F vs T is the tell telling the tale?

[Distance]

Is the telling acting or having higher emotionality?

They are both judging functions, but they differ in where the gavel drops.

In your typing opinions and experience, how do you forumites personally identify F or T in type, whether in electronic form, or IRL?

[BrainlessSquid]

T types are generally more logically consistent, and action-task oriented, and somewhat" detached" in terms of feelings
F types, generally speaking, focus on relationships, are more accepting, and persuasive.

It's harder to tell F and T apart when it's an auxiliary function though. But what I said remains

[godslave]

Is the telling acting or having higher emotionality?

They are both judging functions, but they differ in where the gavel drops.

In your typing opinions and experience, how do you forumites personally identify F or T in type, whether in electronic form, or IRL?

One of the easiest way to differentiate them is by assessing functions dimensionalities.

Function dimensionalities (1D (experience), 2D (experience + normative), 3D (experience + normative + situation), 4D (exêrience + normative + situation + Time) ).

If the T (Ti and/or Te) or F (Fi and/or Fe) information is above the normative dimension then the person's TIM belongs to either an T or F type accordingly.

That said, most people here are not capable of that kind of assessment either because they don't have the skill or because they have an (N)F type to begin with (or both of these reasons). It would be reasonable to assume that NF types in general are more prone to compare and contrast the vibe of a person with their understanding (or type images) of how each TIM behaves or think.

Most people here use the typing-force because it's easier than proper typing (i.e. analysis regardless of their socionic school of reference ), but the result are at best consistent with the type images of the typist and at worst random !

[Kurt Gabin]

It is as simple as Subjects and Objects.

I recently watched an interview with the former Minister of Economic Development. It was ESI and throughout the interview he talked not about the numerical indicators of exports and imports, not about the dynamics of trade turnover, not about customs classifications, product groups and fees, but about importing and exporting companies and their relationships. He talked about how some companies bring yuan and rupees to the country, while others need euros, and how they should solve such problems. That is, as an ethicist, he focused not on actions, but on actors.

And that's it, ethics is not about feelings.

Although, I can also add that ethics (as well as sensing) is a type of concrete information, and logic (as well as intuition) is abstract. That is, if someone tells you about his girlfriend a neighbor and a dog, this is definitely an ethicist, and if someone speaks in abstract dogmas, such as the 10 commandments in the Bible, then this is logic.

[Distance]

It is an abstract concept to look into what it is exactly, and being a dichotomy, where one focuses on parts on one side, and another wholes at the other end.

If you focus on parts, or logical consistency, in units, it negates feeling or holistic impressions. One is sums, the other being into aesthetics and how it looks in humanistic terms in a feeling value, of good or bad, right and wrong. Not true or false, standing away from it in impersonal created zones with a T type.

I suspect since one is removed from a limbic standpoint in T modes, that the force is singular and narrower where you are not activated all at once, and can only observe discreet units and you find yourself as a counting machine by default, making accounts in logical value system.

Wide band vs narrow band in cognition.

I've always used the metric of having theory of mind interests, vs matter or substances as a tell.

Black & white vs. color.

If feeling is color, thinking is white.