Determining Function Axes, Part 9

Lee Morgan is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Lee’s piece represents his own insights and type assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this article, Lee seeks a tighter, Wittgensteinian definition of the function axes. 

By Lee Morgan

  1. The Quiddity Perception Axis (Se/Ni): This axis yields a cognitive preference for perceiving in terms of quiddity (that is, whatness, essence, usage). This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as appearance and immediate reality, which is the specialty of Extroverted Sensation, and extrapolations from givens and the archetypical thing-in-itself, which is the specialty of Introverted Intuition.
  2. The Abstraction Perception Axis (Si/Ne):This axis yields a cognitive preference for perceiving in terms of the abstractions evoked. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as compilation and continuity, which is the specialty of Introverted Sensation, and as possibility and analogy, which is the specialty of Extroverted Intuition.
  3. The Rounded Judgment Axis (Fe/Ti):This axis yields a cognitive preference for judging in terms of qualifications. Just as all points on a circle may lead to its center, so every initial viewpoint, if undertaken in earnest and apprehensive of the right qualifications, may eventually lead to the truth. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as courtesy towards, and validation of, the viewpoints of others, which is the specialty of Extroverted Feeling, and as qualification, or the doubting of and continuous precision-seeking with regards to existing judgments, which is the specialty of Introverted Thinking.
  4. The Angular Judgment Axis (Fi/Te): This axis yields a cognitive preference for clearly stated and definite judgments. Just as a square is defined by its four angles, giving structure and form to the whole edifice (and other ways of defining a square would be less categorical), so each judgment is posited in opposition to competing judgments, with each judgment being irrevocably different from its counterparts. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as sincerity and candor in the presentation of one’s own judgments, which is the specialty of Introverted Feeling, and the forceful and compelling marshaling of facts, which is the specialty of Extroverted Thinking.


  1. Koomasieni says:

    Si/Ne axis description is missing something.

    Se/Ni is presented very well, I like Fe/Ti as well.

    Something about the Fi/Te one seems lacking or somewhat off, but I can’t put my finger on what.

  2. admin says:

    Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.

  3. Gee says:

    Interesting stuff. The definitions of Se/Ni versus Si/Ne reminds me of my (Se/Ni) discussions with my husband (Si/Ne). I will be excited to talk to him about some deep, analytical insight or idea that I realized, and he’ll basically reply with, in much nicer terms, “thanks, Captain Obvious.” And then I’ll retort that yes, I know it’s “obvious,” but because I take nothing for granted, then it’s somewhat a new certainty for me, personally. I also don’t think I’m the first person to think of said insight, but my excitement comes from a new, personal understanding of whatever issue I’m talking about. I just take nothing for granted and am less sure about my understanding of things than he.

  4. Hegel'sDialecticalBagel says:

    Elements of this are quite nice to see made into ‘defining’ aspects of each aspect. I suppose then that the Kantian thing-in-itself, owing to its Ne/Si pedigree would lack some of the force that the Ni might desire (hence Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel perhaps erroneously do away with the thing-in-itself).

    Would the author of these go as far as to say each axis sports its own sort of ‘internal logic’ or language? Or are the distinctions not drawn in quite that sense?

  5. directingart says:

    Hey, thanks for posting my piece. I love the refinements that you made. My goal was to define functional axis in the most general, and dense, way possible, that is to say in such a way that our typical descriptions follow, in that wonderful way that Leibnez and Wittgenstein write. For my full meditation, please read this article posted in the journal:

    And yes, I would agree that each axis speaks a specific language. In this sense, cognitive functions that share an axis may be said to speak different dialects of the same language.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    I should note that my definitions for the Ni/Se axis comes from Schopenhauer. And on that note, I think that the perceptive difference between INFJ and INTJ is curbed by their judgment axis. I wrote about that in this article: which is also Tractatus-inspired.

    Sorry if it seems like I’m self-promoting. I’m just a bit giddy; this is the first time I’ve had work published :)

    Also, maybe this is impossible, but if anyone can help me determine whether my ideas are consistent with an INFJ typing, within either these criteria, or those that precede them, I would greatly appreciate it.

  6. Yut says:

    Very interesting. I hope part 10 uses specific examples, such as the Ni/Se dichotomy in Isaac Newton and Plato compared to the Se/Ni of Alexander the Great and Bill Clinton, etc.

  7. Hegel'sDialecticalBagel says:

    @Directingart, your own work featured on that site are interesting- though I hesitate to call them fecund just yet. I’m almost inordinately interested in categorizations of the kind you offer there, so call me a fan of the style if not the content (yet).

    When you say you took the Si/Ne axis from Schopenhauer, do you mean from the ‘character’ of his thought, or something he states explicitly in either the WaWaR or essays?

    I think the most interesting thing here is the idea of a ‘cognitive preference’ that you preface each of your distinctions with. I feel like it might usually go without saying, but what you pack into ‘cognitive preference’ might indeed vary between types (which is not to say, a la Freud, that unmitigated relativism creeps in now).

    I think based on your OWN criteria, the INFJ typing is not inconsistent owing to the way you structure your own points. Over and against the admins of this site for example, you suggest that in the Se/Ni example that one can extrapolate from the thing-in-itself. To some that might appear to be unwarranted. I think that your ideas are ‘consistent’ with the typing myself, but of course, I’m far from being an expert here.

    Sorry for being of not much help, and if I had something to provide, wonderful. I look forward to seeing more from you at any rate based on style alone.

  8. directingart says:

    The initial spark was from an essay called “On the
    Antithesis of Thing in itself and Appearance,” which I read in a collection of his called “On the Suffering of the World.” That said, my understanding of those two functions also owes much to Plato and Spinoza, both of whom I believe Schopenhauer was indebted to. I think that an interesting inversion of their preferences might be found in Se-focused philosophers, like Epicurus or Diogenes, where immediate reality trumps abstract extrapolations.

    Again, I appreciate the feedback. I wrote everything in a weird creative binge, immediately following my finishing the Tractatus. With a bit more time, and experience, I hope to refine my work into something really special. Positive vibes like yours encourage that, especially on the internet :P

    The impetus for my stressing cognitive preference owes its origin to my frustration with certain interpretations of function theory, and the inherent problem of typing, in general. That a function is a discrete preference, that is to say, “one rather than another of the same category,” implies a lot, I think. For instance, that an ENTP can behave in a way that suggests Ni usage raises a lot of questions about what a function is, and in what ways we can identify one. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

    And thank you for your help with my typing problem. :)

    @Gee I understand what you’re talking about.

  9. tobias087 says:

    Hello Lee,

    I too am very interested in the question of what exactly a function is. My belief is that it generally comes down to two competing yet ultimately equivalent approaches, which I refer to as “process” vs. “orientation.” I have written a (rather lengthy) article on that topic here:

    And I would be more than happy to have a discussion about it.

  10. directingart says:

    Hey Tobias,

    I just read your piece. It’s super interesting. Personally, I see myself taking a more global approach, which your piece would predict, if indeed I have typed myself correctly. However, what amazes me is that we both share the same aim, at least as far as I understand it: that is, to craft a perfect, or ideal definition of the functions, whence their common descriptions follow. Personally, I see the functions in a more early-Wittgensteinian way. That is to say that the functions must show themselves rather than define themselves, making my entire enterprise impossible, and indeed invalidating my above, intentionally pragmatic, though categorically senseless, definitions.

    What I love the most about your approach is that you provide a mechanism, or thought process, that explains how a function’s two temperaments are related. Where I bracket out function classes, i.e. intuition, sensation, etc., viewing them as senseless verbiage, and instead take function axis to be the category that any two functions may share, meaning indeed that introverted intuition’s extroverted counterpart must be extroverted sensing, you instead provide a terminology that preserves the established definitions, patching in the holes in the material available, rather than trying to substitute one system for another, as indeed my original definitions differ from those presented above, which have been refined to better fit with the established definitions. For this I applaud you.

