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

[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.

Just to clarify myself here a bit:

Does accepting Te/Fi tell you what you can expect from someone?
Does producing Te/Fi tell you if someone can explain something?

[mm]

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.

How is that Ti?

I guess the word "look" is sort of ambiguous.

[Logos]

I guess the word "look" is sort of ambiguous.

But wouldn't "look" be more about for actual physical appearance or for perhaps essence of association?

[Phaedrus]

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.

As I said, I think it is a nice illustration of the type differences along the Te/Ti axis. We have been discussing this before, and there is no point in debating once again (at least not here) which perspective is the correct one (or if it even makes sense to talk about "correctness" in an "objective" sense). But we can agree that we really have fundamentally different perspectives, and that we may never fully understand how it is possible to take the opposite perspective seriously.

I have yet to meet an LII that agrees with my ("objective") perspective on this. And I have yet to meet an LIE or an ILI that clearly disagrees with it. People dismiss my thesis that types (at least LIIs) tend to be subjectivists (relativists), and that types (especially LIEs and the ILIs I have met, including me) tend to be objectivists (believing in the existence of an external world and objective truths), but no one has falsified it yet. What I see over and over again is instead that it seems to be correct, because it only gets more and more corroborated.

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.

I am not satisfied with Kant's take on it, and I believe that Kant's approach and his solution(s) are fundamentally wrong. I am not alone in thinking so. While most empiricists (including me) have great respect for Kant, our perspective is not really compatible with his.

Kant's perspective is, essentially, idealist. And empiricism is, essentially, realist. The line between these two, mutually opposed and fundamentally incompatible, approaches is somewhat blurred in some cases, but you can almost always see a clear tendency towards one of the poles.

A thinker like Karl Popper is influenced by Kant, but he is still a realist both in spirit and in the content of his philosophy. And in modern thinkers you often see, along with their empirical investigations, a tendency to adopt either postmodernist/relativistic theories of some sort, or conspiracy theories like for example Noam Chomsky's -- all of which illustrate the thinker's fundamental attraction to an idealist world outlook.

[Park]

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.

I don't know what lies behind this but I behave exactly like that very often as well.

[Expat]

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

You're right, it's not just . It's more blocked with , which is one of the definitions of Aristocracy. putting into a logical structure the result of observations of real characteristics.

As for : my understanding is that it's indeed individualistic, in its "pure" form as a function; obviously types, and individuals, will also use non-individualistic associations.

[Expat]

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.

I don't think the accepting/producing thing helps here. And of course I can also make sense of what someone is trying to explain or not. I can also see, even from people I trust "blindly", that sometimes they are not making sense.

The difference I see is that, sometimes I will have to rely on someone else's Te, "blindly", and in that case it is Fi that tells me whom I should trust more or not.

As in below:

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

A Fi prejudice is simply deciding whom to trust or not.

For instance, I ask a general question in this forum -- for instance, say, what's the best way to get from JFK airport to Manhattan. A resident from NYC replies. But I'm not sure whether to use it or not, because according to my Fi that poster is an asshole. Then, later, another resident from NYC gives a somewhat different reply. But my Fi had already told me that that second poster is a good person. So I will follow the suggestion of the second poster, not the first. Even if, objectively speaking, it's of course possible that the suggestion of the first poster was more correct than that of the second.

Now, of course, that case is valid because I have no independent idea of the best way to get from the airport into Manhattan.

[Ms. Kensington]

I would be angry if someone discounted what I said because of tone/body language/etc.. Obviously I don't expect them to ignore the other information, but there is little that is more infuriating than being told that "you're only saying that because you're upset" or some other bullshit (from my perspective) like that.

would you be (as) upset if someone said, "are you sure?" or "can we talk about this when you've/we've/i've had a chance too cool down? I'm upset/don't feel well"? Surely you would both agree that people can act in ways that they normally would not in times of great emotion. Noone can be completely unaffected by emotion.

[Ms. Kensington]

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.

well this confuses me. i suppose you don't count meaning as information, or what art communicates to be information, but to me something is being exchanged in these situations. I think once you go beyond one to one communication than your point starts to make more sense. I think this puts me in the Ti and Fe category in that I am showing some "distrust" in the meanings of words matching what a person actually means, even though in many cases it does. (it's times like these that I really wonder what it is to Ni and know things without factual information exchange, in Te Ni types). I do have trouble understanding how someone could say that there is no other way that a factual statement can be interpreted in a one to one conversation (and so the level of efficiency couldn't really be guaranteed).

