differenting feeling and thinking

[trondor]

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 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?

 

[trondor]

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?

 

[trondor]

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.

 

[Chunes]

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.

 

[trondor]

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.