  11. D.L says:

    I liked the descriptions of the Se/Ni and Fe/Ti axes which I can recognize in myself, especially the description of Ti.

  12. AnotherOne says:

    Harmony = Extroverted Feeling
    Variation = Introverted Feeling
    Parallelism = Extroverted Intuition
    Perspective = Introverted Intuition
    Effectiveness = Extroverted Thinking
    Efficiency = Introverted Thinking
    Empiricism = Extroverted Sensing
    Ontology = Introverted Sensing

    Te/Fi axis: looks for maximum Effectiveness to achieve Contrast (E+C= CHANGE)
    Fe/Ti axis: looks for maximum Harmony to achieve Efficiency (H+C= CONTINUUM)
    Se/Ni axis: employs Empiricism to form a Perspective (E+P= SEGREGATION)
    Ne/Si axis: employs Ontology to form a Parallelism

    NOTE: the introverted pole finds fullfillment in the extroverted pole of the axis, while at the same time the extroverted pole is fueled by the introverted pole of the axis.

    Now applied to a type- ISFP (I am one):

    Fi->Se->Ni->Te = Contrast is in need of Effectiveness (Fi wants to reach Te) so ISFP will employ empiricism (make experiences) to form a perspective (make conclusions) so it can “express itself” (MAKE CHANGE).

    Maybe not “make change” as in revolution, but yes “make change” as in rebellion (Michael Jackson, David Bowie and Lady Gaga are clear examples.


    ****UNRELATED NOTE****
    Can I propose the use of “Abstracting” instead of “Intuition”? It would be a better counterpart to Sensing, because Intuition sounds more “superstitious” and I think the latter describes better the perceiving process that Ne and Ni go through, just as “Sensing” does for Se and Ni. Though I must admit Abstracting sounds ugly. Perhaps someone has a better idea?

    Also if anyone’s wondering the difference between effectiveness and efficiency here’s a link:

  13. AnotherOne says:

    I can only hope my post was EFFECTIVE in conveying the message, because my orthography wasn’t that EFFICIENT. *giggles*

  14. AnotherOne says:

    I agree very much with that article’s take on “Intuition” being a quality of “sensors”. I must admit it was one of the reasons why I thought I was INFP (when I was just getting into MBTI).

  15. Rachel Wood says:

    @Another One

    I don’t think it’s possible to define functions using just one word, because functions aren’t really based on specific traits or qualities. However, the attempt could be fun. :)

    I’d tentatively say…

    Fe = Cooperative
    Fi = Passionate
    Te = Organised
    Ti = Precise
    Se = Sensual
    Si = Meticulous
    Ne = Ideational
    Ni = Extrapolative

    But the big problem is anyone can do or be any of these things, and the things you mentioned, and single word descriptions really don’t tell us anything about the functions themselves.

    I either disagree with the rest of the post or don’t understand it…

    Why do you think the introverted pole finds fulfillment in the extroverted pole?

    The other part depends far too much on those overly-simplistic reductionist definitions you made at the beginning to mean anything, as far as I can tell – even if you do try to express it using preschool algebra.

    In your ISFP example, you don’t explain WHY “contrast” is in need of “effectiveness”, or how “empiricism” can help “contrast” achieve “effectiveness”?

    I don’t think Michael Jackson, David Bowie or Lady Gaga are particularly clear examples of rebellion at all… what makes you say that?

  16. Rachel Wood says:

    @Lee Morgan

    I like your descriptions of the TeFi at FeTi axes – I think they are very clear. :)

    I’m not exactly clear on the meaning of the NeSi description though. Could you go into that in a little more detail? :)

    And why is the article so short?