Yes, I do relate to thinking, as Expat said, that only trusting some people (to me an arbitrary process) is not easily understood, precisely because information about the external world IS objective (and it shouldn't matter where it is coming from). That's why I am confused. I'm having trouble keeping in the same place the idea that you, Warlord, are saying that information exchange is (the only thing) that which Te and Fi types do, and what Expat says in that Fi determines through (as of yet undefined means, sorry if it has been defined) which people's information is objective. The question is why would that even be necessary if everything a person said was factual in nature? Like If I was singing a song, scat singing, or speaking a language that you didn't understand, or was crying, would your Fi stop working? maybe the evaluation of whether or not to trust someone would stop. Well what if i was a mute with no arms? Maybe I would just be considered useless, if not untrustworthy? I think here it's clear that they are just different kinds of information that are being paid attention to. So.. I think you will agree with that.

I do think that's what it comes down to, but I think I could use some more explanation.. so maybe Warlord or someone else could explain the lack of interpretation that goes on with Fi/Te types. How is it that no mistakes in interpretation of a statement happen?

[Expat]

[Phaedrus]'s behaving in a Fe-Ti way even as he says "I am Fi-Te".

I'm a bit slow, I wonder if you could explain this? Though I understand why you might not want to, so its okay if you don't.

My Fi filters out individuals whom I, according to my own criteria, see as having a bad character, and/or with whom it is pointless to have meaningful discussions, and/or whose knowledge of socionics is so twisted, yet they are persuaded of being right, that it's again pointless to have discussions with, in my view. Such individuals - for one or more of the reasons just listed - include the people I have on ignore (including Phaedrus), the core socionix gang, and one or two people here whom I basically pay little attention to, but see as rather harmless.

Of course not everything such individuals say about socionics will be wrong (the "broken-clock rule") but, having made this judgement about them, I'd consider as hypocritical, then, to use them as references to back up my views, whenever it suited me, as in "I still think he's an idiot, but I will quote him because here he happened to support my views. But he's still an idiot." If I did something like that, I'd either be apologetic about it, or admit that my judgement had been wrong.

This is "judgemental", "narrow-minded", and "bitchy". Yes: that's how I see the Fi filter in operation.

Phaedrus - by his own actions and words - does the precise opposite: his view of me, as I understand it, is that I very often mistype people, that I am stupid and irritating, and that my quadra-first criteria for typing is all wrong. I'm even as arrogant, and insulting, to dismiss his own self-typing, and of other people.

What's the first thing Phaedrus does when seeing this thread? He says, "Expat's analysis is right, and I am Fi-Te according to it, and I am ILI according to all his previous tests". If I'm so wrong about socionics, why does he think it's important to use me as reference?

He does not use Fi to filter people out; he uses Ti to filter out what makes sense to him or not. He will quote everything and everyone - and he has said as much - as long as it supports his own views, especially his own typing as ILI: he will shamelessly quote myself, Rick, Smilingeyes, tcaudilllg, Lytov, any description he can find - while in the same breath saying that a lot of their views are rubbish.

He's "open-minded" as to whom he asks for information, but "narrow-minded" as to how he makes that information fit his own logical understanding.

A Ti filter, not a Fi one.

And I think he won't even see the point of the Fi filter "side".

My apologies to the Fe-Ti folks: I don't think Phaedrus is a typical example.

[Expat]

I do think that's what it comes down to, but I think I could use some more explanation.. so maybe Warlord or someone else could explain the lack of interpretation that goes on with Fi/Te types. How is it that no mistakes in interpretation of a statement happen?

There is no "pure" Fi-Te interaction, as there is no "pure" Fe-Ti interaction; that's why I find that kind of question, "no mistakes", unhelpful. There will always be mistakes, just like Fe's "reading between the lines" also makes mistakes.

The way it works, as I see it, is: you eventually decide, or conclude, that you make very few mistakes when interacting with a particular person. But of course there will be mistakes, and of course you may have been wrong in with your whole judgement in the first place: you realize that, actually, you were making a lot of mistakes when you thought you were making very few. That's when "rebooting" the filter is necessary, which may include cutting the person off completely.

[Expat]

Also, the way I see it, it's what explains the Fi-Te inclination for being skeptical of people at first, only trusting them later -- and the cliche, "not making friends easily, but a friend is then for life". It's the Fi filter needing time to "callibrate", which is a lengthy (and imperfect) process.

Which is, by the way, precisely the same thing I said with my previous metaphor of Fi as "laser beams".

[iAnnAu]

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."

GAH! I hate this kind of shit!
This is one of the biggest reasons I've had so few female friends and lovers!
Also a big reason why my was-band is an ex: not enough external communication of internal states to correspond with the expectation of awareness of those internal states.

