2:28 That interestingly lines up with what Jung said about Te and Ti. Thinking in the extraverted attitude, according to him, tends to be oriented towards practical outcomes. Thinking in the introverted attitude, however, tends to be, for lack of a better description, "just for fun."
@@asianbabyboy its funny cause i see your point. As High Ti i actually simply just avoid learning things if i see no use for them. Because ik if i wanna learn something I wanna truly understand it. I found when u truly know something your able to apply it to alot more than just its main purpose. So i agree i hate tiring my brain for no reason. Its just more of a all or nothing approach
A better description for Ti is "Knowledge for its own sake". Just for Fun implies that it is for fun that Ti users find knowledge, when they can also feel compelled to by an external law, which could be Fe in their stack, even if they don't find it fun, but necessary. Either way, in both of these instances Ti's focus is on the knowledge itself and not the goal. Simply put Te's eyes are on what you can accomplish with the facts why said facts are important in a physical level. Ti's eyes are on what facts truly delve deep into, why said facts are important in an abstract level.
Incredibly thorough for a 7 minute video, direct and concise, but also brilliantly and precisely drawn. As an INTP, I really feel identified with your depiction of the Fe-Ti axis, and that is why your videos are so appealing to me.
Learning about the judging and perceiving axes makes it soo much easier to understand how the functions work and how to recognize these axes when typing people. Has anyone taken the function test on Celebritytypes? Every time I take it, I usually get Ti as my most pronounced function. And I'll never forget this statement from the description of Ti: "You tend to believe that in order for an analysis or blueprint for action to be valid, it must work as an impartial two-way street where no one is entitled to special pleading at the expense of anyone else." I noticed right away there's some Fe sentiment in that last bit. Even though Ti-doms repress Fe, they subconsciously believe everyone is cut from the same cloth, that we're all equal and its only fair for EVERYBODYto understand the principles behind the world. Its just outside influences (values, experiences, sentiments) that shaped people differently.
I don't have an analogy for te/fi but a really good analogy for the fe/ti axis is the golden ratio and Fibonnaci sequence. You have this mathematical formula (ti) which always equals 1.618 underlying various things which are pleasing to the eye (fe). A lot of ancient sculptures have been created based on this formula. its seen in nature as well. another example is (for males) having a shoulder size 1.618 larger than the waist size which is VERY aesthetically pleasing.
Fantastic video! It does well to not only broaden my understanding of human nature in general but also to illuminate and lay bare my own biases as a fellow Ti-Fe user. Thank you. I look forward to a similar analysis of the perceiving axes.
So I've been alternating between Type Tips and this channel for the last two weeks and I was just thinking how nicely the two perspectives balance. Then this video perfectly explains the balance as the polarity of the judgement axes (Leon Tsao using Fi-Te vs. Michael Pierce explaining in a Fe-Ti manner). It's great! I am literally clambering around in the mind of Jung made manifest generations after his passing.
This explanation can be difficult to understand for a Te-Fi user like myself to understand Fe-Ti. But thinking about this more, I've come to another explanation. Jung's explanation of the different appearances/actions/approaches of different people was that they have logical mental principals (or systems of perception and judgment) by which they operate (the cognitive functions). While a person of an Te-Fi axis would explain the ACTIONS of people on their motivations (an example would be enneagram). I have noticed the prefer systems of the different axis, Te-Fi and Fe-Ti, on the internet for the understanding of personality to be mbti and enneagram respectably.
+Amanda Gutierrez Can you reword this? Did you simply want to say that Te/Fi types are more likely to prefer MBTI and Ti/Fe types are more likely to prefer the Enneagram for explaining why people do what they do?
+Komatik oops I switched it. Te-Fi would prefer enneagram. To me, mbti is a system that a Ti person would come up with since it works with the internal logic of something. Mbti is also is nice and presentable (Fe). Enneagram, on the other hand, is something a Fi person would come up with because it has to do with motivations and fears. Enneagram also has a lot of aspects like wings, tritype, so/sp/sx to try and catch all the variations (Te). It is much easier to communicate a message when you are are a Fe-Ti user. I also wrote this late at night so...
I like your willingness and ability to describe Fe/Ti. I often find it isolating to value and understand things so differently from others, and I wonder how others experience this. I miss your videos and would like to see new material from you. this could be a good topic.