  17. admin says:

    Because the editor (me) is an annoying busybody. You can read Morgan’s full piece here. /Ryan

  18. AnotherOne says:

    1-“I don’t think it’s possible to define functions using just one word, because functions aren’t really based on specific traits or qualities” well, then what are functions based of? at the risk of sounding ridiculous, I was just using my Ni to simplify the description of functions in a way that made sense to me and was easier to use when applying it to real life. I think they’re very direct and self-explanatory.
    2-“But the big problem is anyone can do or be any of these things, and the things you mentioned, and single word descriptions really don’t tell us anything about the functions themselves.” Yes, an ISFP can AT TIMES use Ne or Fe, but that doesn’t mean they are ISFP’s preferred function. And yes, I think I accomplished my goal of simplifying their descriptions: for example, Te as Effectiveness and Ti as Efficiency. Te looks for a accomplishment, regardless of the method at hand, in other words it is product oriented. Ti on the other hand doesn’t care for the end result as much as it cares for the process. Te -> A=E, Ti ->A=B=C=D=E.
    3-“Why do you think the introverted pole finds fulfillment in the extroverted pole?”
    Because the introverted function is internal (redundant I know) so it is expressed as its external opposite because, well, they’re on the same axis. You can’t separate Fe from Ti nor Te from Fi, and in the end they are one…
    4-“The other part depends far too much on those overly-simplistic reductionist definitions you made at the beginning to mean anything, as far as I can tell – even if you do try to express it using preschool algebra.” Well, I don’t care if I wasn’t detailed enough for you. I think my post is coherent enough and pretty self-explanatory. It’s sad that you can’t grasp it despite the fact that you think a 5 year old might understand it.
    5-“In your ISFP example, you don’t explain WHY “contrast” is in need of “effectiveness”, or how “empiricism” can help “contrast” achieve “effectiveness”?” The axis acts as a whole, so you aren’t only using one side of the axis: you are using an entire axis. By preferring mainly Fi you neglect Te in other words it causes an attraction, as I explained, the introverted pole needs to be fulfilled (and the extroverted pole is fueled by the introverted one); Fi needs to be “brought out” in Te to balance the axis. An ISFP not only uses Fi/Te, Se/Ni is his auxiliary axis, which helps him balance his main one. That Ne/Si might be a better choice to help Fi/Te is out of my concern. Also (about the fact that axis work together as a whole) it has been explained extensively on this website so I didn’t even think of revisiting that point.
    6-“I don’t think Michael Jackson, David Bowie or Lady Gaga are particularly clear examples of rebellion at all… what makes you say that?” expressing yourself differently against the current values of society to the point of making change in a genre is very rebellious to me.

  19. AnotherOne says:

    @Rachel Wood I suspect you might have Ti/Fe axis in your functions stack, my wild guess is that you are an INTP. Correct me if I’m wrong though. Also, I don’t blame you not understanding my post.. Despite the fact that I think it was very direct I think I needed to spend more than half an hour on it.. But then I guess I would have overdone it and lost the idea so I guess I did the right thing.

  20. rachelw says:

    @Another One

    I tried being polite, but to be honest I felt like replying to your ideas in a similar way to how a character from one of my favourite movies responds to this video…

    Your “theory” makes about as much sense. My problem is not that it’s too complicated, but that you are being far too simplistic.

    But that’s just me, and I apologise if I’m being rude or just not getting it. :) I’m sure some other people will love it.

    I’m either INTP or ISTP yes. Probably ISTP.

  21. tobias087 says:


    I rather applaud your work as well. You’re the first person I’ve seen actually try to take a crack at assigning a definition to a function axis. This has been a major criticism of mine of the function axis theory: if 2 functions can each have a clear definition, but the axis can only be said to be defined as the union of the 2 individual parts, then how can the “function axis” really be said to have any sort of independent existence? As an analogy, I might say that the number 4 is a thing that exists as it’s defined, and a triangle is a thing that exists as it’s defined, but the set of {4, a triangle} doesn’t even really have a definition, and so as a researcher I would wonder why I should take it seriously: is it even a real thing? Why {4, triangle} and not {4, square}? This article is probably the first thing I’ve ever seen take a serious stab at that. So nice work :)

