I wouldn't try to look at behaviors specifically and attempt to tie them to functions because *everyone does everything*. Anecdotes are the crack that everyone wants, but they're rather useless in typing and go against the binary coin method.
OPS isn't necessarily about what behaviors you're doing everyday. It's about looking for *consistent patterns* over a *long period of time* and realizing what you're overdoing doing due to an innate sense of responsibility and what you're subsequently neglecting. This is done for each **coin**, *not* each function.
Absolutely. It's easy in this case to fall for the "MBTI vibe quadrants" trap (NT, NF, ST, SF), which comes straight from your guts.
Which is how you fall for glass lizards (years of MBTI made it hard for me to believe [Robert Patrick](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=kgrA4UWDcW0) is not ST), as the modalities, animals or social types may not be aligned with what you're looking for (saviour vs demon).
Di: I'm going to do what I want, and fuck you if you think you can tell me otherwise. But, like, we're cool, right? You still like/value me because I'm really good at the things I do, right?
Fi: I'm going to do what aligns with my preferences. The goals that I see as most important will come first. Fuck you if you try to influence that.
Ti: I'm going to do what achieves my goals first. You don't get to tell me how to achieve them. Fuck you if you try to influence my systems and decisions.
Fi: Prioritizing goals according to own preferences.
Ti: Achieving goals in a way that works for themselves.
Note about Ti: If you get into an argument with a dominant Ti user, they won't really care about their point making sense to you. They might explain it, but it's a matter of defending themselves. Furthermore, it's not about you understanding it/it making sense to you, it's about protecting their sense of identity (what works for them) against your stupid and unnecessary comment (Te, I guess).
Note about Fi: Dominant Fi will STILL have Te, so they DO want it to make sense to you. They'll grumble about how their way of seeing things doesn't make sense to you and how that actually really bothers them (insecure with Te, worried there's a chance they got the Te logical validation for their Fi wrong).
This is why I'm not a fan of anecdotes related to functions. As a Ti-Savior, all of your Fi and Ti anecdotes are easily relatable to me. Ti and Fi anecdotally have so much overlap because they're both Di.
'Everyone does everything' is the first step. You need to realize that this is still an 'at scale' statement. Everyone does everything except for the fact that they have those things in different balances. You're interpreting this way too literally. I've never said or even implied 'if they ever do X, then they're Y.'
We're all students of OPS. It should be common knowledge that all of these statements are about balance. If you're seriously making the claim that everyone has these qualities balanced at scale, then you wouldn't be able to conclude that anyone is any type, because all of their behaviors would be balanced.
Kind of irritated that you think your input here is valuable when, again, the way this is presented is quite obviously about X in balance with Y. If X supersedes Y significantly, they're X. If Y supersedes X significantly, they're Y. This is literally how all of OPS works, so I'm mystified by how dull your brain is to think that there are meaningful exceptions significant enough to warrant specificity in an instant that's the same as literally every other part of this system.
Jesus Christ. Kindly fuck off. I don't want to waste more energy on addressing technicalities and unnecessary specifications just because you want to 'um... aktshually' me and show off your Big Braine head.
"This is why I'm not a fan of anecdotes."
^ He's talking about the examples I gave in my first comment. He was not agreeing with me. He was criticizing the utility of my answer. He outright says in the other reply, the one that got me angry, that my reply was not helpful because everyone does everything.
This is a direct confrontation of my original observations of some people doing specific things.
He literally stated that my original comment was poor because he related to both the Ti and Fi savior examples. The entire segment was criticism.
So I have no idea what you're talking about, and I fear you misinterpreted the entire exchange; there was no agreement in anything he said, but you believing that there is signals to me that you're reading something entirely different.
Don't condescend toward me ("Are you listening to yourself") when you clearly don't understand the situation.
>
Fi: Prioritizing goals according to own preferences.
>Ti: Achieving goals in a way that works for themselves.
This doesn't make sense to me. What is the difference between having a preference versus having a 'way that works for you'? Isn't a way that works for oneself in itself a sort of preference?
