The role of Ti in INFJs

[Trifoilum]

I began to think Ti works like, basically, True/False situation.

Killing someone....
...is wrong. True.
...and they must get their repercussion. True.
......because each life is precious. True
...can be seen as a symbol of masculinity. True.
......thus, can be seen as desirable. True.
..........thus, is desirable for me. FALSE.

Something like that?

 

[Orion]

I began to think Ti works like, basically, True/False situation.

Killing someone....
...is wrong. True.
...and they must get their repercussion. True.
......because each life is precious. True
...can be seen as a symbol of masculinity. True.
......thus, can be seen as desirable. True.
..........thus, is desirable for me. FALSE.

Something like that?

Hmm, I don't see why Fe can't do that all on it's own.. That really seems like an Ni+Fe thing to me.

 

[Trifoilum]

Hmm, I don't see why Fe can't do that all on it's own.. That really seems like an Ni+Fe thing to me.

The statements I wrote are all Fe, probably coming from Ni. But as per who judges them as true / false... I'd say it's Ti.

For someone else it can be changed. Maybe they think a single life is inconsequential compared to lives of many, maybe they are attracted to brutal, bloody masculinity. Maybe they don't think it's desirable. Maybe they don't think killing someone, per se, is wrong; but harming someone in purpose without any good reason is.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

I think you're slightly mistaken about what Ti does. You are still describing Fe, or rather Fi.


Fe/Fi.



This is so ridiculously Fi/Te that I don't know what to say further.



This would be an INFJ with a strong Fe, an INFJ with strong Ti would neutralize any strong moral judgments because that's what Ti does. I strongly suspect you're an INTJ however, because you're reflecting your tertiary Fi over Ti in your posts.

Cool! I hadn't looked at it this way. I'm not sure, though. Ti has definitely got a deciding role. It doesn't say "nothing is truth", it does the opposite, it actively seeks "truth" (while Ni constantly reminds us that it is not there). Ti in very basic terms is - What is important? It strips out information that it believes to be secondary or misleading and attempts to get to the heart of the matter.

Fe says a = bad, b - good (obviously I'm making a broad generalisation there), based on external (thus unchangeable) rules. Ti is internal - thus malleable because it is based on "my" thoughts not "the" facts (which are seen as objective by a Te user - so they would believe in things outside of themselves to be true - let's say statistics - while a Ti user may see statistics and decide whether or not THEY think they're true and say either - this looks right, or these have been skewed by something). Fe sees morals as objective and thus unchangeable. Fi sees morals as being malleable and they may allow their own personal feelings to mess with their morals - i.e. I used to believe cheating was wrong but then this happened to me and now I think there are cases where it can be justified. See to me, I can't imagine ever being able to change my mind on something that seems so "naturally and obviously true" as morals. But when we see anything as "naturally and obviously true" then that is our extraverted functions coming in to play. As Ni users, I think we are all very aware that there is no such thing as "naturally and obviously true", as reality is subjective. But we do need an anchor in the external world to create a stable identity (if we do not measure ourselves against the outside world we are unable to come to any conclusion on who we are because metaphysical thought depends entirely on the existence on perceived binary opposites, whether you consciously believe in them or not).

So, where was I? Fe sees rigidity in morals but THAT'S IT. All of our functions are entirely useless on their own. They work together (extraverted with introverted) in order to create a "whole" (because nothing on the external plain can be made sense of without reference to the internal plane and vice versa). So Fe works with Ni to say: These signs/clues I am picking up from the outside world are "bad" or "good". However, there is never a person or thing on the outside world that is wholly "bad" or "good", thus Ni takes this into account and no conclusion is made. For us to say "I don't like that person" we must disqualify some of the information we have taken in and labeled "bad" or "good" - what disqualifies to get to the heart of the matter? Ti.

I thought I was an INTJ too, and I agree it is confusing, I'm sure I still could be if I had another look at the functions and tried to see it. The main reason I have decided on INFJ is from looking at other forums of different types talking to each other.