+1mag1nat1vename I've missed making videos too, and I haven't been answering questions or anything on UA-cam lately -- But I'm back today anyway! finally finished the ISFP video, so you'll see that in just a few minutes. Thank you so much for the compliments! :)
I've watched videos where people stand in front of the camera and talk about the cognitive functions, but these videos with the voiceover and images I tend to learn better with, these are good for me. I'm an INFP if that has an correlation.
I have always thought of the judging axes like this judging is the organization of data. I also believe that all axes go from extroversion to introversion. fe/ti organizes data according to commonly held values then (fe) then checks these values against subjective principles to see how and why those values exist. they start with the commonly held values and over time develop a framework to explain everything. even a ti dom is like this this they have sub-consciously accept the values but do to ti trying to create principles for everything they try make things make sense. i this where the ever questioning nature come from they trying to make values make sense they are always questioning the status quo trying to figure it out but since the commonly held values are always changing so must their questioning they must continue to revise and edit the framework inside their minds fe doms sub concisely apply subjective principles to everything. fe is able to harmonize groups through commonly held values and tend to be very empathetic.they are sub consciously creating a framework of principle detailing what emotion does what and how to get certain responses. te/fi organizes data according objective facts and checks with internally held values they start with facts witch do not change, te doms are goal oriented because facts don't change all they care about is knowing what said facts are and how to use them for the its own benefit te wants to gain control of its environment because of fi it wants to implement its own values and checks what it does on these values. fi doms are individualistic and have a strong sense of what is right and wrong this because of te wanting facts. fi sees its moral system in this light thinking that its morals are a fact that don't change its individualism comes because it believes it has the right answer and everyone else is wrong like a wild theorist even if its morals are completely off it still clings to them so the opposite function actually grants certain properties to the primary ti grants fe its ability to get certain responses for people fe grants ti its questioning nature te grants fi its individualism fi grants te its goal oriented nature if you are wondering why the functions get into fights if they need each other so much is because they pay attention to different things. the dominate and auxiliary try to deal with events in day to day life but when it becomes overloaded or stressed the mind starts to turn to the inferior and because the person is not used to its inferior it is often very vivid and lacks control. that's how i interpret the judging functions
Really nice comment! I'm gonna do the same phrases you did to the judging functions but with the perceiving axes: Si provides Ne its explorative nature Ne provides Si its certainty in their traditions Se provides Ni the means to create their vision Ni provides Se the immediacy of its actions
Interesting. I see myself more as an Fi/Te kind of person, for if I were to see a person steal bread for his/her family, I'd assume it was done out of love. While I also agree that principles guide people, I feel my view is more commonsense. Do I understand the Fi/Te judgment axis correctly?
Phileos Sophia Yep! Of course, it gets tricky with the language, but as someone who prefers the Fe/Ti axis, I am more inclined to say 'well, yeah, they did it out of love, but WHY did they do it out of love?'
@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy Does the question, "why they did it out of love?" even relevant? I think certain feelings are so primordial and common for people that it is easier to create a Te system based on that Fi feelings. In that way, the roughness of the Te system gets humanised by underlying Fi values.
Hi Michael I need your help. I saw you describe INTJs as intense, having tunnel vision drive, having great willpower and INTP as seeking truths and logical abstractions of things. I am torn apart between these two types. The way i think is very much INTJ like but dont have that tunnel vision drive. I simply observe things and make hypothesis/conclusions through both logic and plotting a line of best fit - reason i feel i am INTJ but lack of tunnel vision drive and intensity makes me feel i am INTP. I dont think i am dogmatic as you described INTJs in other videos. This makes me question the consistency of MBTI theory as whole because looking at it as a whole, it simply isnt fitting in my point of view. Please help with me this contradiction. Thank you. EDIT : I am currently having tunnel vision drive to find who i actually am.
I'm probably not up on my Hume enough to consider this fully, but I seem to recall that a central tenet of his philosophy was the "Is-Ought Problem," about how there is no logically tenable way to go from descriptive statements to normative statements. If that's the case, then doesn't that mean that there is not a way to reason from logical principles to desires? And therefore our desires can't be based on our interpretation of the world, they just...are. If you really want to know where our desires come from, you probably have to start asking questions about natural selection, and adolescent development, and even then that might not tell you much about a particular individual. Perhaps I'm coming at this with a Te/Fi perspective, but I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see how Hume's philosophy supports the Fe/Ti perspective you described.