    A few more thoughts that your comment has inspired me to add: this probably makes more sense if you come from the local approach, however, in my personal theory of typology, functions are not really “things” in themselves that really exist in the world, but only categories that an observer applies to someone’s mental reactions after the fact. Within that framework, two points emerge:

    1, categories are lifeless, static objects, and thus it can’t really be said that any function is the “counterpart” of any other. If you notice a persistent pairing among humans (like Ni occurring with Se, or other function pairs that form an axis), then the reaction-category theory requires extra reasoning why this should be so. Not only that, we’re quite free to imagine thinking entities where this is not the case. (I like to imagine to myself that Google Search is something of an Ne/Se-machine, searching for exact matches of your text, and also possibilities based on what you might have meant, or what might be related.)

    and 2, being that I tend to view functions as categories that exist only in the mind of the observer, lacking their own independent/objective existence, this creates quite a bit of freedom for the definitions. Essentially, you’re free to define each function or any sets of functions any way you wish, the only stipulations being that between the lot of them, they must from a complete set. And so, which dichotomies become the important ones worthy of study and focus (is it E/I? or P/J? or opposite sides of axes?) can vary from person to person based on opinion, without fear of the whole system falling apart.

  22. AnotherOne says:

    @Rachel Woods it’s okay, not everyone is the same and everyone has their own thing. I like things simple and clear and I only hoped that people like me would understand it. Most articles on this are wordy, lengthy and just too scattered that when I got into MBTI I was lost and found it very difficult to understand. It’s when I read articles like this, very brief and compact that I make sense of it.

    The thing is I see most of MBTI as a static set of rules. For example, the post above this one is really trying hard, to me, to make sense of something so easily understandable. But as I said, it’s just about the way you see it.

  23. directingart says:


    You have a very keen eye for Buddhist-like reasoning. I love it! From your reply, I must ask: What is meant by a person’s overall personality type, and, if anything, how is it determined?


    Thanks for the feedback. Ryan’s edits do me well. Truth be told, I have a sort of obsessive-compulsive fixation with short, dense sentences :) Even my unabridged work maintains the style.

    Maybe this will help: Ni listens for “the song,” Se listens for the song as it actually sounds. The Ni user risks ignoring the actual song, whereas the Se user risks reducing the song to its performance. Both fixate on the song itself, but listen to it in different senses.


    I think that you brought up a few really good points. First, I agree that the terminology fails to ascribe sensors their due share of intuition/contemplation. Where sensors and intuitives differ is in the context and sense of our intuitions.

    I also think that your distinction between efficiency and effectiveness is interesting and typologically relevant. Compare Penn and Teller’s B.S. to an essay by Maddox. I think that your distinction holds. But I question whether your definitions are essential or whether they follow from something else. I must agree with Rachel with respect to the difficulty of defining functions with a single word, let alone any words at all.

    That said, I applaud your ambition, and beg you not to feel dissuaded by these sorts of disagreements. People devote their lives to studying specific niches within fields as specific as Jungian typology.

  24. AnotherOne says:


    On the efficiency and effectiveness topic, I’m getting more and more convinced that it’s less of a Ti vs Te issue and more of a Ti vs Fi one. If you let me, I want to repost what I wrote in a thread in the PersonalityCafe forum:

    “I’m starting to think it’s less of a Ti vs Te issue, but more of a Ti vs Fi one.

    For example: a Ti user has crafted an inner system which he applies to himself and the world; a Ti user will try to find a way to make things fit in their inner system (inferior Fe). A Fi user on the other hand has an inner value system independent of others; a Fi user doesn’t want to assimilate others to themselves as much as they want to comprehend the order of the environment they find themselves in (inferior Te).