I'm not saying INTJs are unpleasant, I'm sure they're very nice in person, but they can seem very rude over the internet and I even once saw one complaining that her boss had told her that her colleagues had reported that she was rude! If that happened to me, I'd be absolutely mortified! I'm not sure I could go into work the next day, knowing that people in my office had got an impression that I was a rude person (thus "bad" person). It would be humiliating. However, the INTJ response was "if I was not like this we would never get anything done. They need to wake up and live in the real world. How dare they make it look like I've done something wrong when if it wasn't for me the office would be inefficient". See what I mean?

However, I am a type one enneagram (if you believe in all that stuff, can't say I do, really) and this type is known for being very sensitive to any ideas of not being "good", finding the idea of being a "bad" person humiliating and torturous. I'd suggest that an F type is more likely to be a type one, for the reason that F types essentially just think relationships/people/morals before they think logical fact. They think both, it's just that they prioritise relationships/people first - seeing this as more important (not necessarily in a kind way, though, depends on the user). So if you see Fi/Te then it is conceivable that I am an INFP.

EDIT: Just had this thought. Ok, Fi/Te and Fe/Ti could, conceivably, show similar behaviour depending on the situation. In fact, Fi/Te and Fe/Ti could definitely behave in the way I described of deciding who is going to be in their lives and trying to avoid people who they do not like. But it is the way the person comes to the conclusion that is important. All of the functions simply describe how we process information, they do not define what conclusions may come up with but they do influence them a lot. So Let's say I used Fe/Ti. How have I decided that I do not want a person in my life? What I have done is said: This person is not morally fit and proper. Now, people accuse me of taking "irrational" views on people. Because I do not take people's actions or what they say into account when making my decision. A person may appear to be nice on the outside but actually they have a motive for appearing this way. Think ESTP. They're very manipulative and my former boss was a lot like this. They say all the right things and do all the right things but they're doing it for all the wrong reasons (according to what I judge to be right and wrong). They have ulterior motives. So do INFJs sometimes, but they're ulterior motive us generally judged to be "for the greater good" rather than "what I deserve" or "what I can do" or simply "because I can". So I will "just know" what their motivations are from first meeting them and disqualify them based on this regardless of what they go on to say and do. If their motives are not pure, I don't care what they say and do. It doesn't make them "good".

Fi/Te may also disqualify people, but it's a little harder to do so. It depends on which is the more dominant function. Plus, without Ti, Fi/Te may (in some types) see no need to disqualify. Fi/Te judges a person depending on how the evidence before them correlates with their inner value system. So they will see a person who does and says all the right things and say that's what's important. To me, that's definitely not what's important. Essentially, Fi/Te may say "I don't want to be around this person because their actions and words offend me". Fe/Ti says: "I don't want to be around this person because their motives offend me.

Ti makes the decision according to what is at the heart of the matter and what it judges to be important. In and INFJ, a person's moral fabric is "what's important". They "see" this moral fabric by using Ni/Fe to intuit their motives. They may then say "this person is not going to be in my life because I don't like what's going on inside them". They may even be annoyed when the person does or says everything right and is invariably liked by most, because they feel that people are being fooled, or that the person is undeserving of the respect they gain and opportunities they are given because of that, due to the fact that the person's intentions were not pure.

Te, on the other hand, makes decisions depending on whether a person is saying and doing things that are justifiable and "good" according to their value system. They may not see ulterior motives. However, they will be annoyed with actions/words that offend their value system REGARDLESS of whether the person intended it that way. For instance, I once shouted at a friend of mine because she had upset me. I then felt very bad about it because I had done it the wrong way. While my initial complaints were valid, the way that I had expressed my complaint was disproportionately harsh. I told two friends, an Fi/Te user and a Fe/Ti user.

Fe/Ti said "you had the right to do it, don't worry about how you did it, your intentions were correct/good/moral".

Fi/Te looked at me aghast! "Well you need to make it right! Apologise!" I already had apologised in this case, but Fi/Te focused on what I had done, not what I had meant to do. Fe/Ti focused on what I had meant to do, not what I had done in order to judge. Both judged according to morality, but they judged different parts of the situation.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

I am the same, you nailed it. In a way I can be seen as aggressive and confrontational- not an overtly Fe looking person. But this is the symbiotic and complex nature of Fe and Ti. Ti gives me the strength to stand up for what is right for others and the long term, under the influence of Ni. This temporarily harsh or difficult nature, crucially though, is fuelled by my Fe and what I feel is right. So though I may not be constantly regulating how I effect other's feeling (although 90% of the time I am), I am still adhering to a personal and objective ethical value system that is Fe.