FromBehindTheBoard No, that's a very good point, and I actually had the 'is-ought' problem in mind when making this video, and considered using it as an *example* of the Fe/Ti axis at work. At least as I understand it, the "is-ought" distinguishes between the way that things currently are vs. how they ought to be (just as you said: descriptive vs. normative); thus, it is meant to defeat any attempt (such as Jeremy Bentham or Ayn Rand) to base ethics on the way human beings are. For instance, Bentham says that because all humans seek pleasure and wish to avoid pain by nature, then we ought to base our morality off of that. David Hume says that logically, you can't make that leap, for in *principle* just because we desire pleasure naturally doesn't *theoretically* say anything about whether we ought to desire it: in theory, our desires for pleasure may turn out to be morally wrong in the cosmic perspective -- just because you desire to rob a bank doesn't say anything at all about whether its moral to rob a bank, at least according to Hume, who is using a logical principle to explain people's sentimental desires. Although Hume does conclude that our morality must be based on sentiment alone, the sentiment he is talking about is entirely cultural and majority based, and he only reaches this conclusion through the logical principle of his "is-ought" distinction, instead of referring to, say, some objective fact (such as, natural selection, adolescent development, etc). In fact, for Fe/Ti types, at least in my experience, to refer and rely on facts or evidence observed from such processes as natural selection is just generally repulsive. These are only useful as demonstrations for a principle. The very thought of trying to prove an idea such as "morality can only be based on sentiment" by referring to historical and evolutionary facts and data alone is rather repulsive: I want a principle of some kind, which couldn't presumably be invalidated by just a greater amount of data (this thought in itself is, in fact, very Fe/Ti). Yay? Nay? Am I crazy?
I suppose that's a logical application of the Is-Ought problem, but I'll point out that you've switched between discussing the reasons for our desires, to discussing the justifications for our morality. Your video seemed to be entirely about the former I thought. With regard to evolution etc, it might have been hard for Hume to make that case, since he died 100 years before Darwin did, and 150 years before Freud did :p But, it's interesting for me to hear you say that natural selection is inimical to Fe/Ti. It seems to me that natural selection is a very beautiful concept, which actually fares far better subjectively than objectively: it can only partially be observed or measured, to understand it fully really requires subjective logic to trace out its workings. If you've ever read Richard Dawkins's book, The Selfish Gene, that's largely what it is, applications of natural selection to social phenomena using subjective logic. Although there are experiments and simulations and such, largely by pure logic Dawkins applies natural selection to topics like the gender ratio, familial love, cooperation, etc., in order to explain them: 'If natural selection is true, than we should expect familial love between siblings." (Not too surprising for an INTP) So in my first comment, I was saying that Hume pointed out that there can't be logical principles for our desires, except of the form like Dawkins supplies. (But then I with an Fi preference would point out that this can only explain our desires broadly, like the existence of 'love' in general, and not specifically: why did he choose to love this person over this person?)
Aaahg! I like your vids but here's the thing....your voice does not point out any important info because it is flat, yeah, yeah, so we all know that by now. But now as I watch this video and you are comparing and contrasting. Te/Fi and Ti/Fe (that is what you are doing?) I am so lost because I don't know which is which. What I mean is that I don't know if you are talking about an INTP or an INTJ as you give those wonderful comparative examples. My part of the problem is that I am not very familiar with Ti/Fe or Te/Fi I am here to learn that from this vid. As the vid. stands right now it should come with a preface that states that if one doesn't have a firm grasp of the function abbreviations the video will not make sense.
I'm an INFJ who loves most of what Nietszche writes, so I don't agree with your interpretation. My brother is INTJ...we're both very abstract thinkers, open to odd solutions. I don't agree with that belief that Ti is more creatively abstract than Te.
2:28 That interestingly lines up with what Jung said about Te and Ti.
Thinking in the extraverted attitude, according to him, tends to be oriented towards practical outcomes.
Thinking in the introverted attitude, however, tends to be, for lack of a better description, "just for fun."
@@asianbabyboy its funny cause i see your point. As High Ti i actually simply just avoid learning things if i see no use for them. Because ik if i wanna learn something I wanna truly understand it. I found when u truly know something your able to apply it to alot more than just its main purpose.
So i agree i hate tiring my brain for no reason. Its just more of a all or nothing approach
A better description for Ti is "Knowledge for its own sake". Just for Fun implies that it is for fun that Ti users find knowledge, when they can also feel compelled to by an external law, which could be Fe in their stack, even if they don't find it fun, but necessary. Either way, in both of these instances Ti's focus is on the knowledge itself and not the goal.