I agree that body language conveys a lot in one-on-one interaction. But I doubt that verbal communication forms only 7% of transmitted information. What I would say is that the significance of nonverbal cues differs according to the situation. If I'm discussing a project facing a tight deadline at work, I'm going to be as factual and nonemotional as I can manage so that I can get to the fucking point. If I'm talking to my aunt for the first time in 5 years and we're at a her husband's funeral, there's probably not much point in trying to transmit factual data through my words (BTW, it took me some awkward experiences to figure that out!).
So can we get over the statistics in discussing the importance of nonverbal cues, guys? (<- and to think I used to disdain smilies)

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus - by his own actions and words - does the precise opposite: his view of me, as I understand it, is that I very often mistype people, that I am stupid and irritating, and that my quadra-first criteria for typing is all wrong. I'm even as arrogant, and insulting, to dismiss his own self-typing, and of other people.

What's the first thing Phaedrus does when seeing this thread? He says, "Expat's analysis is right, and I am Fi-Te according to it, and I am ILI according to all his previous tests". If I'm so wrong about socionics, why does he think it's important to use me as reference?

Because I want you to realize that according to almost every single one of your standards for typing people, I am unquestionably a Gamma ILI and no other type.

And the reason I find this irritating is not that you are stupid and irritating in general, but that you in some very specific and rather limited respects act in a stupid and irritating way. As a matter of fact, you don't mistype people very often (at least not as far as I can judge), and we seem to agree on a lot of things, including the types of people, more often than not.

I know for certain that I am an ILI, and that's why I so strongly want to understand how it is possible that you can make the mistake of believing that I am an Ti-Fe type of some sort, most likely IEI, if I am correctly informed. Of course I want to correct such a mistake, because if we don't correct it, people will continue to make mistypings of other people as well, perhaps as a result of the false belief that your analysis of my behaviour is correct.

He will quote everything and everyone - and he has said as much - as long as it supports his own views, especially his own typing as ILI: he will shamelessly quote myself, Rick, Smilingeyes, tcaudilllg, Lytov, any description he can find - while in the same breath saying that a lot of their views are rubbish.

The behaviour you describe here, and which you attribute to me, is also described in the ILI type profiles. So, if you think that it suggests another type than ILI, you are also criticizing the ILI type profiles for being wrong and giving us an incorrect picture of the ILI type in general.

Of course you might be right about the ILI profiles, that they are misleading and incorrect in that respect, but if so, we have an extremely important task in front of us -- a problem that we should start to deal with as soon as possible, because it has revolutionary consequenses. If the ILI type profiles are wrong, they should be corrected, and our general understanding of the types need to be corrected too. If you are right, and we can prove convincingly that you really are right about it, we will have managed to prove what I have said all along is the inevitable consequence if I am not an ILI -- that there are contradictions in the theory of Socionics.

On the other hand, if there are no fundamental contradictions in Socionics, then your analysis of my type is necessarily incorrect. That is still the most likely hypothesis, and every serious scientist must preliminary assume that it is, because that explanation is more simple than the the explanation that has as one of its necessary premises that the Socionics model is logically inconsistent. But I think it would be much more interesting if you are right and the writers of the ILI type profiles are wrong. Let's find out if they are wrong, or if you are wrong. It's a win-win situation, because either way we will enhance our understanding of the types and Socionics in general.

[marooned]

I don’t really know about all of this anymore. For instance pulling from the example that someone is pausing a lot in their speech because they are tired and just ran a zillion miles… Thinking back on conversing with them, I would recall “so and so was tired when I talked to him/her,” and most of the rest of what I would recall would be the images going through my mind as s/he talked, or realizations I made while listening, or things I’d already realized that had been brought up again, or the overall essence or meaning of what was being conveyed (without necessarily remembering specific details), or what I was thinking and what new things I discovered about the other person. I might have a few flashes of memory of their expressions or movements, but not many… and the ones I would remember would often be significant in some way (which is why I’m guessing that information told me something about the person’s feelings or meaning at the time… because I do remember it). I think I might be more likely to pay a little more attention to this stuff if the person is suddenly acting out of the expected pattern, or not following any of the patterns of behavior I seem to have subconsciously noted in them before… then I’ll want to know why this new interesting element has developed and modify my overall understanding of them accordingly (or something). But even that sounds too choppy. All of this stuff just happens automatically, it flows easily in a very fluid way, and I just “follow along.” I just let it soak into my mind and it’s usually pretty accurate because interaction with others in reality proceeds similarly to how I anticipated… If it doesn’t then I learn something new and it's interesting. In this way, I seem to have little conscious awareness of anyone's "body language." I'm not even sure how much I'm even looking at people when they're talking. Maybe we all just kind of do something similar.

[Expat]

All of this stuff just happens automatically, it flows easily in a very fluid way, and I just “follow along.” I just let it soak into my mind and it’s usually pretty accurate because interaction with others in reality proceeds similarly to how I anticipated… If it doesn’t then I learn something new and it's interesting. In this way, I seem to have little conscious awareness of anyone's "body language." I'm not even sure how much I'm even looking at people when they're talking. Maybe we all just kind of do something similar.