However, I'm not saying Ti is responsible for this behaviour solely. There are strong Ti INFJ's who are completely pleasant and nice and never become aggressive or abrasive. That's just my personal way of dealing with things. I just wanted to make that clear.

Yes, quite possibly. I would be one of those who is never aggressive or abrasive (on the outside), though I may manipulate under certain (very rare) circumstances when wrong has been done and needs to be put right. I am a very calm and polite person, rarely raise my voice, and feel that raising my voice would be detrimental to my cause. What I tend to do, if wrong has been done, is speak diplomatically with a little hint of manipulation. Part of my work revolves around (or has revolved around) what will other people be attracted to? What will get them on board? This is sort of how I work in my real life as well. If there is something happening that needs to be put right, I normally approach the wrongdoer on their terms in order to make them comfortable. With most people (but not all), if you want something done, you've got to make them think that they wanted to do it, or it was their idea. So my strong Ti doesn't really affect my outward character. I am described by all (and some people intend this as a criticism) as timid. I don't really see that as a criticism because it would be much nicer to be timid than overbearing or dominant, but I also ignore it because I know I'm not really timid. It's simply in the interests of group harmony and equality that I appear non-dominant. Telling people what to do almost never works, although you do sometimes come across people that need a kicking. I struggle with that, finding it very difficult to "perform" conflict even if I want to, so usually use a different type of manipulation in which I appear to all intents and purposes to be a nice (though naive) person while I'm psychologically kicking them in the shins (long explanation needed, but basically just tickling their achilles heel - where does their ego rest?)

 

[TaylorS]

This is a fascinating thread!

This was a more balanced example because both InvisibleJim and arbygil are pretty well-developed individuals. But abstractly, I mean it sort of like:

Well, this explains why it seems like INTJs and Libertarianism go together, LMAO!

 

[TaylorS]

Yes. Ti essentially just decides.

An INFJ with a strong Ti is more likely to be very certain about what they think they know. So Ni+Fe (which I agree always work together and are the very foundation TOGETHER of identity) produces a judgement of reality in a vague sense of right and wrong. However, Ni does not exclude information. Ni is a mass of information. Fe judges this information and categorises into moral and immoral, but it does not go in there and decide to ignore the moral bits or a situation that is mostly immoral, Ti does that. Ti says well the most important parts of this situation/information are immoral, so who gives a shit if some bits of it are also good? If the most important part is immoral, then we may as well brand this entire thing as immoral.

Ti is the part of us that brands others as "bad". An INFJ with a strong Ti is still able to see that nobody is evil and that absolutes are necessarily always incorrect (Ni helps us remain aware of the spectral and fluctuating nature of subjective reality) but it decides to choose one anyway, because we are judging types - we want conclusions. While I automatically have empathy with all people, I do not extend my sympathies to all. Because I decide whether they are immoral or moral from the start and do not feel comfortable treating an immoral person with the same compassion I would a moral one. My Ti has made its decision - this immoral person is not going to be in my life. I am going to politely ensure that I do not have to be near them or allow them into my circle.

The other part is about conflict. I'm one of those INFJs that likes the idea of campaigning, of fighting for what's right, so even though I hate arguments, if I need to suffer conflict to stand up for what is right and good then I will do it. I have certainty in my moral judgements and am passionate about them, which means that were I to see someone bullied I would ensure I was standing by their side, even if it meant being in conflict. Conflict is horrible, but to the strong Ti INFJ, the individual must suffer for the group to thrive, and I am an individual.

That sounds a lot more selfless than it is. Remember that Fe may seem selfless but is not - the reason I would do all this is because I would feel uncomfortable not doing it. Like everyone else, the INFJ simply prefers to do what makes them feel comfortable.

I relate to this very much, thanks!