    I find it extremely necessary to examine functions by their axis, where the inferior function has a strong pull on the main function. It’s an axis, and one pole attracts the other for the sake of balance. It is much easier to understand them that way. For example, Fe users are compelled by their Ti: Fe users need for harmony in groups stems from the fact that they project their inner system onto the world (Ti). This is most exemplified by Fe leaders who draw masses into their ideological system; a Fe user is most likely to act on what makes more sense them, or what feels right for them, according to their inner system. A Ti user on the other hand has the need to break things and examine and question things because, as their inner system is constantly being applied to the world, it must mean a grand scheme must exist; Ti therefore needs to test the validity of things. What I’m trying to say is they think their logic can be applied to everything (however true or false their logic might be) and therefore anything that doesn’t fit into their system must be incorrect (Fe need for harmony). Also this would explain why Fe users want the outer to align with their inner system (however objective they might believe them to be).

    A Te user can see the rational value of a Ti user’s logic, but it will remain indifferent to anything that isn’t effective (as opposed to Ti’s knack for all things efficient). While Ti wants to fit things into their logic, Te believes that things have an inherent order that is evident and pretty much has worked until now. Te is not so much worried about the order and the systems, but much more about how the order and/or the system of the environment they find themselves in affects them (Fi). This is where it gets interesting. Fi is about the validation of its own values (however right/good or wrong/evil they might be) and for that they create a gap between outer values and their values (much like Te’s belief that things have their own inherent place in the world that is pretty evident). Basically, Te believes in the apparent logic of reality (what people like to call facts) and among that they determine what serves them (Fi need for expression). Fi (like Ti) doubts values that are intended to function in mass scale because they feel everyone has different needs (Te).

    Ti/Fe: inconspicuous, complex, efficient, algorithmic, coordinated.

    Fi/Te: obvious, simple, effective, heuristic, particular.

    Take in count that this is just an observation of this particular set of axis; in no way I pretend to completely describe types. That would require describing the Se/Ni and Ne/Si axis to explain types individually accordingly.

    I think this could explain they way types behave, in some way.”

    This site has been very useful for me to reach that conclusion.. I would like to add more on the last part: how Ne/Si and Si/Ne enter into the picture, for example, the Ti/Fe function axis is about complexities: Ne/Si is about possibilities and impressions and thus magnify the focus of Ti in ENTPs and INTPs, whether Se/Ni is about the object in itself and the “primal mold”, and thus drives Ti to “simplify complexity” in ESTPs and ISTPs, or Fi/Te function axis being about the evident and simple, but when paired with Ne/Si according to the description above it results in complicating the simple in ENFPs and INFPs, and conversely in a black and white perspective in ISFPs and ESFPs… but that will take me some time. I have inferior Te!!!

    Also, I want to suggest a celebrity to be included in this page.. how do I do that?

  25. AnotherOne says:

    and when “I say this site” in the above post I mean celebritytypes; reading quotes from celebrities has made my understanding of how and what typing is useful for, where in the beginning I was so lost and just reading a paragraph of theory would seriously make me hate my brain. I know (and I’m confident in this) why I was bad at trigonometry and calculus in school and an excellent student in physics: it was MUCH more easier to solve a problem in which I knew the what, were and how, where in trigonometry not only I didn’t know what the f*** I was trying to solve exactly, but freaked out when the formula I used didn’t give the right result.. I would just accept I didn’t know what to do and give up.

  26. David says:

    This is how the axes will look like when one function is more dominant over the other and vice versa:

    Se over Ni = Only cares about ONE thing, which is experiencing reality and getting the most out of it. Whatever ideas come to mind in the moment will be used provided that idea has any use at all.

    Ni over Se = Ignoring immediate reality for the sake of a synthesized idea that the person feels HAS to be carried out in some way. Whatever obstacles come along the way will be dealt with accordingly.

    Ne over Si = Searching meticulously for associations and possibilities in even the small details. And branching out from one detail after another like the branches on a tree.

    Si over Ne = accumulates experiences and ideas that can stand the test of time. And will also be cautious and considerate of possibilities of things that can go wrong with a novel idea based on this accumulated wisdom.

    Fe over Ti = Desires harmony and the BEST consensus possible on different ideas with people and will figure out the logically necessary steps on how to achieve this, albeit diplomatically.

