Why T/F is a mess - and help me clarify mine!

[mancino]

Hi everybody!
This is my first post on INFJ forum, so I’m kind of excited. I’ve been studying MBTI and Jungian Typology for years now, but I haven’t been very active online (just some posts on Typology Central).

I’m writing here because I eventually came to the conclusion that I could be indeed an INFJ. What has taken me a tremendous amount of time and effort is figuring out my F, which is probably slightly above my T. I believe my current view can be of some help to many, that’s the reason why I’m posting it here. It’s also a way to share it with you (fellow?) INFJs, so that eventually you could help me corroborate my perspective, and indirectly my type.

I will use my case as an example, I hope you don't mind. So, let's begin.


Why T/F is a mess.

I’m framing this discussion mainly from a dichotomy perspective. However, I will reference cognitive functions as I’m aware the majority of the readers are more inclined to prefer them for typing. I think it doesn’t really matter in this discussion, either way.

[my rationale:
The reason is that I’m quite convinced that Cognitive Functions don’t add anything necessary, overcomplicating the system instead. In any case, I’m well versed about them and know the theory behind the so-called “Grant Stack”, the one that postulates that INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. It’s just that I find that everything you have to say about somebody’s type can be inferred by dichotomies alone, Functions being superfluous or misleading depending on the case.

If you want some more about this, you can refer to many posts by Typology Central and Personality Café user Reckful, for example starting here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/wiki/index.php/Reckful_On_Type_Dynamics
]

If you take the standard definition by the official MBTI, you get this:
https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

The core is this:

Do you like to put more weight on objective principles and impersonal facts (Thinking) or do you put more weight on personal concerns and the people involved (Feeling)?
Don't confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make. Also do not confuse Thinking with intelligence.​

I’m a very strong N, with a clear I preference that’s been blurred by aging (I’m 47 now). For INs, my view is that we are in our head all the time. We are driven to the abstract, the intangible, the ethereal even, disregarding material contingencies as irrelevant. I’m imagining, pondering, introspecting, analyzing, understanding and envisioning all the time, since I remember. I’m sure many INs can relate. It’s the essential definition of I+N, right? (Ni or Ne, if you will)

However, if you asked anybody that knows me what I do best, they would say “Thinking”.

I double-checked the actual definition of “to think” (I’m not a english native speaker), so this is what the Cambridge Dictionary says:

to believe something or have an opinion or idea
to use the brain to decide to do something
to use the brain to plan something, solve a problem, understand a situation, etc.
to consider a person's needs or wishes​

So, I believe the word “Thinking” is not the best choice for the T in T/F in the third MBTI preference, at least for INs, because we think a lot!

Besides, Feeling is said to be a rational function to make decisions, mudding the water even more.

So, if you are an IN, you are driven to relate to “Thinking” quite a bit; on the other hand, being an Introvert, it could be that you don’t relate to “Feeling” because you are not overtly expressing them, or even considering them when making decisions, because you are driven more by your vision (N, or Ni) and what is needed in the context, by the people involved or what they expect you to do or be or what has to be done (a typical J thing, or Je if you wish).

That was my situation: in a typical test, to the standard question “do you follow your head or your heart” I said: my head, of course, I think all the time!

To me, follow your heart meant to act on impulses (P), not to think things through. The antithesis of an IN_J (or Ni). Nature and nurture conspired against me, and maybe against many others, in achieving clarity: being male and raised in a family of SJs and in groups of SPs male friends, talking about feelings was out of the question. Even explicitly considering them.


Enter The Big 5

But then I discovered the Big 5 (Five Factor Model) and it all made perfect sense. As you may know, MBTI tap into four of the five factors. The one that relates to T/F is agreeableness, defined as:

Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, and considerate.[1] In contemporary personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.[2]

People who score high on this dimension are empathetic and altruistic, while a low agreeableness score relates to selfish behavior and a lack of empathy.[3][4] Those who score very low on agreeableness show signs of dark triad behavior such as manipulation and competing with others rather than cooperating.[5]

Agreeableness is considered to be a superordinate trait, meaning that it is a grouping of personality sub-traits that cluster together statistically. The lower-level traits, or facets, grouped under agreeableness are: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness.[6]​

After reflecting (I was on the point of writing “thinking”) about all of this, I came to the conclusion that I’m quite agreeable, more than the average but not by much, a lot more than the average guy, but from by IN standpoint. I am usually very polite, extremely respectful (to the point of not doing what I want no to bother people). I’m not the most altruistic person, but I go out of my way to help people, usually by giving advice/insights (informal counseling) or helping fixing stuff (I can be a techy compared to many). I’ve always been an achiever, but not in a competitive way. Actually, through all my education and my working career, I usually strived to comply, to the best of my ability, to what was asked from me (typical J thing), to the point of disregarding what I wanted.

(I could elaborate more but I don’t want to turn this post into a personal one much more than it already is. If you are interested, you can read more about myself here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type-/104166-please-help-type-xnxx.html.).

And I almost forgot: I’m a very considerate and loving partner and father.

In the Big5, you also have a fifth trait: Neuroticism.

Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.[1] People who are neurotic respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. ​

I am quite in the middle in this case, maybe towards the low end: shy when young but not anymore, not really a worrywart, sensible (perceptive, Openness) and empathic (Agreeableness) but not really moody (no more than the average at least), and quite confident in myself and my abilities.


TL; DL

If you track back all this to MBTI, I have the impression that male/female, age and neuroticism are all mingling with Agreeableness to confound your T/F preference.

For an adult male IN who is not high in Neuroticism, it’s easy to see that you could mistype as T even if you actually are F.

Also, typical INFJ profiles describe almost a saint, giving Gandhi as an example! That’s not helping to relate either if you are “a deep thinker”, i.e., strong IN.

My conclusion is that I’m indeed an F because I care about people, I’m sensible to the emotional environment and take human considerations into account when making decisions. I’m willing to go the extra mile to accommodate other’s needs, even putting them above my own.


Therefore, I believe it’s best to reframe the T/F dichotomy with this simple binary question:

When making a decision, do you

• Accommodate other’s needs, be them practical or emotional?
• Focus on the task at hand in an impersonal way?
  

For INxJ, instead of going the usual route of Te-Fi vs Fe-Ti (which never gave a clear leaning in my case), in light of the above I would say instead that, at least for borderline cases:

INTJ and INFJ are two flavors of the same type, only that the INFJ is more agreeable but yielding and the INTJ is less empathic but tougher.


What do you “think” about this? Does it make sense?

 

[John K]

@mancino

I recognise a lot of the thought processes you are showing here. If you don't mind me saying so, it sounds very like a core dump of one of my own Ni <-> Ti looping processes. That in itself may give a clue as to your type, but of course it's quite possible I'm just projecting .

I think another angle on the points you are making is this - that the MBTI model has the same level of resolution as a 16 point compass rose. That sort of compass has a lot of value, but a satnav with 3 metre accuracy it is not! People are infinitely varied in type so it's not surprising that the types that we get placed into by the tests are a very considerable simplification and compromise. Like you, I will often use the phrase I'm an INFJ but actually what I mean is that INFJ is the closest match to me of the 16 types, not a precise fit.

If you take many tests, they become less objective as well - for intuitives in particular you get a feel for how the questions relate to the type categories, and you bias the result. It's not completely conscious, and it's next to impossible to avoid doing it by an act of intent. As @Deleted member 16771 pointed out here, the tests can be biased by the kind of environment you are immersed in. I first tested out as INTP 20 years ago on a company management training course - the P was borderline J. The company culture I was embedded in was very IxTx, and I was reflecting that colour very strongly, which resulted in mistyping. It took me many years to home in on INFJ, though I wasn't actually looking very hard for most of that time.

The other reason you may have challenges finding your type is laid out pretty well in Jung's own thinking - which is that we develop our primary and secondary in the first part of our lives, but from mid-life onwards we start to quite naturally and unconsciously explore the other functions, and become increasingly interested in and competent with them. That could well be an issue for you.

In the end, I homed in on my type by looking at the behaviours that go with each type as described in books and on web sites. I needed to look at quite a few of them because the people who write them are not necessarily able to see the world from inside the head of an introverted intuitive of either judging flavour. Intuition is poorly understood, but at least the way inferior Se manifests itself is well described and I had no problem identifying with that . After that, I really got to grips with what Ni meant and there was no problems identifying with it.

The descriptions of extraverted Feeling judgement are very misleading - some pretty atrocious. The word is overworked in English and can refer to emotion (e.g. anger), or intuition (e.g. that doesn't feel right to me) or the MBTI feeling judgement (buy this because it'll make you happy). In particular, the harmony aspect is overworked, and can be difficult for men to identify with. This confusion leads to all kinds of tangled thinking about Fe which as a preferred function is used as consciously and deliberately as Te by anyone who is competent with it. It's the opposite of emotion in that regard which is mostly involuntary. I think some of the confusion about Fe comes, as well, from it's less competent and less voluntary use by folks who prefer other functions and so tangle it up with emotional drivers.

I felt strongly enough about the poor descriptions of Fe to put a thread together about it some time ago - it's a bit of kite flying, but I think I managed to catch a very different angle on how it works.
https://www.infjs.com/threads/how-do-you-use-extraverted-feeling-how-do-you-experience-it.36145/

I was unsure about my type when I joined the forum nearly 3 years ago. The Ni was good, but neither T nor F seemed to fit. The behavioural descriptions were a fairly good match for me being INFJ, but some descriptions were way off base too. I found the best way forward was to try the clothes on, so I deliberately started making a considerable amount of use of Fe here in the forum over a few moths as a try-out of INFJ. You can tell if it's a bad fit because it starts to irritate and tire you out, and you get reactions from others that feel off-key. For me, it seemed to fit really well, and I found it wasn't tiring at all to use it, so that practical experiment reached a good outcome, particularly from the kind of feedback I was getting from other folks.