 

[TaylorS]

The problem I have with the second idea is that it supposes too much about people "earning" their position. People use words like "hobo" or talk about people working at McDonald's, and they get pegged as "losers". It's all their fault, because they didn't work hard enough to earn a better position within the construct. I don't like to think that way, because I haven't been in the other person's shoes. And when I think about it, I probably get along better with people that I've known who work at McDonald's than I would many CEOs, and I don't think that making more money makes a person superior.

And who's to say that the CEO earned anything? They could have been born with a silver spoon just as the hobo could have been born under very unfortunate circumstances.

Every time somebody says poor people are poor because they are lazy I get REALLY angry and want to tell them to walk a mile in those people's shoes.

 

[magister343]

This is a fascinating thread!

Well, this explains why it seems like INTJs and Libertarianism go together, LMAO!

INTJs (actually TJs in general) do tend to be rightwingers, but that does at all synonymous with libertarian. Some INTJs are very statist, and some some libertarians are very egalitarian or even radically leftwing. I don't think that INTJs go very well with left (or center) libertarianism, whereas INTPs do.

 

[knight in battle]

Fe>Ti helps the individual define for themselves a more solid base of operations that is more likely to weather the storm of others expectations and criticisms

This, I believe, is your core argument - emotional survival; i.e., deflecting/reinterpreting other people's criticisms as a take-it-or-leave-it stimulus. Criticism for an Fe can never be interpreted to tear down one's internal self-worth. Rather it should be viewed both as an outward display of the critic's personal emotional state - nothing more.

It is clear that others use malicious, combative criticism as a defense mechanism/enactment of how they believe others view them (i.e., as deserving harsh criticism or regular critique). They also use this (in the case of ISTJs/INTPs/ESFJs) to show how they personally believe things should be done (or life to be lived). Again... a take-it-or-leave-it stimulus for the INFJ observer. For, truly, the INFJ's Fe is partially an observational function, while depending on Ti to provide logical, impersonal context (i.e., rather than taking a negative emotional stimulus personally).

In the context of the INFJ as Developer/Mentor of people, this stimuli/information should be a signal to remain emotionally/socially distant from the critic, so as to allow that person the abundantly sufficient personal space to deal with internal conflict/frustration with the world.

 

[magister343]

Possibly. There are still awful lot of right libertarian INTPs too though. Many INTPs have severely underdeveloped Fe until very late in life, so I imagine that right libertarians are more common among the young. (Socialism is also not uncommon, perhaps because Karl Marx was an INTP. I have no respect for Marx though. I won't even go as far as the even more clearly INTP Chomsky.)

I was personally a right-libertarian at least until the summer between junior and senior year of high school, when I read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and started to serious consider the nature of Rent. In high school economics, college economics, and college ethics courses I could not help but see a serious flaw in the traditional theory of the acquisition of property through labor. What I was picking up on was the fact that most people ignore the Lockean Priviso. Classical Liberals were actually much more left leaning than we tend to assume, and ignoring this makes their theories much less coherent. By the time I discovered Henry George, I had reached most of the same conclusions independently.

To give your Fe theory its due, I should perhaps mention that the summer when I read Adam Smith and started drifting towards Geo-Classical Liberalism was pretty much the most emotional period of my life. I had been crushed by rejection from my first love, and bothered much more by how poorly I had expressed myself and how much I could tell she was feeling my pain. Depression has been scientifically shown to significantly enhance the capacity for empathy. I was extremely humbled, saw that my strengths were insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and couldn't really think of myself as a good guy regardless of how hard I tried to do right. This made me more sympathetic to those whose circumstances placed them in not so heroic positions. I remember that when I rewatched Lord of the Rings that summer I could not help but think that it was a great tragedy every time the so called heroes killed an orc rather than working to free him from the life of servitude to which he had been born and indoctrinated and teach him to live in harmony (fruitless as such efforts might be). I also made closer friends than I'd ever had before at the governor's honors program that summer (including one whom I thought could be much more than a friend), and then had to deal with being horrible at keeping in touch once it was over. Seeing how everyone else there seemed to have much more of a social life from before and how it seemed that everyone but me was getting regular messages from home did much to exacerbate a sense of loneliness I had long felt but never before truly recognized. In short, it was a time when my Fe was raging out of control. As much as I'd like to think that my shift in politics was driven by pure Ti reason, Fe emotion probably was involved. I would not say that the shift was an Fe decision, but rather that Fe informed Ti that its theory could never be coherent without factoring in certain essential social data.

