How would one differentiate Te-base vs Fe-base in an EN-j type?

[AstonMarten]

In my study and observation of type, I have seen a number of cases which are fundamentally confusing and get in the way of my nice mental representation of how things should be based on the theory.

The most frequent of these cases, for me, lies in the identification of a Te-base vs an Fe-base, especially when paired with Creative Ni. These people are often highly dynamic - especially those who are comfortable with their Se - and do not give off a consistent vibe of any sort by which I can judge them. It is almost as if they are capable of using both Fe and Te in droves - managing to somehow derive both their logic and ethics in an object-oriented fashion.

The way in which I have currently reconciled this is by Jung's original definitions: An individual is characterized most by an overall attitude of extraversion or an overall attitude of introversion, so an EN-j type may in certain contexts appear to use both T and F in an extraverted manner. This is a messy conclusion, though, and still doesn't lock them down.

I'd rather not be too specific, as this refers to an amalgam of personalities with different aspects of both Te and Fe. Bear in mind, however, that all of these individuals have a number of characteristics of Lead Fe and Te as well as Role Fe and Te. Their behaviors also highly correspond to both the ENTj and ENFj profiles, but not to any other profiles in general.

How would you go about differentiating the two? What questions would you ask yourself in the process?

[Bertrand]

in this case aristocratism v democratism is an easy tell. does the person think hierarchically in terms of social order or horizontally. pro v anti capitalist stance is a good indicator, although not absolute, because money as a proxy of power is inherently democratic and levels out the merchant and ruling classes. aristocrats tend to want to do that kind of leveling not via some proxy but directly via imposition of clear rules, such that even in the case of say communism, they want "fairness" "built-in" so to speak (artificial v natural fairness). in essence LIE is more meritocratic and about letting the situation emerge according to natural laws governing success/failure, whereas EIE wants to retool the system itself, in essence to hijack the natural economy and remake it as they see fit (indeed to EIE no economy is natural it is only what you impose via bureaucracy). to them success/failure is their ability not to make an idea that is profitable but is measured in terms of its ability to catch fire. it is Te v Fe. Fe says if we can just agree we can make any system work (Ti), so the crucial thing is the ideology behind the system. LIE says people will never agree but that a natural order exists that one can tap into, and its this ideologically free openness to what life throws at you considered in terms of what works that determines success in life and mutual prosperity. there is crossover in the sense that if LIE becomes convinced he's surrounded by ideologues he will simply play to them, and people like LSI can adopt the LIE's outlook in the absence of a strong ideological demagogue like EIE. in essence the LIE role Fe controls the LSI like you see in the US a lot with LSI essentially becoming good capitalists. it sort of misses the point because capitalism doesn't ask you to ideologically buy in so to speak, it says whatever you think, it distributes resources efficiently. so in a sense LSI mistakes LIE for Hamlet and goes a little too hard with the pro capitalist stance because they mistake a logical intuition for an ethical one... this is how you get wacky pro capitalist types that in turn give the system a bad name because they treat it like some kind of religion and not an essentially areligious organizing principle. they are essentially deriving an aristocratic conclusion from a democratic process, i.e.: thinking money makes you better. this is the difference between warren buffet who drives some piece of shit toyota and bill gates who spends all his money on curing malaria vs the people locked up in their middle class mcmansion thinking they've found God in prosperity and don't want to touch the lepers. its a form of real spiritual poverty so I can imagine why when Hamlet sees that he wants to liberate them

[Delilah]

Hm id guess theoretically Lie would b strategic and Eie tactician. I have a bit of a hard time differentiating this in practice though. Anyway, what do u think @OP, does it give u any pointers?

[Adam Strange]

We seem to find it easier to connect with the other’s duals, rather than our own.

For a while.

[FDG]

As a general rule a Te base will be characterized by more involuntary social blunders; some of them having to do with excessive or unregulated usage of Fe (LSE -> anger, LIE-> tactless comments / jokes). Fe base are more purposeful in their social persona, when EIEs make a social blunder it seems like they're doing it purposefully.

Both Bertrand and domr make good points, too.

[Sanguine Miasma]

EIE lives in past or in imaginary world
LIE lives in future or focuses in utilizing prospects

[Number 9 large]

Fe leads are so damn easy to spot i have no idea how youd confuse that with Te lead lel

[Sol]

T/F

[Rebelondeck]

From an INTj perspective, ENTjs use similar phraseology as INTjs although the way the words are delivered is quite different. They quantify everything when expressing themselves almost like putting their thoughts into connected soundbites. They talk about such things as connection and feeling in a stunted factual manner. ENFjs, using words akin to INFj, qualify everything, and occasionally some expressions seem to impart meaning but make no logical sense - communication seems far less directed or translated as with ENTj. They seem to talk conceptually without nailing anything down. I've walked away from ENFj conversations wondering what was that all about but never from ENTj conversations.........

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

As a general rule a Te base will be characterized by more involuntary social blunders; some of them having to do with excessive or unregulated usage of Fe (LSE -> anger, LIE-> tactless comments / jokes). Fe base are more purposeful in their social persona, when EIEs make a social blunder it seems like they're doing it purposefully.

Except the part about LSEs getting angry, this is completely true.

An EIE will navigate social situations with far more skill and intention, an LIE will (by default) "tell it like it is" even when it may produce an unwanted reaction, and will not devote a ton of effort into tailoring their communication beyond the basics.

Similarly an EIE will care somewhat less about accomplishing practical work-related tasks, they tend to prefer to focus on things that are meaningful for society at large and motivate others to this end.