    Ti over Fe = Abstracts general logical principles which are flexible and changeable over time for anyone and everyone to follow.

    Te over Fi = makes one’s individuality known to the world by gaining control over his/her environment through practical means.

    Fi over Te = will take pragmatic action to expressing personal ideals and values should something or someone cross those values or under other circumstances where someone wants to express themselves.

  27. AnotherOne says:

    @David I agree!!!

  28. Rose says:

    Love this. I think the site’s previous articles really nailed the distinction between Ni-Se axis and Ne-Si very well. I could easily understand it.

    I didn’t think the Judgement axis definitions were so well done though before. I saw an unconscious bias for the Ti-Fe axis, not blaming the site, just saying it was there. It was like Ti and Fe are supposed to together make some beautiful harmonious Platonic worldview. The union of Fi and Te was explained more like opposition and it was much less clear how they form a union and work together. In other words, it seemed to show more of a war between the two poles of a Fi-Te or Te-Fi users psyche than that in the Ti-Fe user. Examples: Michael Pierce’s idea that Te is bulldozer and Fi a protester lying down in front of it. I really see the axis as more of a balanced thing now–I see my INTJ friend’s Te-Fi is basically the same as mine but reversed, unlike the INFJ I know, who it is so different arguing with. I think the EFPs and ITJs are where to look to see the unity.
    Also I don’t think that believing in a “hierarchy of people” is something most people with this axis agree with. No, it’s not just Fi doms denouncing Te. As an ENFP who has recently been spending a lot of time with TJs, I really don’t think that’s correct. I guess it depends what is meant by “hierarchy” but even Te-doms will object to that ethically.
    Also some of the descriptions make it seem more likely that people of this axis will be um basically self-centered as if Fi is only about getting what you personally want.

    Well, anyway, love this definition here by this author. “A cognitive preference for clearly stated and definite judgements”. I also have had the idea that as many have said the Ni-Se is “depth” and Ne-Si “breadth”, speaking of perception, you could say that Fi-Te is depth and Ti-Fe is breadth of judgements?
    Finally! Well worth the wait.

  29. Lee Morgan says:

    Hey Rose!

    I really appreciate the feedback. I too have wrestled with previous portrayals of the Te/Fi axis. I really wanted to show that no axis can be preferable to another. I’m glad you feel that I achieved that. I feel like Te/Fi users tend to be made to look naive. I think it’s fair to say that categorically they are not.

  30. Lee Morgan says:

    I just reread the comments and must acknowledge the admins help with that bit! I’d forgotten their help!

  31. pedrotorres says:

    a question for admin: you can only typify someone who is an adult (+21)? as it in childhood and adolescence we’re still developing, experts say the orbitofrontal cortex for example finishes mature around 20 years.

  32. Hannah S says:


    It’s an interesting question. :)

    My personal answer, after typing a lot of people of different ages, is yes – you can type children. Even children as young as four or five appear to have fairly clear types if you observe them closely enough. However, typing children is much more difficult, as the functions manifest differently depending on life experience – especially introverted functions. A young ETJ who believes some weird nonsensical “fact” her older brother told her as a joke and goes around telling it to all the other children, might come across like an Ne type to adults, for example. :)

    Also, type seems fairly consistent throughout a person’s life.

    However, there is also an ethical question here about whether we SHOULD discuss children’s types in a public forum, or whether CT should put child actors on the site etc. And I would actually say no to that – at least wait until they are 18. :)

  33. admin says:

    Children often have a clear temperament from day 1. The problem is that temperament can be modified by the environment, and no one knows how basic biological dispositions pertain to higher-order processes like functions. In general, we don’t type people before they’re 18, but that is not to say that people younger than 18 don’t have types. Also, if someone (like Anne Frank) died at a young age, and it is pretty clear that they had a differentiated type at that time, it would in our opinions make sense to assess whatever they left behind at that point, since that is how people will remember them anyway.

Leave a Reply