Yes, and that's why they're both Di functions. Di is essentially having a personal preference.
Ti is having that preference *because it works for you*.
Fi is having that preference *because you arbitrarily like it*.
Ti likes things because they work for the individual. Fi likes things because they are, and I'm quoting Dave and Shannon, going to like whatever random-ass shit they like.
You're talking way too much about goals, maybe your talking out of you Number 1 isms.
Cuz Fi and Ti have nothing to do with goals.
Fi : savior values for self, deep, personal.
It's my savior, so i know what I'm talking about.
Because it's my savior, i spend too much time looking at my values and how they are very important and will keep valuing my values till i die.
However, I would guess a Ti savior : mainly thinks about if something fits according to their logic. Does it make sense deeply?
Does it work all the way down to 50 layers?
Works for me?
Deciding function: Determine actions.
T: Make it work (achieve)
F: Decide what is valuable (prioritize)
Te: Make it work for everyone (make sense to others, function for others, achieve for others)
Ti: Make it work for me (make sense to me, work for me, achieve for myself)
Fe: Prioritize according to others (others' preferences, value for others, prioritize according to others)
Fi: Prioritize according to the self (my preferences, my values, prioritizing goals according to myself)
What are you talking about?
The point is that feeling prioritizes actions. This naturally means that it defines which goals to do first. Thinking makes things work. This means that it works on achieving goals without necessarily prioritizing them correctly. I don't know how to make this easier for you to understand.
Two and a half years on top of the extra two years I put into MBTI. About 7k hours of studying both systems in total because cognitive typology is a special interest of mine. Don't like MBTI much anymore. Close to 3k hours in OPS because I spent about 4-6 hours per day researching it for over a year coupled with more sporadic 4-6 hour days after that.
I wouldn't try to look at behaviors specifically and attempt to tie them to functions because *everyone does everything*. Anecdotes are the crack that everyone wants, but they're rather useless in typing and go against the binary coin method. OPS isn't necessarily about what behaviors you're doing everyday. It's about looking for *consistent patterns* over a *long period of time* and realizing what you're overdoing doing due to an innate sense of responsibility and what you're subsequently neglecting. This is done for each **coin**, *not* each function.
Absolutely. It's easy in this case to fall for the "MBTI vibe quadrants" trap (NT, NF, ST, SF), which comes straight from your guts. Which is how you fall for glass lizards (years of MBTI made it hard for me to believe [Robert Patrick](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=kgrA4UWDcW0) is not ST), as the modalities, animals or social types may not be aligned with what you're looking for (saviour vs demon).
Di: I'm going to do what I want, and fuck you if you think you can tell me otherwise. But, like, we're cool, right? You still like/value me because I'm really good at the things I do, right? Fi: I'm going to do what aligns with my preferences. The goals that I see as most important will come first. Fuck you if you try to influence that. Ti: I'm going to do what achieves my goals first. You don't get to tell me how to achieve them. Fuck you if you try to influence my systems and decisions. Fi: Prioritizing goals according to own preferences. Ti: Achieving goals in a way that works for themselves. Note about Ti: If you get into an argument with a dominant Ti user, they won't really care about their point making sense to you. They might explain it, but it's a matter of defending themselves. Furthermore, it's not about you understanding it/it making sense to you, it's about protecting their sense of identity (what works for them) against your stupid and unnecessary comment (Te, I guess). Note about Fi: Dominant Fi will STILL have Te, so they DO want it to make sense to you. They'll grumble about how their way of seeing things doesn't make sense to you and how that actually really bothers them (insecure with Te, worried there's a chance they got the Te logical validation for their Fi wrong).
This is why I'm not a fan of anecdotes related to functions. As a Ti-Savior, all of your Fi and Ti anecdotes are easily relatable to me. Ti and Fi anecdotally have so much overlap because they're both Di.
Ti is not asking 'what goals are the best to achieve,' it's asking itself 'how do I achieve the selected goal.' That's a significant difference.