Don't know if any of this is any use to you, but I find it's always interesting and useful to see someone else's experience with similar issues.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I was unsure about my type when I joined the forum nearly 3 years ago. The Ni was good, but neither T nor F seemed to fit. The behavioural descriptions were a fairly good match for me being INFJ, but some descriptions were way off base too. I found the best way forward was to try the clothes on, so I deliberately started making a considerable amount of use of Fe here in the forum over a few moths as a try-out of INFJ. You can tell if it's a bad fit because it starts to irritate and tire you out, and you get reactions from others that feel off-key. For me, it seemed to fit really well, and I found it wasn't tiring at all to use it, so that practical experiment reached a good outcome, particularly from the kind of feedback I was getting from other folks.

Don't know if any of this is any use to you, but I find it's always interesting and useful to see someone else's experience with similar issues.

Have you ever wondered if you 'really are' an INTP who's developing that inferior Fe in later life, or have you always had that feeling fluency?

 

[John K]

Have you ever wondered if you 'really are' an INTP who's developing that inferior Fe in later life, or have you always had that feeling fluency?

I've always been very conscious of others and picked up on their emotions and reactions to me hyper-sensitively. My intuition isn't rapid fire and mercurial either, like someone competent in Ne - it tends to be an engine that grinds slow and deep instead. I'm pretty strong on Ti though, and the tension between F and T can be quite a challenge for me - balancing out correctness with appropriateness can get me into trouble, mostly in my head regret kind of trouble. E5W4 is a good descriptor of the flip between mind and heart that I experience quite a lot.

I've always been good with Fe as far back as I can remember - like getting lots of nice attention from adults as a child - lol - Cringe ! It's only with hindsight I can see this. The typing problem I had was getting to grips with how the MBTI model related to the way I behave - and I think the way my functions developed was coloured strongly by my childhood school experience which pushed me into developing tertiary Ti more than is maybe normal. So I think in recent years I was probably reclaiming my base type rather than developing Fe in later life - and the way I seem to have relaxed into it rather than increased in tension because of it is reasonably supportive of that.

 

[Daustus]

pushed me into developing tertiary Ti more than is maybe normal. So I think in recent years I was probably reclaiming my base type rather than developing Fe

Relatable. I think my experience in development was similar.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I've always been very conscious of others and picked up on their emotions and reactions to me hyper-sensitively. My intuition isn't rapid fire and mercurial either, like someone competent in Ne - it tends to be an engine that grinds slow and deep instead. I'm pretty strong on Ti though, and the tension between F and T can be quite a challenge for me - balancing out correctness with appropriateness can get me into trouble, mostly in my head regret kind of trouble. E5W4 is a good descriptor of the flip between mind and heart that I experience quite a lot.

I've always been good with Fe as far back as I can remember - like getting lots of nice attention from adults as a child - lol - Cringe ! It's only with hindsight I can see this. The typing problem I had was getting to grips with how the MBTI model related to the way I behave - and I think the way my functions developed was coloured strongly by my childhood school experience which pushed me into developing tertiary Ti more than is maybe normal. So I think in recent years I was probably reclaiming my base type rather than developing Fe in later life - and the way I seem to have relaxed into it rather than increased in tension because of it is reasonably supportive of that.

Interesting.

The problem here is that what you said describes me, too... or could describe anyone.

The sensitivity to emotions, in particular, would be expected from any neurologically introverted person who isn't particularly autistic.

Despite that, I do buy what you're saying, though.

 

[John K]

Relatable. I think my experience in development was similar.

I suspect it’s quite common among INFJs. Society tends to value Ti over Ni so we get far more support and education in using it as children. Those of us who are good at it then go off and take up careers that rely heavily on it, and we can live a lot of our lives feeling that something isn’t quite right even though we seem to be successful.

 

[John K]

Interesting.

The problem here is that what you said describes me, too... or could describe anyone.

The sensitivity to emotions, in particular, would be expected from any neurologically introverted person who isn't particularly autistic.

Despite that, I do buy what you're saying, though.

I think these behaviours all lie along a spectrum of preference and competence rather than black and white. You are far more likely to use and be comfortable with conflict based on logic and values than I am. It’s not just that I fight shy of them - you are more innately fluent with them than I am.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think these behaviours all lie along a spectrum of preference and competence rather than black and white. You are far more likely to use and be comfortable with conflict based on logic and values than I am. It’s not just that I fight shy of them - you are more inanely fluent with them than I am.

True

 

[John K]

True

Oh dear! That was a bad typo! I’ve corrected it. Damn iPhone!

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Oh dear! That was a bad typo! I’ve corrected it. Damn iPhone!

 

[mancino]

Thanks for all the replies, so glad to have started a meaningful sharing of ideas on the matter.

I suspect it’s quite common among INFJs. Society tends to value Ti over Ni so we get far more support and education in using it as children. Those of us who are good at it then go off and take up careers that rely heavily on it, and we can live a lot of our lives feeling that something isn’t quite right even though we seem to be successful.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning... but maybe it's my being skeptical about the functions. Agnostic, if you will.
If what you mean is that society values logic more than vision, I agree completely. However...

