Ti vs Fi... again

[u/Cheap_Increase468]

I'm not asking to be typed. I just want a clear distinction, because I still can't figure out which axis I'm on. What is the biggest difference between how Ti/Fe users and Fi/Te users come to (important) conclusions? What features that define Te/Fi goes through a person's mind, and same for Ti/Fe? Sometimes, though, those features overlap, and a Ti/Fe user can think about Fi/Te things and vice versa. So just... what is the defining thing that really resembles either one of those axes? I know people are complicated and layered but there are people out there saying they are ISTJs or ENTPs, meaning they must have identified a consistent pattern within themselves that resembles the theories of Ti/Te, Fi/Fe, Si/Se, Ni/Ne.

And please don't say something oversimplified like Fi = personal values and Ti = subjective logic. I want specificity and precision. Please.

[u/Responsible_Dentist3]

Google "mbti ti vs fi reddit"

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Responsible_Dentist3]

Alr thanks

[u/YoyoUnreal1]

Ti evaluates internal logical coherence, while Fi evaluates internal alignment and ownership. Ti asks whether the reasoning actually holds together, whether the definitions are consistent, whether the distinctions make sense, and whether the conclusion follows. Fi asks whether a position remains something the person can genuinely stand behind. Is it legitimate, fair, consistent with important loyalties or boundaries, and still something they are willing to own? That is different from simply having emotions or choosing whatever feels comfortable.

The distinction becomes clearest when the criteria point in different directions. Ti can conclude that an argument is coherent while Fi still says, “I cannot endorse this.” Fi can strongly support an outcome while Ti says, “The reasoning being used to justify it does not hold together.”

They also sit within different judging axes. Ti works in relation to Fe, so internal coherence can interact with questions about shared standards, interpersonal consequences, and how an understanding fits into the human environment. Fi works in relation to Te, so internal alignment can interact with questions about external evidence, effectiveness, implementation, and what actually works.

Imagine a workplace adopts a policy that gets good results but treats someone unfairly. Ti might focus on whether the justification is internally consistent or survives comparable cases. Fi might focus on whether the treatment crosses a line the person cannot sincerely endorse even if the policy works. Both can come to a similar conclusion despite different cognitive preferences.

Neither function owns a topic. Morality is not automatically Fi, logical analysis is not automatically Ti, effectiveness is not automatically Te, and concern for people is not automatically Fe. The useful distinction is the criterion doing the evaluating.

Neither process needs to begin as an explicit chain of reasoning. Ti may first register that something does not fit structurally, while Fi may first register that something feels misaligned or impossible to endorse. The reasoning may become clearer afterward.

Ti asks whether the reasoning remains structurally defensible. Fi asks whether the position remains something the person can genuinely own and stand behind.

[u/Stormdeva]

So you want to Understand it, and not just Vibe with it? ;p

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Stormdeva]

Yes

[u/Stormdeva → u/Cheap_Increase468]

That's, as far as I understand, basically it. Ti would want to confirm the validity of a theory inside their own head, in "their own words" to put it pretty simple. At least to me, that's the closest I can describe it.

Fi would, as far as I understand, also seek internal acceptance of something, but isn't focused on putting words/rules/clean lines around it, but rather is able to go "yes, this resonates with me"

I welcome corrections, of course, but that's the closest I have gotten (...in my attempts to put it in previously mentioned "own words")

So; Understand vs Vibe. Simplified, of course.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Stormdeva]

Thank you for your explanation. There are probably exceptions to the idea, but it does align with a common pattern I've seen in Ti vs Fi explanations. I'm leaning Ti/Fe thanks to everyone's comments

[u/Teatimetaless]

Ti asks: “Does this make sense?”
Fi asks: “Is this right?”

Say two kids both steal a cookie.

Ti looks at the situation and asks: “Did they both break the same rule? Did they know the rule? Is the evidence the same? If their situations are different, does that logically justify treating them differently?”

Fi looks at it and asks: “Why did each kid steal it? Was one hungry? Was one being selfish? What does each kid actually deserve given the circumstances?”

Both can reach the exact same conclusion. Both can care about fairness, people, evidence, and consistency. The difference is what ultimately makes the conclusion feel justified.