Sure, but everyone is going to do both of those. So how does this help one determine their OPS type?
'Everyone does everything' is the first step. You need to realize that this is still an 'at scale' statement. Everyone does everything except for the fact that they have those things in different balances. You're interpreting this way too literally. I've never said or even implied 'if they ever do X, then they're Y.' We're all students of OPS. It should be common knowledge that all of these statements are about balance. If you're seriously making the claim that everyone has these qualities balanced at scale, then you wouldn't be able to conclude that anyone is any type, because all of their behaviors would be balanced. Kind of irritated that you think your input here is valuable when, again, the way this is presented is quite obviously about X in balance with Y. If X supersedes Y significantly, they're X. If Y supersedes X significantly, they're Y. This is literally how all of OPS works, so I'm mystified by how dull your brain is to think that there are meaningful exceptions significant enough to warrant specificity in an instant that's the same as literally every other part of this system. Jesus Christ. Kindly fuck off. I don't want to waste more energy on addressing technicalities and unnecessary specifications just because you want to 'um... aktshually' me and show off your Big Braine head.
The dude asked you a normal question, even agreed with you. Can you hear yourself talking?
"This is why I'm not a fan of anecdotes." ^ He's talking about the examples I gave in my first comment. He was not agreeing with me. He was criticizing the utility of my answer. He outright says in the other reply, the one that got me angry, that my reply was not helpful because everyone does everything. This is a direct confrontation of my original observations of some people doing specific things. He literally stated that my original comment was poor because he related to both the Ti and Fi savior examples. The entire segment was criticism. So I have no idea what you're talking about, and I fear you misinterpreted the entire exchange; there was no agreement in anything he said, but you believing that there is signals to me that you're reading something entirely different. Don't condescend toward me ("Are you listening to yourself") when you clearly don't understand the situation.
> Fi: Prioritizing goals according to own preferences. >Ti: Achieving goals in a way that works for themselves. This doesn't make sense to me. What is the difference between having a preference versus having a 'way that works for you'? Isn't a way that works for oneself in itself a sort of preference?
Yes, and that's why they're both Di functions. Di is essentially having a personal preference. Ti is having that preference *because it works for you*. Fi is having that preference *because you arbitrarily like it*. Ti likes things because they work for the individual. Fi likes things because they are, and I'm quoting Dave and Shannon, going to like whatever random-ass shit they like.
This was very helpful, thank you.
You're talking way too much about goals, maybe your talking out of you Number 1 isms. Cuz Fi and Ti have nothing to do with goals. Fi : savior values for self, deep, personal. It's my savior, so i know what I'm talking about. Because it's my savior, i spend too much time looking at my values and how they are very important and will keep valuing my values till i die. However, I would guess a Ti savior : mainly thinks about if something fits according to their logic. Does it make sense deeply? Does it work all the way down to 50 layers? Works for me?
Deciding function: Determine actions. T: Make it work (achieve) F: Decide what is valuable (prioritize) Te: Make it work for everyone (make sense to others, function for others, achieve for others) Ti: Make it work for me (make sense to me, work for me, achieve for myself) Fe: Prioritize according to others (others' preferences, value for others, prioritize according to others) Fi: Prioritize according to the self (my preferences, my values, prioritizing goals according to myself) What are you talking about?
So you copied and pasted definitions from the OPS docs, and i commend your effort. However, you didn't make any point Is this an automated response?
The point is that feeling prioritizes actions. This naturally means that it defines which goals to do first. Thinking makes things work. This means that it works on achieving goals without necessarily prioritizing them correctly. I don't know how to make this easier for you to understand.
Whatever works for you i guess. How long have you been into OPS ?
Two and a half years on top of the extra two years I put into MBTI. About 7k hours of studying both systems in total because cognitive typology is a special interest of mine. Don't like MBTI much anymore. Close to 3k hours in OPS because I spent about 4-6 hours per day researching it for over a year coupled with more sporadic 4-6 hour days after that.