I've always been a straight-A student and I always thought it was because of my ease of learning - in elementary school (up to 11) I never had to study anything. Before knowing about typology, I thought it was just a matter of IQ. However, growing up and then comparing with many peolpe in university, I realized I was much sensible about what was expected from me, and giving it. In function terms, my Fe was the source of my decision to fulfill my obligations to the best of my ability, which meant to be a good theorist (that's what formal education is all about, really), so Ni+Ti.
Another way of putting it is that I was and still am more conscientious and thorough than many (what you would call a clear J preference). I know quite a few talented INTPs (Ti-dom) that underachieved in their life, exactly because of their lack of follow-through. So I'm not so sure that Ti is what is valued, I would say Te instead, especially N+T+E.

Have you ever wondered if you 'really are' an INTP who's developing that inferior Fe in later life, or have you always had that feeling fluency?

Yes, of course. And I'm still open to that possibility. I'm 47, so maturity (if any) is a factor to be considered.
A bit of background, I hope not to bore anybody: my first type in 16personalities many years ago was INTJ. It wasn't long before I started flipping letters to see what happened. And, as I believe you have said elsewhere, @Deleted member 16771 , tests quickly became transparent to me - they were kind of asking "Which type do you think you are" disguised behind many redundant words.

I still think that by going with dicothomies you get a better typing. J vs P is a very clear one in concrete terms, very much in line with Conscientiousness in the Big5. They're measuring the same character traits (or cluster of traits). As with any dicothomy, a normal distribution is to be expected. If you are in the top/bottom end of the distribution, you can safely assume you have that leaning in MBTI dicothomy-wise (not the case if you are kind of in the middle). As I'm very high in Conscientiousness, I'm quite confident about my J.

Actually, when I hadn't understood this yet, I considered the possibility to be a P, but leaned towards ENTP instead, as my N is the only preference that's been clear and consistent through the years (95-99% range), so I'm quite confident I'm an N-dom function-wise. I'm also kind of ambivert, much more extraverted, more in tune with people and "the vibe" in the environment compared to the many INTPs that I know.

This goes back to your point, @John K about Ni vs Ti. In my case, I "think" my vision is what's stronger, not my logic. It's not that I'm not logical, which I am. But even in the most abstract subjects like calculus (I studied engineering) I'm "seeing" things. I can't quote literally what I read about this, but they say that Ti-dom use their prefrontal cortex for problem solving, and Ni-dom use their visual cortex. With a computer analogy (which I don't quite like but find very fitting), Ti-dom use their CPU and Ni-dom their GPU (Graphical Processin Unit), so Ni is way faster than Ti, but messier/opaque, just getting the result to then decide (J) what to do with it.

Being vision-oriented allows to envision the future more easily, even without sufficient data; it is also a great grounding for creativity, for example novel writing (my second occupation beside teaching); it then sorts of "frees" your judging and allows you to extravert and empathise much more than a Ti-dom, who is inside his head analyzing data most of the time.
What a Ni-dom lose is rigor and depth in the analisis, and also dedication to get to the bottom of problems and find the "ultimate truth" of the issue at hand. In that, an Ni-dom is much more concerned about having a good-enough blueprint to lead his actions. This is very well explained for ENTJs, and also for INTJs, seeing the latter as just more driven by vision rather than task completions compared to the former; however, this is also true for xNFJs, it's just that the data considered includes and is more concerned about people, but the vision is there to guide actions. That's very different from INxP, for example, where decisions are more inside them, and what is outside in the extraverted world is more information gathering.
This is very consistent both with the Function-centric model and the Dicothomy-centric model: Js are more decisive, more oriented towards shaping the world according to their will; Ps are more flexible, adapting themself to the world/not caring so much about it. (I'm mainly referring to INs here TBH)

As you can see, I'm trying to avoid the world "feeling" as much as possible, because that's the source of the mess. I'm not an empath with psychic abilites like some INFJs profiles proclaim them to be. However, I'm very tactful, respectful and diplomatic, and relate very much with the Fe expression of that very thorough @John K thread. When immature, I was more a pleaser in a manipulative way; now I'm more nurturing as a father and husband and teacher and mentor for friends and family alike.

It all circles back to my OP: T and F are ill-named and poorly defined. @John K , I've read that whole thread you linked about Fe, thanks a lot for the insight, very enlightening. I would add that the difference between Te and Fe can be very blurry in real life. It's not what you do, it's the reasoning behind it.

For example: I prepare a sandwich for my daughter. Is it Te or Fe? I believe it all boils down to what input you considered to decide to do it. Are you "fixing a problem"? Task oriented, impersonal: Te. Are you "helping a fellow human being"? Person oriented, relational: Fe.

I particularly like this question from the IDR Labs "INTJ or INFJ?" test:
https://www.idrlabs.com/test/intj-or-infj.php

You are the manager of an employee who comes to your office asking you to be lenient with him because of a matter of bereavement in his family. How do you handle his request?
- While I also listen to his story, I primarily look at his time sheets, number of sick days, and other measures of job performance to see if he had proven himself as a worker.
- While I also consult his work records, I primarily listen critically and attentively to find out what is going on with him and whether he is telling the truth.

Or, if you prefer: if objective data and personal data conflict between them, which one do you CHOOSE to follow?