Is it perhaps just like reading something in a language you understand (like, heh, English)? We don't really think anymore, "b+a=ba" as we read it; it just flows, easily. So you just have your "antennae" tuned in to the body language, to the wavelength rather than to the wavelength.

[Expat]

Yes, I do relate to thinking, as Expat said, that only trusting some people (to me an arbitrary process) is not easily understood, precisely because information about the external world IS objective (and it shouldn't matter where it is coming from). That's why I am confused.

Yes, it shouldn't. But aren't there also people who will give you erroneous information, out of bad intent or out of ignorance?

I'm having trouble keeping in the same place the idea that you, Warlord, are saying that information exchange is (the only thing) that which Te and Fi types do, and what Expat says in that Fi determines through (as of yet undefined means, sorry if it has been defined) which people's information is objective.

The means are Fi means, your own internal judgement of whether you can trust that individual or not, for that kind of information.

The question is why would that even be necessary if everything a person said was factual in nature? Like If I was singing a song, scat singing, or speaking a language that you didn't understand, or was crying, would your Fi stop working?

Not stop working, but it would not be concerned since the information is obviously useless from the point of view of Te. Hmm, so, perhaps, "stop working" is accurate.

Well what if i was a mute with no arms? Maybe I would just be considered useless, if not untrustworthy? I think here it's clear that they are just different kinds of information that are being paid attention to. So.. I think you will agree with that.

I don't see that as relevant. If you can communicate with the person at all, there is exchange of information, of whichever kind.

[mm]

I don't think the accepting/producing thing helps here. And of course I can also make sense of what someone is trying to explain or not. I can also see, even from people I trust "blindly", that sometimes they are not making sense.

The difference I see is that, sometimes I will have to rely on someone else's Te, "blindly", and in that case it is Fi that tells me whom I should trust more or not.

See, for me Ni/Se plays that role. Sometimes I rely on Ni blindly and Se provides me with reality checks and orientation. Whereas I see Fe/Ti as my own personal interpretation or someone else's personal interpretation that I want to check how it compares to mine. In my view, Fe/Ti is whatever I or someone else makes it to be, but of course normally I'll want to make it as accurate as possible.

For EIE it's the other way around. They feel confident in interfering with where things are going (if I understand Kristiina correctly in some other thread), which is Ni/Se. When interacting with a group they see Ni/Se as their own and other people's personal input and the longer lasting effects of that.

This explains why when I'm talking to EIEs, we always end up checking and correcting each other (which is kind of exciting and tiring at the same time). We don't take each other's base function as given, but as personal interpretation and so we keep checking how it compares to our own and whether it's correct or not according to our own view.

So I do think the distinction between Rational and Irrational types is important when comparing Fe/Ti with Te/Fi types. But I would like to see Niffweed's opinion on this for the Te/Fi case.

(somewhat later)

Personally I don't like going blind on Fe, so I would never talk about it that way. For instance when somebody calls for advice and I have to go only on what they tell of some situation without me having it experienced as well, I tend to add plenty of disclaimers and make sure that whatever they do with my interpretation and advice is ultimately their own decision and responsibility. With Ni I don't have that hesitation, for instance when someone asks me what could happen in a particular situation, I'm happy to go with their definition of that situation.

[aestrivex]

So I do think the distinction between Rational and Irrational types is important when comparing Fe/Ti with Te/Fi types. But I would like to see Niffweed's opinion on this for the Te/Fi case.

if you're referencing your own post, i'll be frank: i don't understand what it has to do with the Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe axial divide that expat is making in this thread.

essentially, do i agree with expat's assessment? yes, although there are some differences between the way i react towards people with bad information than the way that he described.

for example, the perfect example here is in relation to people who discuss socionics. essentially every case is different, but there are some definite trends as to what i think of some of the people wandering around here. first of all, there are people like machintruc, hitta, dioklecian, phaedrus, etc. in short, these people's interpretations of socionics are so braindead and illogically-minded that they have a marked tendency to piss me off, but i wouldn't dream of taking anything that any of them has to say on the topic of socionics with any degree of seriousness. however, it's not necessarily something that i would consider to be a very definite thing (as in, i hereby decide that i will never ever listen to anything that these people say). rather, i have already decided that these people have no idea what they're talking about, and so i might decide to read what they have to say once in a while, but i consider it unlikely that they'll say something intelligent with which i might be able to integrate my understanding.

then there are other people, like ashton. in terms of the way that the "Te filter" works, ashton is probably very similar, because although i would distinguish ashton's theory as about 30% of the time being comprehensibly similar to something i know as socionics (as opposed to hitta's 0%). even so, i'm liable to not take things that he says very seriously, although to be perfectly honest there have been concepts of socionics that i've discussed with either ashton or steve which i've integrated into my own understanding, because those particular concepts make sense to me given my prior understanding of the nature of information metabolism.

