How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[silke]

This is analogous to why I loathe the notion of "facts" being associated with .

yes, according to a lot of posts I've seen it sounds like Ti types are stuck blindly following rules meanwhile Te types are stuck mindlessly absorbing facts :/ which is sad

I think we have the same idea in mind, just with different vocabulary. What occurs to me now is that "static" may not refer to the staticness of the system in general, considering how formless/malleable Fi is, but rather that it provides staticness to the corresponding Je functions by grounding them with meaning/context. Otherwise I'm kinda starting to lose grip on "static" or "dynamic" having any real meaning other than in a temperament scheme.

I think so, I took the word "static" in its literal interpretation but it looks like you meant it in context of theory, so we're on the same page here.

Could be, I imagine it'd be more of an Alpha Ti deal. With both of their object functions being internal (Ne and Fe, malleable, squishy, etc blah blah), it seems like they'd have little difficulty turning things into just variables and working with external frameworks (Si and Ti both reinforcing each other as external IEs). Or something. Betas would be grounded in more explicitly observable points of data/holistic contexts a la strrrngs description.

From what I understand their Ti definitions and categories are tied to some concrete variables while in Beta Ti is connected with some unified conceptual framework (Ni). That actually explains why I've observed Alpha NTs come up with theories and idea which they would treat as if they were something completely new, while for me it simply looked like a slight variation of an old concept. Then I'd become perplexed why they got all excited about it lol.

What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.

I've read Fi-valuers describing Fi as a sort of feeling of resonance or harmony when some information coming in from outside feels just right to you. The feeling of "coherency" that Ti gives I think is analogous to it. At least that is how I see it, once again basing from my premise that there is symmetry in this model. One big difference seems to be that while judging what resonates and what doesn't, Fi is striving to maximize the personal component while Ti is striving to take this component to nil.

I don't treat F functions as actual feelings per se because that doesn't seem to correspond to what can be observed of real people (i.e. types 'low' on F don't seem to be deficient on actual feelings or have lower feeling capacity, etc.) I mean it has been dubbed as "feelings" as per Jung but there seems to be some other modifier in effect here.

As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.

Sounds like NeFi. I cannot relate to this. I'm usually absorbed into my own thoughts, then at some point something might click together and it would just feels right though if somebody asks me to describe why it feels right I wouldn't be able to.

Admittedly, "rules" was a terrible choice of word for what I was trying to explain, lol. I'll just drop that part of the argument until I can explain it better, if ever.

I've used the word "principles" in past as opposed to Fi "values" - some basic premises that on individual level one considers to be true - but that doesn't quite hit the mark either. "Rules" imho is a rather loaded term to use which can lead to misinterpretations in terms of actual behaviors that follow.

[Galen]

From what I understand their Ti definitions and categories are tied to some concrete variables while in Beta Ti is connected with some unified conceptual framework (Ni). That actually explains why I've observed Alpha NTs come up with theories and idea which they would treat as if they were something completely new, while for me it simply looked like a slight variation of an old concept. Then I'd become perplexed why they got all excited about it lol.

This makes a lot of sense, given how a lot of the Alpha NTs on here like to pass off other people's arguments as "oh he uses a different system, there's no way to reconcile it."

I've read Fi-valuers describing Fi as a sort of feeling of resonance or harmony when some information coming in from outside feels just right to you. The feeling of "coherency" that Ti gives I think is analogous to it. At least that is how I see it, once again basing from my premise that there is symmetry in this model. One big difference seems to be that while judging what resonates and what doesn't, Fi is striving to maximize the personal component while Ti is striving to take this component to nil.

I think the main difference here is that the same feeling of resonance in Fi is, as you're saying with Ni, it's intangible. Fi can't point to something concrete and say "that feels right" because there's no solid cohesion to point to. I could maybe point to a few of the more important points being taken into account, but that doesn't say anything about the entire coherency. All I can really do is take in all the points of data that I can and determine whether or not this field of vision is "right" or "wrong." Not even "right" or "wrong" in a sense of punishment or reward, but just in judging whether or not a scene "makes sense" or something.

I don't treat F functions as actual feelings per se because that doesn't seem to correspond to what can be observed of real people (i.e. types 'low' on F don't seem to be deficient on actual feelings or have lower feeling capacity, etc.) I mean it has been dubbed as "feelings" as per Jung but there seems to be some other modifier in effect here.

I agree, this is a bad habit to break that should really be broken. It'd be best to just treat them as external/phenomenal vs internal/noumenal.

Sounds like NeFi. I cannot relate to this. I'm usually absorbed into my own thoughts, then at some point something might click together and it would just feels right though if somebody asks me to describe why it feels right I wouldn't be able to.

Oh it's Ne+Fi out the ass, lol. I talked with Riddy (Ne-ENTp) about the same thing, and he does the same sort of thing where he looks for entire fields of color/shape/whatever. The difference in his case is that his resulting consolidated field isn't really noumenal, rather he said something along the lines of the consolidated image representing a physical "situation" or something.