Sorry if I rambled a bit, I hope what I wrote conveyed something meaningful.

 

[mancino]

Relatable. I think my experience in development was similar.

I relate to this too. @Daustus and @John K , I feel we have common experiences here. Being IN puts you in a small minority. If you are male, you kind of have problems developing your F, especially Fe (F outside yourself) when most of your peers are ST. The pressure is huge, maybe just second to the pressure INT females must experience in an ESF-dominated female community.

IN gives you a strong edge in academic pursuit, hence Ti. Quite... logical. But still, Fe means you are sensible to the human environment you live in, but the strong Introversion lean hinders your capability to act on your Fe. Thus, the "I don't quite fit in" stereotype. I've lived it so many times I lost count of them.

 

[John K]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning... but maybe it's my being skeptical about the functions. Agnostic, if you will.
If what you mean is that society values logic more than vision, I agree completely. However...

I'll try and clarify. The trouble is that it ends up becoming a multi-page essay dealing with these topics and forum posts aren't ideal for that

Where I'm coming from is that the majority of people are sensor types not intuitives, and don't appreciate intuitive oriented expressions and approaches. They don't like unsubstantiated generalisations, and don't really like or understand metaphors and figurative forms of expression, or flashes of insight apparently out of nowhere. On the other hand, an intuitive type has a low tolerance for the kind of trivial social things that appeal to a lot of sensors, and many introverted intuitives have problems relating to and keeping up with the instinctive, in the moment, practical way extraverted sensors live in the world. These don't hit us as events, but as an ongoing feeling of being an ugly duckling, awkward outsider who doesn't make sense to a lot of people around them.

I was lucky that both my parents were introverts and intuitives, but a lot of INxJs have parents of clashing types and the problem is amplified for them because their natural way of relating to the world is seen as a handicap and discouraged even more than it was for people like me. Kids learn from role models more than any other way and many Ni folks never come across a role model for how to develop and use Ni.

Now I appreciate that you have reservations about whether the MBTI functions are actually separable and well defined. Personally, I find that the core model gives a very useful vocabulary with which to discriminate and express the kind of processes that go on within my own psychology. It's like choosing a good coordinate system in maths that makes a problem easier to conceptualise and express - even if there is a large element of simplification involved as the price paid. As long as it is treated as a model of reality, not the actual reality, and we stick to its range of good approximation, then it clarifies rather than confuses. Of course it's incomplete and is not the only model - there are others that overlap, live Big 5 or Enneagram, and others again that map totally different aspects of human mental behaviour that fall outside its scope almost entirely, like Transactional Analysis. It's incomplete even in the Jungian context, and is really subservient to his psychology of the unconscious I guess.

I found that the INFJ type within MBTI gives me a lot of insight into myself, both now, and going back many decades to my childhood. I'm not a great fan of the intricate stacking models that seem to have grown up around it, but what I am sure of is the usefulness, for me, of the way it describes the relationship between my Ni and my Ti. Ni and Fe got me nowhere at junior school and left me isolated pretty well. But I learned to be clever and was lucky that my Ti was good - and I found that if I stuck to that I could establish a solid social position as a high academic achiever for most of my school years. The payoff was twofold - sensors appreciate cleverness of that sort and it bought me their recognition and respect, though I was always on the social periphery. Ti bought me a secure affirmation from adults as well, and, all in all, it gave me a way to value myself in the eyes of others - and this gave me an essential inner security. Now what the MBTI model helps me to see is that I have lived with a dance between Ni and Ti all my life. It's my Ni that 'sees', but what it sees is a non-verbal, integrated wholeness of things - this gets turned into linearised, validated humanspeak by my Ti. It isn't Te because it's an introspective, ruminative process rather than an interactive one.

So the MBTI model has helped me to isolate and understand an essential part of my psychological make up even though it's a gross simplification - which is the mark of a good model. Of course, I don't use Ni and Ti in isolation to all the other functions - and you can see the kind of way I looked at Fe in the context of the model. I'm not sure if it's clear from the above, but it's amusing to see with hindsight that essentially I used Ti and Fe in combination to seek affirmation as a child - I was really hooked on finding out about things for their own sake, but I used my Ni / Ti ability mercilessly to gain respect and approval.

Now I don't think I would find it easy to express all this without the kind of vocabulary that comes with a model such as MBTI - and it's a model that easily differentiates the way other types behave. Of course it's incomplete. My Enneagram 5W4 adds a lot of additional pith, including my swings from head to heart and back, and the differences in my behaviour according to how healthy I am psychologically.

 

[mancino]

Thanks @John K , I hope you don't mind that I asked.