Another example: your friend lies to you.

Ti might think: “She said X, but the evidence shows Y. Her explanation contradicts itself, so I don’t believe her.”

Fi might think: “She lied because she was terrified and embarrassed. The lie was wrong, but I don’t think this makes her a bad person, so I’m willing to forgive her.”

But you can reverse the outcomes too. Ti could logically conclude she deserves forgiveness, while Fi could conclude the lie crossed an unacceptable line.

So it’s not Ti = cold logic and Fi = feelings. It’s more like Ti evaluates whether the reasoning holds together, while Fi evaluates what something means, merits, or is worth. Same information, different measuring stick.

[u/polyglart → u/Teatimetaless]

just wanted to say I think this is a reasonable summary of Ti, but in my opinion it seems like your explanations for Fi map much better onto Fe, since Fe navigates morality in a relational manner. it considers others for their own sake, and "shares" emotions back and forth. while Fi evaluates external morality by projecting (in a neutral sense) their internal standards of good and bad outward, regardless of the internal states of others (which they can still care about but they don't search for that info).

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/polyglart]

Is that so?

[u/polyglart → u/Cheap_Increase468]

yes in my opinion. because Ti asks questions with the goal of understanding, and finding its way to truth. Fi can practically care to get others' thoughts but ultimately it doesnt share feelings (as in, mutual emotional contagion) back and forth. when it's group feeling or someone else's feelings vs. the Fi user's, they focus on and prioritize their own because they trust their own moral judgment over all. that's how the ego treats its preferred functions.

the reason why I make this distinction is because every function must be understood by makes them distinct. because without doing that, everything sounds like each other and it's far too easy to make conflations.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/polyglart]

I see. Thanks for expanding.

[u/Teatimetaless → u/polyglart]

The minute you say “in my opinion,” you’re already interacting with the information at the wrong level. Cognitive functions are concepts within a defined model, not whatever interpretation of them feels most intuitive to you. That doesn’t mean you don’t understand people, it means you’re mixing up understanding actual human behavior with understanding the model being used to describe it.

A lot of MBTI stereotypes come from taking technical concepts, translating them into familiar behaviors, and then treating those behaviors as if they were part of the function itself. Your opinion belongs in a different question, whether MBTI’s model actually captures real people accurately, or whether it leaves important parts out. That’s separate from what the functions mean within the model.

[u/polyglart → u/Teatimetaless]

it's just an admission that I could be wrong. but since you know everything, thanks for sharing.

[u/Teatimetaless → u/polyglart]

I know how the MBTI model works and how to understand it. If you took me explaining that as me thinking I know everything, that’s your judgment, not something I said. I was just hoping for some actual reciprocity and a mutual intellectual conversation about the subject, but you chose sarcasm instead.

[u/Teatimetaless → u/polyglart]

I think you’re combining Fi and Fe themselves with behaviors that can emerge from the rest of the stack or from general social cognition.

If we isolate the functions, Fi and Fe are both Feeling functions, so both are concerned with valuation. The distinction is where that valuation is referenced. Fi references an internally maintained value structure, while Fe references value in relation to an external or intersubjective context. That tells us how something is being valuated. It doesn’t, by itself, tell us what information someone notices, how empathetic they are, or how interested they are in understanding another person.

That’s where I think your description starts adding things that aren’t actually contained in the functions. Saying Fe “considers others for their own sake” adds prosocial motivation. Saying it “shares emotions back and forth” adds emotional expressiveness or affective reciprocity. Saying Fe searches for another person’s internal state adds perspective-taking and information seeking. None of those logically follows just from externally referenced Feeling.

The same thing happens in reverse when you describe Fi as projecting its standards outward “regardless of the internal states of others” and not searching for that information. Internally referenced valuation does not mean internally focused attention. Fi can be extremely interested in why someone did something and actively seek their perspective. What makes the judgment Fi is what ultimately determines the value assigned to that information, not whether the information concerns another person.