as far as simply rejecting people on the basis of who they are: i think that i might do this to an extent. for example, if you consider people whose understanding of socionics i have rejected, i often have very little respect for these people. people who i have absolutely zero respect for in and around the socionics community include the following: jadae, cogsci, machintruc, hugo, dioklecian. for all of these people, in addition to sometimes possessing poor understandings of socionics, they're all total assholes. there are numerous other people for whom my respect is highly minimal, but i would still distinguish between respecting them on an intellectual and personal level. most of the people who i truly despise here i perceive as assholes or jerks as well as idiots.

one interesting thing is that i find hitta extremely easy to ignore. perhaps this is because i understand a lot of where his understanding has gone wrong and i have just no interest in further considering it. but it also may have to do with the fact that i don't perceive him as personally threatening or a jerk; rather, i just see him as a moron on an intellectual level.

one of the things that expat is saying that i'm not sure i really resonate with is this thing about not accepting the time of day from people that one doesn't respect. if i had reason to believe that somebody would lie to me about the time of the day, i wouldn't ask them, but most people probably have no reason to do that. so, to use expat's example, if i needed to know how to get from JFK airport to manhattan, asking the first stranger on the street would not be a problem. if there were no strangers and i had to ask somebody i knew that i didn't respect, however, i'd probably ask them anyway. and i don't think it would present a problem. but it would also depend on my understanding and impressions of the particular person involved (for example: i would not trust dioklecian or hugo with that kind of a question. i think dioklecian and hugo are both complete jerks and would probably not even consent to answer my question, knowing that i was the person posing it. from them, i think it's equally likely that the answer would be intentionally misleading than honest. however, from ashton, who i don't really think is that much of a jerk, or from cogsci, who i think is a total jerk, i'd trust their responses to a simple factual question of "how do i get from point A to point B?").

incidentally, the best way to get from JFK to manhattan depends on your goals. if you want to get there quickly, have a friend pick you up. if that's impossible, take a cab (which has with it a flat fare of $50 or so -- i think, maybe it's to JFK that there's a flat fare.) however, if time is not an issue, take the subway. if you don't care, take the airtrain to federal circle and then walk to the A train; you'll save the 5 or so dollars that the airtrain rips off of subway riders. otherwise, if you're not industrious enough to save money in that way, the subway is your best bet, but it will take you a while to get where you're going. depending on the way that the trains are running at the time, the best thing to do may be to take the A to broadway junction and hop on the J/M/L from there. of course, it depends where you want to go.

so, anyway: are such differences related to irrationality? i don't know about that; you be the judge.

[Expat]

niffweed's understanding, as stated, is very close or even identical to my own (not necessarily so regarding the opinions on some individuals, but even there the overlap is large). I see no real disagreement.

Thanks for the information regarding JFK to Manhattan, btw. $50 flat fare? That's &#163;25. In London, you would barely get outside Heathrow with that, let alone drive into town.

[aestrivex]

well i don't know. i think i did take a cab from JFK once, but i don't remember the circumstances behind it.

to see why i've so infrequently taken cabs, compare the following:

cab = $50 flat fare.
train = $2 flat fare + $5 airtrain (circumventable by getting out and walking from federal circle) = $7 flat fare.

[Expat]

as for Ti "narrow-minding" "chaotic" or perhaps "cunning" (as i thought you put it) information intake is quite unclear. i think it's better to say: Ti narrow-minding Te rather. if to symmetrize with the Fi-Te bit of yours, maybe it would look something like: Ti sort of zooms in according to some pre-set formally logical reason or order, on a chaotic dynamics, e.g. someone's emotional behavior, to then extract a behavioral model out of it or smth.

I think that's a very specific use, or manifestation, of Fe.

If you say that it is Ti that "narrow-minds Te", so Te would be the main source of external input for Fe-Ti types, then what about the Te PoLR types, SEI and IEI? They'd be close to "pure introverts", that is, their Ti - also not a strong function - would "zoom in" input from an even weaker function, Te? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[mm]

Thanks. For the record, I agree with what Expat has written too. But I was sort of taken by surprise when he corrected my view on Te/Fi, which was only wrong I think because I was too biased towards Irrational. So now I want to clear this up and figure out the little details I have no problem with splitting this off into a new thread if that would be better.

Anyway, as I understand Expat, he seems to want Fi to tell him which are good Te sources. I figure he needs the good Te to take the best actions and keep control over where things are going (Ni/Se). It's as if the world would be Te/Fi and he sees Te sources here and there, some good, some bad, but each with certain (hidden) traits that Fi tries to get a taste for and map to for instance reliability. What he wants from his dual is some help in picking up the Fi in that world, especially in places where he has no experience and doesn't know what to expect from someone for instance. Without his dual he'll want to aggregate lots of Te from many different sources to get a feel for what is reliable. With his dual he'd feel more comfortable skipping some sources thereby going a lot faster. It's a more passive (accepting) kind of attitude towards Te/Fi. His Te/Fi perception is like a compass he uses to orient himself, i.e. to guide his actions in an essentially Te/Fi world. (Is that at all correct?)