Where I'm coming from is that the majority of people are sensor types not intuitives, and don't appreciate intuitive oriented expressions and approaches. They don't like unsubstantiated generalisations, and don't really like or understand metaphors and figurative forms of expression, or flashes of insight apparently out of nowhere. On the other hand, an intuitive type has a low tolerance for the kind of trivial social things that appeal to a lot of sensors, and many introverted intuitives have problems relating to and keeping up with the instinctive, in the moment, practical way extraverted sensors live in the world. These don't hit us as events, but as an ongoing feeling of being an ugly duckling, awkward outsider who doesn't make sense to a lot of people around them.
[...]
Ni and Fe got me nowhere at junior school and left me isolated pretty well. But I learned to be clever and was lucky that my Ti was good - and I found that if I stuck to that I could establish a solid social position as a high academic achiever for most of my school years. The payoff was twofold - sensors appreciate cleverness of that sort and it bought me their recognition and respect, though I was always on the social periphery. Ti bought me a secure affirmation from adults as well, and, all in all, it gave me a way to value myself in the eyes of others - and this gave me an essential inner security. Now what the MBTI model helps me to see is that I have lived with a dance between Ni and Ti all my life. It's my Ni that 'sees', but what it sees is a non-verbal, integrated wholeness of things - this gets turned into linearised, validated humanspeak by my Ti. It isn't Te because it's an introspective, ruminative process rather than an interactive one.

So the MBTI model has helped me to isolate and understand an essential part of my psychological make up even though it's a gross simplification - which is the mark of a good model. Of course, I don't use Ni and Ti in isolation to all the other functions - and you can see the kind of way I looked at Fe in the context of the model. I'm not sure if it's clear from the above, but it's amusing to see with hindsight that essentially I used Ti and Fe in combination to seek affirmation as a child - I was really hooked on finding out about things for their own sake, but I used my Ni / Ti ability mercilessly to gain respect and approval.

Now I don't think I would find it easy to express all this without the kind of vocabulary that comes with a model such as MBTI - and it's a model that easily differentiates the way other types behave. Of course it's incomplete. My Enneagram 5W4 adds a lot of additional pith, including my swings from head to heart and back, and the differences in my behaviour according to how healthy I am psychologically.

I could have written this myself! So very much in common, really.

I am coming to terms with my understading of Fe just recently. I believe I used it as you say: it was a tool to support the Ni-Ti combo to seek affirmation. I was very shy as a child/teen; that can be seen as a Fe aux that's striving to emerge, wanting approval and being afraid not to get it. I overcome my shyness in my 20s, and my Fe grew tremendously. But it was in my 30s that it exploded, together with my Fi which had always been there guiding me. Now I comfortably drive through life with Ni-Fe-Ti, all integrated.

Regarding my childhood and upbringing, I wasn't lucky as you where: althoug I love my parents very much, my connection with them was always difficult. My ISTJ father is one of the biggest traditionalists that I know, and my ISFJ mother, although very supportive and loving, never quite understood me. I never had any real role model, or mentor. The many intuitives I am aware I met were either NT males or ENF females, AFAIK.

I like the way you frame MBTI, like a system of coordinates. If I inmers myself in that system, I see I can confindently say I'm an INFJ with strong Ti, the "Academic" as I saw it labelled somewhere. Ti gives an INTP flavor to the type, but it still is an INFJ, because Fe is way stronger, and the inferior is Se.

Now, if the system allowed a Ni-Ti-Fe-Se stack, that would be a completely different thing, wouldn't it?

 

[John K]

Thanks @John K , I hope you don't mind that I asked.

Not at all - it's good to see if it still makes sense to me lol.

I could have written this myself! So very much in common, really.

This is what gives me confidence that there's empirical value in MBTI as long as it's not over-stretched into complexities it can't justify. There are several INFJs in the forum with a similar history, and one or two INTJs with a parallel history. I was on a management training course when I first came across MBTI and there were 22 of us. After we were typed, they split us up into I v E groups, then S v N, then P vJ and gave us simple exercises to do. It was remarkable how well the model predicted the ways that these groups went about the tasks - it was hilarious really. Sadly I only remember the general outcome, not the actual details because it was a long time ago.

Regarding my childhood and upbringing, I wasn't lucky as you where: althoug I love my parents very much, my connection with them was always difficult. My ISTJ father is one of the biggest traditionalists that I know, and my ISFJ mother, although very supportive and loving, never quite understood me. I never had any real role model, or mentor. The many intuitives I am aware I met were either NT males or ENF females, AFAIK.

It seems to be the most likely situation - there are only one or two of us here with parents of similar type. My mum was definitely INFJ, and I think my father was INFP. There are problems with that too because home becomes a sort of cocoon that divides you from the outside world, so although it was a very safe place to me, it added to my sense of difference and isolation in my teens when I needed more social confidence.

I like the way you frame MBTI, like a system of coordinates. If I inmers myself in that system, I see I can confindently say I'm an INFJ with strong Ti, the "Academic" as I saw it labelled somewhere. Ti gives an INTP flavor to the type, but it still is an INFJ, because Fe is way stronger, and the inferior is Se.

I find there is a special affinity between INFJ and INTP and I typed originally as borderline INTP/J - the computer systems teams I ran were very INTP in flavour and our users were xNTx too (Pharma research scientists). I found them all very easy to be with. I'd taken on that colour through association and it was only later that i realised it wasn't my type. It wasn't just the T that was off key - I think that the J is misleading with introverts because our primary is then a perceiving function. In our heads we are open and spontaneous in our intuition, but we like things to be reasonably well structured and predictable in the outer world. It's great having a few pints with some INTPs and flying a load of Ti kites lol.