 

[knight in battle]

INTJs (actually TJs in general) do tend to be rightwingers, but that does at all synonymous with libertarian. Some INTJs are very statist, and some some libertarians are very egalitarian or even radically leftwing. I don't think that INTJs go very well with left (or center) libertarianism, whereas INTPs do.

Do INTPs go well with center/left libertarianism because of Fe (a desire to assist/help others)?

 

[knight in battle]

In short, it was a time when my Fe was raging out of control. As much as I'd like to think that my shift in politics was driven by pure Ti reason, Fe emotion probably was involved. I would not say that the shift was an Fe decision, but rather that Fe informed Ti that its theory could never be coherent without factoring in certain essential social data.

Very interesting. What causes me to shift toward social liberalism seems to stem from Fe as well, especially a subjective observation of "social data". Meanwhile I wonder whether it is Ti that reminds me of how Fe-induced idealism might be realistically implemented in practice.

 

[knight in battle]

I struggle with that, finding it very difficult to "perform" conflict even if I want to, so usually use a different type of manipulation in which I appear to all intents and purposes to be a nice (though naive) person while I'm psychologically kicking them in the shins (long explanation needed, but basically just tickling their achilles heel - where does their ego rest?)

I find it's helpful to use Fe in conflictual situations to "perform conflict". It is usually in noticing the conflict being displayed that I learn how to perform it in return or to activate my memory of others who have taught me how to perform conflict. Fe seems mostly a "receiving" function, yet it also has the ability to "kick someone on their (emotional) shins". (Stoicism and avoidance doesn't work on Te individuals, but seems a better alternative to becoming belligerent.)

 

[knight in battle]

To me, that's definitely not what's important. Essentially, Fi/Te may say "I don't want to be around this person because their actions and words offend me". Fe/Ti says: "I don't want to be around this person because their motives offend me.

Ti makes the decision according to what is at the heart of the matter and what it judges to be important. In and INFJ, a person's moral fabric is "what's important". They "see" this moral fabric by using Ni/Fe to intuit their motives. They may then say "this person is not going to be in my life because I don't like what's going on inside them". They may even be annoyed when the person does or says everything right and is invariably liked by most, because they feel that people are being fooled, or that the person is undeserving of the respect they gain and opportunities they are given because of that, due to the fact that the person's intentions were not pure.

Te, on the other hand, makes decisions depending on whether a person is saying and doing things that are justifiable and "good" according to their value system. They may not see ulterior motives. However, they will be annoyed with actions/words that offend their value system REGARDLESS of whether the person intended it that way. For instance, I once shouted at a friend of mine because she had upset me. I then felt very bad about it because I had done it the wrong way. While my initial complaints were valid, the way that I had expressed my complaint was disproportionately harsh. I told two friends, an Fi/Te user and a Fe/Ti user.

It's curious that Fe is a left-brained process. Perhaps this is why Fe is able to process behaviors on a case-by-case basis and while literally justifying objectively frowned-upon behaviors on a grander scheme of morality (i.e., "what's important" (Ti)). For example, gang behavior is hurtful and violent, but my Fe/Ti seems to tell me, "They are doing this because they had bad homes/fathers; and if they had bad fathers, we can't just 'reform' gang members... we need to address the socio-cultural issues that make for bad fathers."

Incidentally, I often have a mixed reaction to whom I will socialize with, when their actions seem to come from malevolent motives (e.g., power-play/dominance) which I sense from a rude tone of voice. If it's an occasional behavior, I overlook it using Ti > Fe; i.e., I am empathizing with their internal turmoil. If it's mere confidence and assertiveness (INTJ / Te / Ne), it's a case by case basis. If I feel uncomfortable with their external dominance (Fe) and I sense it coming from an internal malevolent motive, I tend to disassociate, while at the same time assuming that, though I may not be able to tolerate their behavior, someone else can (Ti).