I would expect Niffweed to see Te/Fi somewhat differently, in the same way that I see Fe/Ti differently from an EIE. An EIE's strength is in seeing what kind of effects individual actions (Ni/Se), including their own, have on the emotional atmosphere, i.e. for them the world itself is Fe/Ti and their actions have longlasting effects on it. My IEI world on the other hand is Ni/Se, a world of impacts, tendencies and potential consequences. The strength of my Fe is therefore not in picking up *the* emotional atmosphere, but in picking up how everyone is individually impacted by it, that is how everybody personally interprets and responds to it. Or in this thread's terminology, my Fe's primary focus is not on what can generally be read between the lines of some message to get a feel of the emotional atmosphere, but rather on what everybody else individually tends to read between the lines in that message. The better I get to know someone, the better I can start to predict and anticipate their response (Ti comes into play here). And more, by talking in on them, I can have an effect on their disposition in a particular situation, without the situation itself, its emotional atmosphere, changing at all. So, Fe/Ti for me is not out there in the world, but exists only in my own and other people's heads.

Likewise, I think Niffweed would see Te/Fi more as personal interpretation too, but I don't fully get the Te/Fi combo yet apparently to see how exactly. I think he does see it that way though, because there's a subtle difference in the way the two of you express yourself. Expat seems to say "that other guy is an asshole". And Niffweed seems more inclined to say "I consider him an asshole". Another thing maybe is that he probably doesn't want his dual to pick up Fi for him, but rather wants him to double-check his Fi, keep an eye on it, maybe fill-in missing bits, in other words more of a teaching kind of attitude towards an Fi that wants to learn. (How high does this fly?)


If this sounds too much like gibberish, maybe I should try a different approach like, can you explain why LIE and ILI have a mirror relationship? Why does this happen:

They always have things to say on the same topics and easily come to a consensus, but at the same time put opposite emphasis on things, creating a revisionary effect. These relations are highly verbally oriented, with partners discussing their hobby topics (and avoiding most others) and revising and adding to each other's views. Partners tire from the discussionary nature of the relationship and try to separate for work and rest.

I'd say the revising nature is related to what I said above. LIE and ILI make different assumptions on what can be taken as a given in the world versus what is individual interpretation. They each have a different attitude towards Ni/Se and Te/Fi. So, when one speaks from his base function, the other is going to want to double-check and perhaps revise that since he assumes it's a potentially biased personal interpretation, which is basically what happened in Expat's reply above to Niffweed who's talking from Ni (?).

[aestrivex]

Thanks. For the record, I agree with what Expat has written too. But I was sort of taken by surprise when he corrected my view on Te/Fi, which was only wrong I think because I was too biased towards Irrational. So now I want to clear this up and figure out the little details I have no problem with splitting this off into a new thread if that would be better.

Anyway, as I understand Expat, he seems to want Fi to tell him which are good Te sources. I figure he needs the good Te to take the best actions and keep control over where things are going (Ni/Se). It's as if the world would be Te/Fi and he sees Te sources here and there, some good, some bad, but each with certain (hidden) traits that Fi tries to get a taste for and map to for instance reliability. What he wants from his dual is some help in picking up the Fi in that world, especially in places where he has no experience and doesn't know what to expect from someone for instance. Without his dual he'll want to aggregate lots of Te from many different sources to get a feel for what is reliable. With his dual he'd feel more comfortable skipping some sources thereby going a lot faster. It's a more passive (accepting) kind of attitude towards Te/Fi. His Te/Fi perception is like a compass he uses to orient himself, i.e. to guide his actions in an essentially Te/Fi world. (Is that at all correct?)

I would expect Niffweed to see Te/Fi somewhat differently, in the same way that I see Fe/Ti differently from an EIE. An EIE's strength is in seeing what kind of effects individual actions (Ni/Se), including their own, have on the emotional atmosphere, i.e. for them the world itself is Fe/Ti and their actions have longlasting effects on it. My IEI world on the other hand is Ni/Se, a world of impacts, tendencies and potential consequences. The strength of my Fe is therefore not in picking up *the* emotional atmosphere, but in picking up how everyone is individually impacted by it, that is how everybody personally interprets and responds to it. Or in this thread's terminology, my Fe's primary focus is not on what can generally be read between the lines of some message to get a feel of the emotional atmosphere, but rather on what everybody else individually tends to read between the lines in that message. The better I get to know someone, the better I can start to predict and anticipate their response (Ti comes into play here). And more, by talking in on them, I can have an effect on their disposition in a particular situation, without the situation itself, its emotional atmosphere, changing at all. So, Fe/Ti for me is not out there in the world, but exists only in my own and other people's heads.