Now, if the system allowed a Ni-Ti-Fe-Se stack, that would be a completely different thing, wouldn't it?

LOL I sometimes say that I've acted more like an ITFJ in the past.

 

[dragulagu]

When making a decision, do you

• Let your emotional path guide you to your decision.
• Let your logical path guide you to your decision.

It's nothing more than that..

 

[Vendrah]

You sort of already know my opinion on this: This is more a thing of N-doms that doesn't have much affinity with a T/F function rather than T/F is actually confusing, because any N-dom will use both a bit and there are N-doms who alternate constantly between either, INFJ e5 is one example, there are others (such as ENFP e3). So, yeah, it is "confusing" for me too because it uses both but for people who are more a F-dom or a T-dom this is way much clearer - think about Reckful, for example, who is clearly a thinker; Or, for those inside the forum, @Pin would be an example of a clearer thinker? I think.. Or @Winter Memories as a feeling, for her the F vs T divide has definitely way more clearer than for both of us. Although Im @ both they are examples, Im not summing them to the thread but it is always good to know if somebody is talking about you, right?

F vs T in Jung is simple, as I had quoted to you earlier these:

FEELING

“21. FEELING.46 I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions (q.v.). I am unable to support the psychological school that considers feeling a secondary phenomenon dependent on “representations” or sensations, but in company with Höffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Külpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function sui generis.”47

[724] Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego (q.v.) and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (“like” or “dislike”). The process can also appear isolated, as it were, in the form of a “mood,” regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.

[725] Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation.48 Even an “indifferent” sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation.

Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be.

When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect (q.v.), i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.

[726] Ordinary, “simple” feeling is concrete (q.v.), that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it affective or, as I have done in this book, feelingsensation, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking. Although feeling is, in itself, an independent function, it can easily become dependent on another function—thinking, for instance; it is then a mere concomitant of thinking, and is not repressed only in so far as it accommodates itself to the thinking processes.

[727] It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. Just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) abolishes the differences between things it apprehends, abstract feeling rises above the differences of the individual contents it evaluates, and produces a “mood” or feelingstate which embraces the different individual valuations and thereby abolishes them. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discreteness of things, but only with their universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational (q.v.) function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws.

[728] Naturally the above definitions do not give the essence of feeling— they only describe it from outside. The intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in conceptual terms, since thinking belongs to a category incommensurable with feeling; in fact, no basic psychological function can ever be completely expressed by another. That being so, it is impossible for an intellectual definition to reproduce the specific character of feeling at all adequately. The mere classification of feelings adds nothing to an understanding of their nature, because even the most exact classification will be able to indicate only the content of feeling which the intellect can apprehend, without grasping its specific nature.

Only as many classes of feelings can be discriminated as there are classes of contents that can be intellectually apprehended, but feeling per se can never be exhaustively classified because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, there still exist feelings which resist intellectual classification. The very notion of classification is intellectual and therefore incompatible with the nature of feeling. We must therefore be content to indicate the limits of the concept.

[729] The nature of valuation by feeling may be compared with intellectual apperception (q.v.) as an apperception of value. We can distinguish active and passive apperception by feeling. Passive feeling allows itself to be attracted or excited by a particular content, which then forces the feelings of the subject to participate. Active feeling is a transfer of value from the subject; it is an intentional valuation of the content in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with the intellect. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of the will (q.v.), as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. The latter would be undirected, passive feeling, as these expressions themselves show: the one is an activity, the other a passive state. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Strictly speaking, therefore, only active, directed feeling should be termed rational, whereas passive feeling is irrational (q.v.) in so far as it confers values without the participation or even against the intentions of the subject. When the subject’s attitude as a whole is oriented by the feeling function, we speak of a feeling type (v. Type).

[730] 21a. FEELING, A (or FEELINGS). A feeling is the specific content or

material of the feeling function, discriminated by empathy (q.v.).”

THINKING

“53. THINKING. This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (q.v.). Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws, brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another. It is an apperceptive (q.v.) activity, and as such may be divided into active and passive thinking. Active thinking is an act of the will (q.v.), passive thinking is a mere occurrence. In the former case, I submit the contents of ideation to a voluntary act of judgment; in the latter, conceptual connections establish themselves of their own accord, and judgments are formed that may even contradict my intention. They are not consonant with my aim and therefore, for me, lack any sense of direction, although I may afterwards recognize their directedness through an act of active apperception. Active thinking, accordingly, would correspond to my concept of directed thinking.85 Passive thinking was inadequately described in my previous work as “fantasy thinking.”86 Today I would call it intuitive thinking.

[831] To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking,87 is not thinking at all, but

mere ideation. The term “thinking” should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not.

[832] The capacity for directed thinking I call intellect; the capacity for passive or undirected thinking I call intellectual intuition. Further, I call directed thinking a rational (q.v.) function, because it arranges the contents of ideation under concepts in accordance with a rational norm of which I am conscious. Undirected thinking is in my view an irrational (q.v.) function, because it arranges and judges the contents of ideation by norms of which I am not conscious and therefore cannot recognize as being in accord with reason. Subsequently I may be able to recognize that the intuitive act of judgment accorded with reason, although it came about in a way that appears to me irrational.