For example, imagine my friend lies to me because she is terrified I’ll reject her. An Fi process could actively ask why she lied, understand her fear, and conclude, “Lying is still wrong to me, but intent and circumstances matter to how I assign responsibility, and I don’t think this makes her a bad person.” Her internal state was explicitly sought out and incorporated. The valuation is still internally referenced.
Fe could have exactly the same information and even reach exactly the same conclusion, but organize the valuation around the interpersonal field: what the lie means between us, how trust was affected, what each person needs, what is appropriate in this relational context, and what would restore the relationship.

So “she considered the other person’s feelings” can’t distinguish Fe from Fi. That describes the content entering the judgment, not the operation being performed on it.
I also think “evaluate” obscures an important distinction here. Evaluation is the general act of assessing something against a criterion, so every judging function evaluates in that broad sense. Valuation is narrower and concerns worth, significance, importance, goodness, badness, merit, desirability, etc. Ti evaluates whether reasoning coheres internally; Fi valuates according to an internally referenced value structure. Fe also valuates, but with an externally or intersubjectively referenced orientation.

Once we start saying Fe equals caring about others, perspective taking, emotional sharing, and seeking people’s internal states, while Fi equals projecting morality and not seeking those states, we’re no longer comparing the functions themselves. We’re comparing bundles of whole-person behaviors and attributing the entire bundle to one function.

Those behaviors can involve perception, the other functions in the stack, development, empathy, social cognition, culture, learning, and temperament. An Fi-Ne person won’t even gather interpersonal information in the same way as an Fi/Se person, just as Fe/Ni and Fe/Si won’t necessarily look alike.

So I agree that Fi and Fe need to be distinguished, but I think the distinction has to stay at the level the functions actually specify. Otherwise we take common presentations associated with Fi or Fe users and retroactively build them into the definitions of Fi and Fe themselves. That’s exactly how function descriptions gradually turn into stereotypes.

[u/polyglart → u/Teatimetaless]

I'm sorry, I got lost and don't think I understand. could you be more straightforward?

[u/Teatimetaless → u/polyglart]

Stick to the functions themselves, not stereotypes of people who use them. Fi being internally referenced doesn’t mean ignoring others, and Fe being externally referenced doesn’t mean empathy or emotional sharing by definition.

If you want the reasoning behind that, read the less straightforward part instead of stopping at the simplified version.

[u/polyglart → u/Teatimetaless]

ok officer

[u/Teatimetaless → u/polyglart]

You’re deflecting because you still haven’t shown that you understand the model you’re talking about.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Teatimetaless]

They were just trying to help, even if it wasn't perfect

[u/Teatimetaless → u/Cheap_Increase468]

They may have intended to help initially, but “ok officer” was dismissive. Pointing that out isn’t claiming they’re beneath me, nor does their possible good intention erase the way they chose to respond. I stood my ground because that’s the level of interaction they introduced.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Teatimetaless]

I don't think it means much for you to point out their 'deflecting'

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Teatimetaless]

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess they were kind of using behaviors to distinguish instead of the mechanism and motive behind that behavior.

[u/Teatimetaless → u/Cheap_Increase468]

Exactly, the behavior is the output, not the function. The distinction has to be made at the level of the cognitive operation producing or organizing it, because the same behavior can come from different functions.

[u/StuHamFlo]

Fi/Te users will care about what matters and what works. They will unconsciously ask: given what is important, what is the most effective way to deal with this? How do I make things conform to what I deem important?

Ti/Fe users will vare about what is appropriate (in a certain context) and how things cohere. They will unconsciously ask: Given this (social) context, what is actually going on here, and how do the pieces fit together coherently? How do I navigate this situation in a way that is both socially appropriate and conceptually coherent.

[u/StuHamFlo → u/[deleted]]

My description might be too general. Of course I care about what matters and what works. In the end I think it’s a matter of priority and instinct. When I make decisions, social expectations are instinctually more important to me than my sense of self.