Likewise, I think Niffweed would see Te/Fi more as personal interpretation too, but I don't fully get the Te/Fi combo yet apparently to see how exactly. I think he does see it that way though, because there's a subtle difference in the way the two of you express yourself. Expat seems to say "that other guy is an asshole". And Niffweed seems more inclined to say "I consider him an asshole". Another thing maybe is that he probably doesn't want his dual to pick up Fi for him, but rather wants him to double-check his Fi, keep an eye on it, maybe fill-in missing bits, in other words more of a teaching kind of attitude towards an Fi that wants to learn. (How high does this fly?)


If this sounds too much like gibberish, maybe I should try a different approach like, can you explain why LIE and ILI have a mirror relationship? Why does this happen:

I'd say the revising nature is related to what I said above. LIE and ILI make different assumptions on what can be taken as a given in the world versus what is individual interpretation. They each have a different attitude towards Ni/Se and Te/Fi. So, when one speaks from his base function, the other is going to want to double-check and perhaps revise that since he assumes it's a potentially biased personal interpretation, which is basically what happened in Expat's reply above to Niffweed who's talking from Ni (?).

IMO -- everything tangible that you actually pointed out represents a differences that appears pretty inconsequential from a perspective of how information manifests itself differently. like "i consider him an asshole" vs "he's an asshole" ... if anything, this might be reflective of differences in the way we communicate; i might not tend to talk in absolutes. it says nothing about the way that we really perceive it.

i think most of it looks speculative and contrived.

[Expat]

Anyway, as I understand Expat, he seems to want Fi to tell him which are good Te sources. I figure he needs the good Te to take the best actions and keep control over where things are going (Ni/Se). It's as if the world would be Te/Fi and he sees Te sources here and there, some good, some bad, but each with certain (hidden) traits that Fi tries to get a taste for and map to for instance reliability. What he wants from his dual is some help in picking up the Fi in that world, especially in places where he has no experience and doesn't know what to expect from someone for instance. Without his dual he'll want to aggregate lots of Te from many different sources to get a feel for what is reliable. With his dual he'd feel more comfortable skipping some sources thereby going a lot faster. It's a more passive (accepting) kind of attitude towards Te/Fi. His Te/Fi perception is like a compass he uses to orient himself, i.e. to guide his actions in an essentially Te/Fi world. (Is that at all correct?)

It's close. I'd say Te is not only my primary window to the world, is the foundation of my thinking. But with that there is an awareness that I get "bad Te" from a lot of sources (ie individuals). Often my own Te is enough to recognize bad Te for what it is; the bolded sentence is indeed close to it as Fi would then tell me whether or not the source (individual) is reliable, and a Fi-strong dual helps with that.

Also, in such situations: my Te will say "what he's telling me is nonsense; I'm surprised he doesn't know better". My dual's Fi might say, "no. It's not an honest mistake, he's lying".

I'd say the revising nature is related to what I said above. LIE and ILI make different assumptions on what can be taken as a given in the world versus what is individual interpretation. They each have a different attitude towards Ni/Se and Te/Fi. So, when one speaks from his base function, the other is going to want to double-check and perhaps revise that since he assumes it's a potentially biased personal interpretation, which is basically what happened in Expat's reply above to Niffweed who's talking from Ni (?).

I essentially agree with niffweed's reply, but I will add this -- in the cases relevant to this thread, I think the difference is the ILI's stronger confidence on Fi. The ILI is generally more "independent" than the LIE in terms of using his Fi filter to obtain his Te information; where he is more "dependent" on the dual is in terms of Se, that is, of actually doing something to "fulfull" Ni.


@niffweed: on this, I agree that my my Ni-Se "description" did not convey well what Ni and Se are as functions; but that wasn't the purpose of that thread since they have been described elsewhere. The purpose was to draw the line, even a simplistic one, into what divides Ne-Si and Se-Ni into two sides, just like Fe-Ti and Fi-Te here.

[dbmmama]

i read through the whole thread last night and although i can read between the lines very easily, i prefer the Fi/Te, according to these parameters. what expat's parents said to each other was gross, the exact opposite of what hubby and i do.

[Suomea]

...

[aestrivex]

Thanks for the Te...... Didn't know about the federal circle thing might try that out... though I think the E train is a little bit faster.... at least for where I want to go.

actually the station closest to the A is lefferts blvd. i've never actually tried it, but i know you can get out at any of the stations not immediately adjacent to a subway line.