[833] Thinking that is governed by feeling (q.v.) I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as a thinking dependent on feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favour of the aims of feeling.

[834] 53a. THOUGHT. Thought is the specific content or material of the thinking function, discriminated by thinking (q.v.).

So, Jung Feelings is still emotion-related (while MBTI tried to remove that), it is related to make decisions based on 'what you like or don't like' without much logical explanation (but for me and you both will play as a factor), whereas thinking is doing decisions using logic and reason, in resume.

This was later expanded on MBTI with the MBTI Facets you already know, switching to more of a focus on "people vs things", which partially hits a little bit of Agreeableness. But in Jung it wasn't really much people vs things, because for Jung that would be closer to E/I, and in my opinion, people vs things would be more a EXFX vs IXTX thing and would be one aspect of feeling. You also know that I always argue that the correlation of Feeling and Agreeableness is way too weak to be considered as very switchable and equivalent, since I did had results of Big 5 and Feelers with low Agreeableness and Thinkers with Big 5 Agreeableness high, not much usual but it happens, partially because some facets, like Cooperation, Altruism and another one I forgot does have an almost zero relation with T/F (I do believe that if a person is Extraverted, the correlation strengthens, while for Introverts it gets weakier, never had really could confirm this).

So, trying to answer you a bit with my words rather than Jung, Feeling would be more about making decisions based on what you like or dislike, Thinking would be more about making decisions based on reasoning and logic; Feeling would also relate to being empathetic to others (as understanding and being concerned about other emotions, being more subject to moods and emotionals high and lows, also relates to doing decisions based on feeling-values, whereas these values can come from external values or internal values that are actually from "collective unconscious" (or just from the genes); Thinking would also be about analyzing things and logical principles. Expanding this, you could extend the People vs Things as you did described plus you could expand feeling more into relating it to modesty, wanting less inequality for people and being more merciful towards handicapped people such as homeless (not sure handicap was the proper word), more able and likely to trust others and wanting to be trusted, however this expansion are already value related and thinkers could have similar approaches, so this might be too much extrapolation, but these are the Fi collective unconscious value I could catch (there are 1-2 more, actually).

Deducing or figuring what people most likely perspective is is something more neutral on T/F, since that can be done with reasoning), , Feeling neuroticism would be related into feeling sadness, anxiety and anger and being sunk on negative emotions, whereas Thinking "neuroticism" (since that extrapolates Big 5 now) would be more apathetical attitude.

So, yeah, that mostly it on my side. I don't think I would have much more to say and I relate to either as well.

 

[charlatan]

I agree dichotomies and functions are best separated/treated separately in typing in many ways...


I think the one clarifying point I can make on this issue:

INTJ and INFJ are two flavors of the same type, only that the INFJ is more agreeable but yielding and the INTJ is less empathic but tougher.


What do you “think” about this? Does it make sense?

is that the Big 5 and MBTI are indeed significantly correlated, but when it comes to exact typing judgments, I think the fact they're not anywhere near perfectly correlated means you could be somewhat at a different end for Big 5 than for MBTI.

That includes that there could be Ts higher in Agreeableness (but they'd somewhat often be less strong Ts )
And that there could be Fs relatively lower in Agreeableness.

A way to appreciate this is that already, one of the Big 5's main competitors HEXACO organizes the same ideas behind Big 5 differently, e.g. their version of Agreeableness bears more of a negative correlation with Neuroticism from the Big 5 (since it involves the opposite of easily-angered).
This helps see how just because there's a correlation doesn't mean the implementations are identical. But it does mean a very strong T is at least unlikely to be at the highest level in all the facets of Agreeableness.


I think the safest way to see T/F I've come across is to view it as the region of intercorrelation between the "logic vs feeling" and "tough vs tender" dichotomies. Already the latter is merely a specific facet of Agreeableness, and there are others that are less correlated to it. And it looks like this specific facet of Agreeableness (due to emphasis on making decisions out of compassion over some more detached mechanism) is more correlated with the logic vs feeling.

 

[mancino]

When making a decision, do you

• Let your emotional path guide you to your decision.
• Let your logical path guide you to your decision.

It's nothing more than that..

For example... this:

Is this T or F?

give your answer before reading in the spoiler.

Spoiler: my take

It's the "Follow your heart" manifesto right?
Well, maybe.
It's also an extremely strong rational argument for doing that.
So...
Is it F with a dash of T, or Fe/Ti, or even Ti/Fe (Alan Watts is many times typed ENTP) or even Fi/Te ("What makes you itch? What do I desire" is quintessential Fi, right? So not for an INFJ)... you get my point. I think it doesn't work this way.

I would just say that "money" is the quintessential T thing; "follow your calling" (and first, find it) is F.

I'm asking because this it what I did in my life, a couple of times, radically. I've sent this video so many times to friends as a hint of a "different perspective" to choose what to do with their life. But still can't quite "type" this...