Simply put Te's eyes are on what you can accomplish with the facts why said facts are important in a physical level. Ti's eyes are on what facts truly delve deep into, why said facts are important in an abstract level.
Incredibly thorough for a 7 minute video, direct and concise, but also brilliantly and precisely drawn. As an INTP, I really feel identified with your depiction of the Fe-Ti axis, and that is why your videos are so appealing to me.
having two skeptics battle it out for truth is just comic gold.
Learning about the judging and perceiving axes makes it soo much easier to understand how the functions work and how to recognize these axes when typing people.
Has anyone taken the function test on Celebritytypes? Every time I take it, I usually get Ti as my most pronounced function. And I'll never forget this statement from the description of Ti:
"You tend to believe that in order for an analysis or blueprint for action to be valid, it must work as an impartial two-way street where no one is entitled to special pleading at the expense of anyone else."
I noticed right away there's some Fe sentiment in that last bit. Even though Ti-doms repress Fe, they subconsciously believe everyone is cut from the same cloth, that we're all equal and its only fair for EVERYBODYto understand the principles behind the world. Its just outside influences (values, experiences, sentiments) that shaped people differently.
I don't have an analogy for te/fi but a really good analogy for the fe/ti axis is the golden ratio and Fibonnaci sequence. You have this mathematical formula (ti) which always equals 1.618 underlying various things which are pleasing to the eye (fe). A lot of ancient sculptures have been created based on this formula. its seen in nature as well. another example is (for males) having a shoulder size 1.618 larger than the waist size which is VERY aesthetically pleasing.
You have a beautiful mind. Thanks for your contributions.
Fantastic video! It does well to not only broaden my understanding of human nature in general but also to illuminate and lay bare my own biases as a fellow Ti-Fe user. Thank you. I look forward to a similar analysis of the perceiving axes.
Very accurate description of how Te and Fi works for me (INTJ)
INFP here, definitely how I look at things with Fi-Te.
Agreed. Also an INFP.
So I've been alternating between Type Tips and this channel for the last two weeks and I was just thinking how nicely the two perspectives balance. Then this video perfectly explains the balance as the polarity of the judgement axes (Leon Tsao using Fi-Te vs. Michael Pierce explaining in a Fe-Ti manner). It's great! I am literally clambering around in the mind of Jung made manifest generations after his passing.
Super awesome sir, you are on a roll with "season 2"!
This explanation can be difficult to understand for a Te-Fi user like myself to understand Fe-Ti. But thinking about this more, I've come to another explanation. Jung's explanation of the different appearances/actions/approaches of different people was that they have logical mental principals (or systems of perception and judgment) by which they operate (the cognitive functions). While a person of an Te-Fi axis would explain the ACTIONS of people on their motivations (an example would be enneagram). I have noticed the prefer systems of the different axis, Te-Fi and Fe-Ti, on the internet for the understanding of personality to be mbti and enneagram respectably.
+Amanda Gutierrez Can you reword this? Did you simply want to say that Te/Fi types are more likely to prefer MBTI and Ti/Fe types are more likely to prefer the Enneagram for explaining why people do what they do?
+Komatik oops I switched it. Te-Fi would prefer enneagram. To me, mbti is a system that a Ti person would come up with since it works with the internal logic of something. Mbti is also is nice and presentable (Fe). Enneagram, on the other hand, is something a Fi person would come up with because it has to do with motivations and fears. Enneagram also has a lot of aspects like wings, tritype, so/sp/sx to try and catch all the variations (Te).
It is much easier to communicate a message when you are are a Fe-Ti user. I also wrote this late at night so...
I like your willingness and ability to describe Fe/Ti. I often find it isolating to value and understand things so differently from others, and I wonder how others experience this. I miss your videos and would like to see new material from you. this could be a good topic.
+1mag1nat1vename I've missed making videos too, and I haven't been answering questions or anything on UA-cam lately -- But I'm back today anyway! finally finished the ISFP video, so you'll see that in just a few minutes. Thank you so much for the compliments! :)
Would it be possible to post a video of "day to day" accurate examples of these axes? Thanks
Wish the thumbnails would load properly...