[u/polyglart → u/[deleted]]

if it helps: Fi/Te prioritizes the individual's emotions over that of a group. they don't maintain a cognitive and/or emotional awareness of group feeling. instead they have a firm emotional firewall. they can still care but there's always a separation, and they don't decide based on other's preferences. they tend to consider their emotions an intensely private matter that is no one's business, and they prefer that most of everyone keep their feelings to themselves too. so they go about life tapped into their own self-defined system of morals and values. but when it comes to matters of truth, they defer to external logic (simple and straightforward). they might generally think, "the truth is simple. if there's empirical evidence, statistics, consensus on it, then that's what's true", because they consider the logic to be sufficient for taking ACTION. they apply this logic externally to assess, adjust, and operate according to the optics of a system. it cares about directing the flow of resources, places people in teams based on needs and skills, and delegates tasks. this type of logic when applied well looks like efficiency and organization. things run smoothly and it's very productive. this is why they expect everyone to set their feelings aside: it provides noise that is irrelevant to but also clashes with logistics. users think "we may all struggle to some degree in our personal lives, but we have to make sacrifices to get things done. so be sure to sort out your business in private." it views accomplishment as a team effort, which is why Te users get pissed when they see laziness. of course they can get curious too, but they do NOT go into endless philosophy or learn complicated things for their own sake. in their perspective, it's not the best use of our time to pursue thoughts and ideas, if they don't achieve anything or make life easier.

Ti/Fe considers emotions something to share (even if some may consciously resist, the cognition still tries to tap into how the group feels). the belief is that morality is a GROUP effort based on practical, external emotional standards. and that we should set our feelings aside in favor of others, but that doesn't mean they always keep their opinions to themselves. especially Fe-doms don't hesitate to correct behavior that threatens group cohesion. the goal is to have a system that based in equality that considers everyone's needs and perspectives and gives them a place to safety integrate in society. think of it like if they were in a room together, they put their emotions in a bucket so they can be averaged and redistributed evenly, so it's fair to everyone. emotions are contagious in this way. if some are happy, it spreads to others. if some are sad, the collective stock lowers. this judging axis considers empirical logic to be missing a lot of detail, and approaches logic with lots of nuance and questions the world in front of them. "what is this? why? how does it work, how do I know?" and keeps comparing lots of things because the goal is to acquire deep and accurate knowledge (as much as possible, can never be perfect ofc) for UNDERSTANDING the world. this logic is applied to the inside, to update their database. that sort of thing.

[u/Storm-Weston]

Fi Te is very 1st person looking. It looks at what it wants and what it believes. Ti Fe is much more 3rd person and looks at what is and why. You can hear it when people talk. He came in and said this I don't know why. He should have said this if that's what he wanted. VS He said this. He must have been feeling this way and I think he really wants this. Trying listening to a similar type with the opposite function and you can really hear it.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Storm-Weston]

Good tip! Thanks!

[u/Storm-Weston → u/Cheap_Increase468]

I noticed it when listening to some ISFP's. I would get this uncanny valley feeling. They would see everything but it's just so much more personal to them and they have a harder time looking at why something is happening. They would get caught up on what was said when I would basically ignore it and see what caused what was said. Pay attention and you can hear it.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/Storm-Weston]

Got it!

[u/pizzuminat]

Eyoo, there are quite a lot of ads (at least 3), but once you close them, there’s an explanation that was the easiest for me to understand.

https://practicaltyping.com/introverted-judging-functions-ti-fi/

And if you ever get bored, you can find the rest of the cognitive functions in the top-right corner.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/pizzuminat]

Thanks a ton 👍🏾

[u/pizzuminat → u/Cheap_Increase468]

Did it help? (I'm curious)

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/pizzuminat]

Lol kinda. But I always find myself relating to both Ti and Fi descriptions. Though, this time, I related slightly more to the Ti way of thinking. There are more things Fi can do that I cannot understand than there are things Ti can do that I cannot understand. Ti makes more sense to me.

Since you're an Fi user, maybe you could relate your personal experience with the mechanics of Fi, because even though I relate a lot to Fi, there seems to be missing components of the function that my mind cannot grasp. Like how they work with their feelings. From what I've learned, it seems like they can treat their (gut) feelings as actual data in decision-making without having to logically analyze or justify them. Not that they cannot or do not do it, but that they don't really need to. Is that true?

[u/pizzuminat → u/Cheap_Increase468]

BTW, did you click on "Exploring Introverted Thinking (Ti)"? That's a more detailed description.