[HollywoodWanderer]

I think Fi-Ti and Fe-Te pairings happen a lot more often in the real world that Te-Fi and Fe-Ti ones. I think part of what contributes to this is serotonin levels with the extraverts being on the higher end of the scale and the introverts being on the lower end of the scale.

[Expat]

I think Fi-Ti and Fe-Te pairings happen a lot more often in the real world that Te-Fi and Fe-Ti ones. I think part of what contributes to this is serotonin levels with the extraverts being on the higher end of the scale and the introverts being on the lower end of the scale.

I'm not sure about serotin levels etc, but you may be right, in that it would account for what would appear to be a disproportionate number of benefit pairings.

[Slacker]

17 pages!!!??? I can't read it all. I'm sorry.

About body language, and how it supposedly should be considered when someone speaks. I don't think the problem is so much when someone is acting happy and saying something that should convey regret or any other case where the body language and speech actively contradict each other. I agree it would be hard to take someone seriously in a case like that. But the issue is when someone is saying something and not displaying much if any body language at all. My husband complains about this at work. He works with an ESFj who will get irritated and tell my husband that he can't "read him" and doesn't know how to take what he's saying. And my husband will come home and ask what it is about him that makes people not listen to him. As far as he's concerned, he's said what needs to be said and nothing needs to be "read" beyond the words he's used. Maybe some people think that when someone is not showing body language, that in itself contradicts what they're saying? Or they don't know if it contradicts it or not and that bothers them?

I have no expectation of body language. If someone is a good source, then I generally trust what they say unless I'm given reason to believe that they aren't a good source after all. If I get information from a source I don't know if I can trust, and I tell someone the information, I'll say, "but I didn't get that from the most reliable source so take it for what it's worth." If I bother to bring the information up at all. Also, if someone questions my information, I might respond with, "But I got it from (whomever)." Because if that person is a good source of information, then the information is probably also reliable.

[Logos]

While I agree with preferring people to be straightforward, they rarely seem to be. So if you read strictly their words and what they say while not taking into account how they are saying it and what they mean, then you can completely miss what is actually being said and communicated.

[Creepy-female]

17 pages!!!??? I can't read it all. I'm sorry.

Here's something cool.

1) Go to "User CP" up in the menu bar where it says "Active Threads" etc. It's kind of below the vBulletin.
2) Where it says "Control Panel" on the far left, click "Edit Options".
3) Scroll down till you get to "Thread Display Options".
4) There's a little thing called "Number of Posts to Show per Page". The little dropdown box has lots of choices - you can change it to 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 posts per page.

Personally I like 40 but I suppose it depends on how big your screen monitor resolution is, if it's smaller 40 posts might make the scrolling arrow nonexistant. Just change it to what you like, but no one should have to navigate 17 pages just to read a thread. lol.

[Slacker]

Here's something cool.

1) Go to "User CP" up in the menu bar where it says "Active Threads" etc. It's kind of below the vBulletin.
2) Where it says "Control Panel" on the far left, click "Edit Options".
3) Scroll down till you get to "Thread Display Options".
4) There's a little thing called "Number of Posts to Show per Page". The little dropdown box has lots of choices - you can change it to 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 posts per page.

Personally I like 40 but I suppose it depends on how big your screen monitor resolution is, if it's smaller 40 posts might make the scrolling arrow nonexistant. Just change it to what you like, but no one should have to navigate 17 pages just to read a thread. lol.

Hey, look! 5 pages!! Thanks

[Slacker]

While I agree with preferring people to be straightforward, they rarely seem to be. So if you read strictly their words and what they say while not taking into account how they are saying it and what they mean, then you can completely miss what is actually being said and communicated.

You completely missed my point. Yes, if someone is using body language, to ignore it is to miss important information. However, some people are continually "deadpan" and don't give any of that information. That is why they get irritated - because their lack of body language signals can be interpreted incorrectly.

[Logos]

You completely missed my point. Yes, if someone is using body language, to ignore it is to miss important information. However, some people are continually "deadpan" and don't give any of that information. That is why they get irritated - because their lack of body language signals can be interpreted incorrectly.

I did not miss your point at all. I was adding to it by explaining why sometimes people may try and read things into those who do not really send signals in their body language.

[DirectorAbbie]

Woah, I am definately an Fi-Te. That describes me perfectly! If you're not one of the sources I trust, I won't even believe you if you say the sky is blue. (I still haven't decided whether the sky exists. I'll ask Brilliand.)

[Steve]

I just read Expat's post and I actually like it a lot. See, Expat? When you let yourself draw from the ream of subjectivity, good, encompassing rich insight emerges

[Park]

I just read Expat's post and I actually like it a lot. See, Expat? When you let yourself draw from the ream of subjectivity, good, encompassing rich insight emerges

I'm afraid he can't hear you. He's hibernating.

[Steve]

I'm afraid he can't hear you. He's hibernating.

The statement was more directed at the larger audience.