I've watched videos where people stand in front of the camera and talk about the cognitive functions, but these videos with the voiceover and images I tend to learn better with, these are good for me. I'm an INFP if that has an correlation.
I have always thought of the judging axes like this
judging is the organization of data.
I also believe that all axes go from extroversion to introversion.
fe/ti organizes data according to commonly held values then (fe) then checks these values against subjective principles to see how and why those values exist. they start with the commonly held values and over time develop a framework to explain everything. even a ti dom is like this this they have sub-consciously accept the values but do to ti trying to create principles for everything they try make things make sense. i this where the ever questioning nature come from they trying to make values make sense they are always questioning the status quo trying to figure it out but since the commonly held values are always changing so must their questioning they must continue to revise and edit the framework inside their minds fe doms sub concisely apply subjective principles to everything. fe is able to harmonize groups through commonly held values and tend to be very empathetic.they are sub consciously creating a framework of principle detailing what emotion does what and how to get certain responses.
te/fi organizes data according objective facts and checks with internally held values they start with facts witch do not change, te doms are goal oriented because facts don't change all they care about is knowing what said facts are and how to use them for the its own benefit te wants to gain control of its environment because of fi it wants to implement its own values and checks what it does on these values. fi doms are individualistic and have a strong sense of what is right and wrong this because of te wanting facts. fi sees its moral system in this light thinking that its morals are a fact that don't change its individualism comes because it believes it has the right answer and everyone else is wrong like a wild theorist even if its morals are completely off it still clings to them
so the opposite function actually grants certain properties to the primary
ti grants fe its ability to get certain responses for people
fe grants ti its questioning nature
te grants fi its individualism
fi grants te its goal oriented nature
if you are wondering why the functions get into fights if they need each other so much is because they pay attention to different things. the dominate and auxiliary try to deal with events in day to day life but when it becomes overloaded or stressed the mind starts to turn to the inferior and because the person is not used to its inferior it is often very vivid and lacks control.
that's how i interpret the judging functions
Really nice comment! I'm gonna do the same phrases you did to the judging functions but with the perceiving axes:
Si provides Ne its explorative nature
Ne provides Si its certainty in their traditions
Se provides Ni the means to create their vision
Ni provides Se the immediacy of its actions
Interesting. I see myself more as an Fi/Te kind of person, for if I were to see a person steal bread for his/her family, I'd assume it was done out of love. While I also agree that principles guide people, I feel my view is more commonsense. Do I understand the Fi/Te judgment axis correctly?
Phileos Sophia Yep!
Of course, it gets tricky with the language, but as someone who prefers the Fe/Ti axis, I am more inclined to say 'well, yeah, they did it out of love, but WHY did they do it out of love?'
Michael Pierce I see! Fe/Ti users see feelings as the surface and logic as the base whereas Fi/Te see otherwise.
+Phileos Sophia +Michael Pierce
If I were to flanderize a bit: expression/ root cause or mechanism (Fe/Ti), act/impetus or motive (Te/Fi).
Komatik Nice summary.
@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy Does the question, "why they did it out of love?" even relevant? I think certain feelings are so primordial and common for people that it is easier to create a Te system based on that Fi feelings. In that way, the roughness of the Te system gets humanised by underlying Fi values.
4:15 - 5:05 made perfect sense. Great example.. keep up the videos :)
hey michael,
where is the very first image from\what is the name? the deer skull one.
It seems ironic that the more "secret" underlying motive is the opposite of what a lay observer would see.
Just how much content did you have in store while you were away!?!?!?!?!? XD
Hi Michael I need your help. I saw you describe INTJs as intense, having tunnel vision drive, having great willpower and INTP as seeking truths and logical abstractions of things. I am torn apart between these two types. The way i think is very much INTJ like but dont have that tunnel vision drive. I simply observe things and make hypothesis/conclusions through both logic and plotting a line of best fit - reason i feel i am INTJ but lack of tunnel vision drive and intensity makes me feel i am INTP. I dont think i am dogmatic as you described INTJs in other videos. This makes me question the consistency of MBTI theory as whole because looking at it as a whole, it simply isnt fitting in my point of view. Please help with me this contradiction. Thank you.
EDIT : I am currently having tunnel vision drive to find who i actually am.
I can see how a Ti-Fe axis can lead to nihilism when gone wrong
Clarified my internal Te-Fi very well!
So Fi comes before Ti I'm guessing
Great interpretation, just a bit too much text at times to try to read while listening.