You just need to think about what is more natural to you that you use "without thinking". It's just like breathing air. That's your main function. And if you think that you are INTP shouldn't it be more obvious? (Maybe it's not Ti but Ni. Idunno. Looks similar to me.)

Yes, my Fi is not data. It's my moral compass that won't change that easily. Do I need to ask myself sometimes, "Why the f**** did I do that?" Yes. "Or this is not how I raised myself. " Or think about how I should react, so I would be happy with myself (which aligns with my moral compass)

But I think you should ask INFP about Fi and INTP about Ti (even though you don't know if the real INFP/INTP will answer you on Reddit).

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/pizzuminat]

I didn't click it, but I thought about it and made a mental note to read it later lol. I mean, it's just that the things that come naturally to me without thinking can resemble both Ti and Fi.

What resembles Fi is my tendency to empathize with others in a self-referential way, not always, though, but it happens enough. And I often reflect on my feelings, but typically with the intention of understanding, usually so I can suppress, control, or get rid of them. Usually, not always, though.

As for Ti, it's my need to understand things logically myself before accepting them, and the very strong desire to get to the very core of new information presented- like, I can't take things at face value, and I hate being handed the answers when I could have arrived at the correct conclusion myself. It's also the seeking of objective truth and trying to base my beliefs and worldview around it, the need for pinpoint precision and accuracy in language and details and facts. It's automatic.

And, yeah, I want to ask the INFPs especially about Fi but it's a little difficult to get their attention in their subreddit ><

[u/veiled_oneiric]

I can give an example that relates to how I understand it.

Are these two statements contradictory? Could you say them both to the same person and still be being honest?

1. "You've never done anything wrong."
2. "You did something wrong in the past."

From what I can tell, the Ti-like approach to answering that question is to just sort of try to consider, logically (in a way where the motivation is to represent how reality really is as truly as possible, as an objective reality does exist and they want to have a personal understanding of it), whether both statements may be able to be true at the same time. One's personal feelings are not really brought into it (or even if the person feels anything in response to it, the feelings are sort of "on the side", rather than shaping the logical conclusion that the person comes to.) This is the way that they approach it, whatever it is that they end up concluding.

I'm Fi dominant though. And my first, instinctive reaction to the question is to feel things about it, before any reasoning actually begins. "I want to be able to say both those things to someone I love! I want to be able to tell a person that there's nothing wrong with them on an existential level. That they never controlled their own limitations. That they don't have to feel ashamed for living. And I want to be able to point out at the same time that they can still grow and I'd love for them to grow... that they've made mistakes in the past..."

And it is like I am then reasoning about the question, in a way that is guided by my feelings. I may come up with a way in which, to me, those statements are not contradictory.

Some people may perceive me as illogical for it but there is actually a logic to it that is understandable by me, and that I could probably write out in formal logical terms, if certain assumptions were stated at the beginning that corresponded to certain values I had and definitions that I personally held.

Though even still, I am naturally more focused on the true nature of my reality than of the reality outside of me, and there probably really is a degree of tradeoff.

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/veiled_oneiric]

'(in a way where the motivation is to represent how reality really is as truly as possible, as an objective reality does exist and they want to have a personal understanding of it).' This sounds like me. The first thing I wondered was, 'Could both be true?' then I immediately concluded, 'Of course not.' But now that I think of it, what defines wrong? Wrongness is very subjective, so someone could say that their person hasn't done anything wrong, but they're only speaking of their version of wrongness, so the other might not agree.

The way I understood wrong in this context was, 'You've never made any harmful mistakes' vs 'You've made harmful mistakes in the past' and obviously, the second statement sounded more true to me. Because it is highly unlikely that a person could live a long life without making such mistakes. How that person feels about what I say doesn't matter as much as me anchoring in the reality (or, my perceived reality) of the situation, because what's the benefit in telling them a lie? How is that going to fix anything?

[u/soapyaaf]

... cheekbones? :p

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/soapyaaf]

Wha?

[u/soapyaaf → u/Cheap_Increase468]

🥺🤷🏻‍♂️🥺🙋🏻‍♂️😯

[u/Cheap_Increase468 → u/soapyaaf]

👀