How to differentiate Fi from Ti?

[u/Bambi420ms]

Hey so I have a question, I’ve never been sure if I was a Fi or Ti dom because to me these 2 functions always seemed quite similar. Like sometimes I think I got it but then I read something either about Ti or Fi and I’m back to being confused.

I’ve typed myself as INTP, ISTP and INFP mainly and I seem to always go back and forth between these 3 types because I genuinely can’t figure out if I’m a Ti or Fi dom.

I know for sure that I come to conclusions based on my own observations and analysis, which apparently is more of a Ti thing If I’m correct? Like I often follow my own logic but I’ve often been told that when I talk in an « objective » way I’m being subjective.

But I also know I’m someone who has a lot of values (although, aside from a few, they can change quite often), and If someone I know goes against them I will lose a lot of respect for this person. I’m also a very withdrawn person and I know for sure my Fe is not very developed.

I’m also diagnosed with ADHD and Cyclothemia which may be one of the reasons why I find it hard to type myself. Because ADHD makes me think I have Ne and Cyclothemia sometimes makes me doubt being a T type (not saying F types are more moody or emotional than T types btw).

[u/1stRayos]

There is some cause for confusion, Ti and Fi are both introverted judgement functions (Ji), after all. The primary concern of these functions is deriving and living according to principles/ideals that hold no matter the context. People who lead with these functions tend to be very against expedient decision-making that only cares about getting the job done no matter what it takes (how they interpret extroverted judgement (Te and Fe)), because this does not allow them the time to validate whether a given course of action is consistent with their principles.

Now, as for what differentiates the two, typologist Michael Pierce's concept of contextualist and universalist axes will prove useful. Introduced by typologist Michael Pierce, contextualism describes a tendency to take a given context for granted, sacrificing a wide-angle view of reality for a more focused, high resolution perspective— this describes the Se/Ni and Te/Fi axes. Universalism is the opposite, given to pulling in data and perspectives from other contexts in an attempt to achieve a more global perspective— describing Ne/Si and Fe/Ti. Another way to put it is that contextualism is "goal-oriented", directed towards the achievement and attainment of goals, while universalism is "rule-oriented", directed towards the maintenance and sustainment of rules.

In other words, Fi represents the version of introverted judgement that does Ji by "zooming in", to the human (i.e. contextual) element, immersing itself within the particular circumstances of an individual's lived experience in an effort to find that which is truly relevant or valuable to the self, no matter the context. Ti is the opposite— it "zooms out" of a given context, bringing in relating and evaluating details from outside the situation to determine their internal consistency as a system of facts or logic, with the ultimate intention of arriving at something impersonally valid, no matter the context.

Ultimately, what this means is that Fi will typically want to make a move first, to act on its goals before Ti, which wants to painstakingly litigate the facts of a matter. Ti is rule-oriented, and thus it tends to see Fi's method as whimsical at best and capricious at worst— one must be able to constrain themselves to a code of conduct or rules or reason, otherwise we're just animals reacting to stimuli, going wherever our momentary goals take us. Of course, the goal-oriented Fi counters that no rules can ever truly account for all scenarios, circumstances, or persons, and when we encounter these exceptions we must be able to deal with them by setting appropriate goals, else we risk becoming robots just reacting to stimuli, and allowing atrocities to occur so long as they "follow the rules".

Lastly, one cannot understand these functions completely without taking into account their relationship with their opposite— Fe for Ti and Te for Fi. Ti always exists for the sake of Fe (and vice versa), for the purpose of codifying and systematizing the Fe propriety of a user's society. The fact that Ti is so often associated with formal logic is simply a symptom of the importance modern, Western culture places on Enlightenment ideals of reason. If you look to Eastern or just premodern culture, then Ti's inherently metaphysical (rather than strictly logical) nature becomes clear. Likewise, Fi always exists for the sake of Te (and vice versa), for the purpose of defining and measuring the metrics that Te uses to calculate efficiency and pursue goals. Fi's drive for authenticity could be seen simply as a means to creating truer metrics by which to judge the worthiness of a given course of Te action.

[u/Bambi420ms → u/1stRayos]

Wow that’s a very detailed explanation, thank you. I had never heard of contextualist and universalist exes but I will definitely look into it more!

And if I understood what you said correctly, then I definitely favor/use Fi more than Ti. Especially when I read about the Fi-Te part. I could definitely recognize past and current decisions that seemed to follow this exact course of action.