User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    infp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    29

    Default differenting feeling and thinking

    I am one of those people who want things to be clear and crisp, not vague and up-in-the-air. I'm still N thought :P It's just that many descriptions are a bit to loose for me

    Lately I have been thinking about different ways to make a clear ("crisp") distinction to the terms feeling and thinking. I have read that Jung describes them as rational, conscious thinking, only on two different domains, feeling and thinking.

    Can another description be that feeling is primarily about the "why" while thinking is primarily about "how"

    Before, when first learning about types at "discover youself" sites, I used to mistake intuition (and especially the silent intuition of Ni) to be feeling. Those moments you just "know" something, without clear (communicative) evidence to why. This made me uncertain wheter i was thinker or feeler. I later discovered throught both research and tests that I most likely is INFP, but still.

    I have found myself better at guessing peoples motivation and true disposition towards stuff, and I reckon that this is what feeling is about, motivation. The "why".

    Am I on to something, or am I completely off the chart?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    infp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I was thinking about this last night, and something just clicked. Here are my take on types.

    The synonymous

    The Rationals:
    Feeling: The "Why", motivational reason.

    Thinking: The "How", task-solving reason.

    Both are dependent on each other. "How" is meaningless without "Why", and "why" is meaningless without "how".

    The Irrationals:
    Intuition: the connections

    Sensing: the facts

    These are also dependent on each other. Connections based on false facts are false, facts without connections are useless.


    Preferences base a hiearechy, my infp preference would be like this.

    F - Dependable
    "motivation and reason behind action"

    N - Somewhat dependable (or require more energy)
    "connections betwen facts"

    S - Somewhat undependable (or require more energy)
    "the facts"

    T - Undependable (or require more energy)
    "the action itself and solution to the problem"

    This as an example might make me more interested in the reason why people do stuff, want stuff and so on then wheter their actions actually solve the problems they encounter. I might focus too much on why the system is needed, then if the system is doable/can be realized. As the analogy "more mercy then justice".

    Let's take a look at INTJ's with the same glasses.

    N - Connections

    T - Problemsolving

    F - Motivation

    S - Facts

    According to my idea, this make INTJ natural theorizers, however, if their not careful, they might get their facts wrong and thereby building their castle on sand. An impressiv castle indeed, but not more solid then facts it is built on.

    This is new thoughts for me, so they might be skewed. Any input?

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    infp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I see that no one has responded. I wonder if that is because people disagree, or if it was because I was unclear?

    I'll try to rephrase and see if it becomes clearer then.

    The functions without the Introvert/Extrovert layer:

    S - Facts
    N - Connections
    F - Motivation-reasoning
    T - Solution-reasoning

    Here is a list of the different types using the terminology I've made:

    INTJ and INFJ, ENTP and ENFP:
    N
    x
    x
    S


    Making connections come easily too them, evaluating facts may be more troublesome. If immature, may be inclined to make conspiracy-like, unlikely theories.


    ESTP and ESFP, ISTJ and ISFJ
    S
    x
    x
    N


    Evaluating concrete facts, what can be trusted. Difficulty putting facts in context. If immature they may distrust theoretical thinking, or "this happens because of that". Especially new and/or complicated theories.
    (I'm uncertain of this view thought)


    INFP and ISFP, ENFJ and ESFJ
    F
    x
    x
    T


    Seeing motivations, needs and reasons is easy for them, creating sound solutions prove more troublesome. If immature, may become overwhelmed by seeing an endless amounts of problems without solutions.


    ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTP, INTP
    T
    x
    x
    F


    Easily see solutions and how to reach the goal. Have more difficulty in identifying the reason to why people want stuff. If immature, may be more loyal to the system then what the system is meant to accomplish.
    (uncertain of this too. I am not implying that these types are socially backward, in fact they may be very socially competent, but they may be more inclined then to view the social scene as a "how", not "why". You may be socially brilliant with no focus on why you are so)

    I think these ideas or perspectives are congruent with what the mbti-sources are saying.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trondor View Post
    Both are dependent on each other. "How" is meaningless without "Why", and "why" is meaningless without "how".
    I agree that how is meaningless without why, but I disagree that why is meaningless without how. Why precedes and is therefore independent of how.
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
    Thoreau

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    infp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chunes View Post
    I agree that how is meaningless without why, but I disagree that why is meaningless without how. Why precedes and is therefore independent of how.
    Hmm. Perhaps one could say that facts and motivations are independent and precedes connections and solutions.
    However, facts serve no purpose without connections as "why" serve no purpose without "how". Both facts and why are dependent on connections and how in order for the person to function.

Similar Threads

  1. [Kiersey] informative and directive, or feeling and thinking
    By Mustafa in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2015, 12:56 PM
  2. [JCF] THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTROVERTED THINKING AND INTROVERTED THINKING!
    By Chick24 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2014, 02:09 PM
  3. [MBTItm] whats the difference between extraverted feeling and introverted feeling?
    By Patricia Lavoie in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 01:10 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling and Mercy
    By Asterion in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-31-2011, 04:58 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Differences between NT thinking and ST thinking
    By Grungemouse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05-24-2009, 12:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO