and Fe-Ti happen when Fi or Ti try to take shortcuts. The other will see that as being prejudiced and finds that annoying. Say, in the case of Ti, your being indifferent means you don't care for me very much, because that's what it often means with other people. Or, in the case of Fi, I don't trust you on this, because you look like this other guy that turned out untrustworthy.

Sounds good.

[mm]

You can’t escape Fe so easily! For instance, I can read between the lines with content alone without even seeing another person... like on this forum (it’s all written communication… aside from the images and youtube videos). And I think it still has a lot to do with Fe. Every post I read, information about its tone, possible hidden meanings, attitude of the poster, possible feelings behind the post, etc. naturally just pop into my mind. It's not that I try to do this. I can't help it. I analyze what comes into my head and try to sort out what it likely is from what it likely is not (something that can be difficult online at times because I can't see the person's face, hear their voice, etc.). This becomes more automatic with the more I know about the person posting, and the more I start to see trends in what they say/express, and other connections.

I'm sooo very much the same. A little scary actually.

I feel that sometimes Fi/Te logical types discount this sort of information as meaningless or irrelevant, which is essentially like telling me that my perception is invalid. I think that Fi/Te logical types don’t trust information about the Fe aspect of reality as much (because Fe is not one of their strong suits). And that is perfectly understandable. But that doesn’t mean Fe information is in any way irrelevant, or that there aren’t Fe/Ti valuing sorts that are good at interpreting it.

I think, rather than not being one of their strong suits, they simply don't care about it that much. So, from Fe/Ti types they only tend to remember the failures and not the successes because they simply don't care about that kind of success.

In person my way of communicating is less direct… I don’t generally care as much about which words I use as long as the meaning gets communicated… When I care to, I do try to say what I mean, but sometimes I can’t seem to express it adequately.

When I can't seem to find the right word to express something I tend to list several words that approximate what I want to say and then expect the other person to make some sort of a cocktail from those words to get a feel of what I'm trying to get at.

[FDG]

I think, rather than not being one of their strong suits, they simply don't care about it that much. So, from Fe/Ti types they only tend to remember the failures and not the successes because they simply don't care about that kind of success.

I personally can admire the usage of the Fe-Ti axis from afar. I am not good at personally dealing with it, probably, which means that having at very close psychological distance too many people that valued and used those functions would cause me distress. However, generally speaking obviously every function has its use and it's exactly as good as every other function.

[Logos]

Oh no, not at all -- that's not how I see it at all. That's Ti, not Fi. Fi is an individual thing. Everyone - also Fi types - may, of course, go for such impressions like "you look like this other guy", but that's not Fi.

How is that Ti? And is Fi always individualistic in this manner? Could this not be a Democrat/Aristocrat thing?

An typical illustration of the differences. To say that "perception in part defines our reality" or "perception is reality" (or something similar to those phrases) is unacceptable from a Te perspective.

Man is the measure of all things, and so I fail to see how you could not say that our perceptions and natures define our reality. Even Kant discusses it in a way that more than satisfied the Empirical school of thought. In fact, Kant essentially corrected the Empiricists and hit them with a 100 ton reality check.