I'm probably not up on my Hume enough to consider this fully, but I seem to recall that a central tenet of his philosophy was the "Is-Ought Problem," about how there is no logically tenable way to go from descriptive statements to normative statements.
If that's the case, then doesn't that mean that there is not a way to reason from logical principles to desires? And therefore our desires can't be based on our interpretation of the world, they just...are. If you really want to know where our desires come from, you probably have to start asking questions about natural selection, and adolescent development, and even then that might not tell you much about a particular individual.
Perhaps I'm coming at this with a Te/Fi perspective, but I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see how Hume's philosophy supports the Fe/Ti perspective you described.
FromBehindTheBoard No, that's a very good point, and I actually had the 'is-ought' problem in mind when making this video, and considered using it as an *example* of the Fe/Ti axis at work. At least as I understand it, the "is-ought" distinguishes between the way that things currently are vs. how they ought to be (just as you said: descriptive vs. normative); thus, it is meant to defeat any attempt (such as Jeremy Bentham or Ayn Rand) to base ethics on the way human beings are. For instance, Bentham says that because all humans seek pleasure and wish to avoid pain by nature, then we ought to base our morality off of that. David Hume says that logically, you can't make that leap, for in *principle* just because we desire pleasure naturally doesn't *theoretically* say anything about whether we ought to desire it: in theory, our desires for pleasure may turn out to be morally wrong in the cosmic perspective -- just because you desire to rob a bank doesn't say anything at all about whether its moral to rob a bank, at least according to Hume, who is using a logical principle to explain people's sentimental desires. Although Hume does conclude that our morality must be based on sentiment alone, the sentiment he is talking about is entirely cultural and majority based, and he only reaches this conclusion through the logical principle of his "is-ought" distinction, instead of referring to, say, some objective fact (such as, natural selection, adolescent development, etc). In fact, for Fe/Ti types, at least in my experience, to refer and rely on facts or evidence observed from such processes as natural selection is just generally repulsive. These are only useful as demonstrations for a principle. The very thought of trying to prove an idea such as "morality can only be based on sentiment" by referring to historical and evolutionary facts and data alone is rather repulsive: I want a principle of some kind, which couldn't presumably be invalidated by just a greater amount of data (this thought in itself is, in fact, very Fe/Ti).
Yay? Nay? Am I crazy?
I suppose that's a logical application of the Is-Ought problem, but I'll point out that you've switched between discussing the reasons for our desires, to discussing the justifications for our morality. Your video seemed to be entirely about the former I thought.
With regard to evolution etc, it might have been hard for Hume to make that case, since he died 100 years before Darwin did, and 150 years before Freud did :p
But, it's interesting for me to hear you say that natural selection is inimical to Fe/Ti. It seems to me that natural selection is a very beautiful concept, which actually fares far better subjectively than objectively: it can only partially be observed or measured, to understand it fully really requires subjective logic to trace out its workings.
If you've ever read Richard Dawkins's book, The Selfish Gene, that's largely what it is, applications of natural selection to social phenomena using subjective logic. Although there are experiments and simulations and such, largely by pure logic Dawkins applies natural selection to topics like the gender ratio, familial love, cooperation, etc., in order to explain them: 'If natural selection is true, than we should expect familial love between siblings." (Not too surprising for an INTP)
So in my first comment, I was saying that Hume pointed out that there can't be logical principles for our desires, except of the form like Dawkins supplies. (But then I with an Fi preference would point out that this can only explain our desires broadly, like the existence of 'love' in general, and not specifically: why did he choose to love this person over this person?)
Aaahg! I like your vids but here's the thing....your voice does not point out any important info because it is flat, yeah, yeah, so we all know that by now. But now as I watch this video and you are comparing and contrasting. Te/Fi and Ti/Fe (that is what you are doing?) I am so lost because I don't know which is which. What I mean is that I don't know if you are talking about an INTP or an INTJ as you give those wonderful comparative examples. My part of the problem is that I am not very familiar with Ti/Fe or Te/Fi I am here to learn that from this vid. As the vid. stands right now it should come with a preface that states that if one doesn't have a firm grasp of the function abbreviations the video will not make sense.
I'm an INFJ who loves most of what Nietszche writes, so I don't agree with your interpretation. My brother is INTJ...we're both very abstract thinkers, open to odd solutions. I don't agree with that belief that Ti is more creatively abstract than Te.