User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default Fluffy Fs and Cold Ts

    So the Fluffy Ts and Cold Fs thing is kind of an ongoing clichee within MBTI. Even von Franz wrote a book about that somewhere in the 20'ies or 30'ies adressing exactly that.

    Anyway, its sort of the state of affairs in my social circle as well. The discourse continuously locks feelers in roles where they are expected to provide gaity and warmth, or emotional support after someone is on the recieving end of a critique. Sometimes, they are even assigned magical powers, - much like smurfs

    I once wanted to start a discussion with my friends where the premise basically was: "Please explain how feeling can be counted on to be rational and objective, because when you read about the feeling function it seems that it really isn't." That didn't go so well: Only a few thinkers responded and when I pointed this out, one thinker told me: "Yearh but you initiated the discussion on T terms". - I don't know exactly what that was supposed to mean but I refuse to believe that rational discussion is the sole domain of the Ts.

    (By the way I know all about Jung's definition of Feeling as being a rational function, but in that case Jung defined rationality as the quality of being internally consistant. Which is not what I am getting at above. Sharia Law is pretty internally consistant, after all, yet very irrational when it comes down to it.)

    In my experience, attempting to discuss feeling and feelers objectively is a discoursive nightmare: You immediatly get hit with the same accusations that prevent gender difference, race difference, intelligence etc. from being discussed rationally. Furthermore, you also get kind of incriminated ad hominem; casted as a fun-spoiler, unable to grasp the charms and enjoyment of feeling. (Cue Monty Python's "Logic versus Sex").

    Incidentally, I am not saying, that there is necessarily anything to racism, sexism etc. - just like I refuse to believe that rational discussion is the sole domain of the Ts. But I find it striking that some people employ the same rhetoric in the "defense" of feeling as they would employ in their defense of any other group that has traditionally been percieved as weak (that would be women, Africans etc.). So what I would like was some good, rational arguments on the merits of Feeling that avoid the championing of feelers as human cuddle toys.

    It may sound provocative, but believe me, I have asked and read around and am yet to find such arguments.
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    So the Fluffy Ts and Cold Fs thing is kind of an ongoing clichee within MBTI. Even von Franz wrote a book about that somewhere in the 20'ies or 30'ies adressing exactly that.

    Anyway, its sort of the state of affairs in my social circle as well. The discourse continuously locks feelers in roles where they are expected to provide gaity and warmth, or emotional support after someone is on the recieving end of a critique. Sometimes, they are even assigned magical powers, - much like smurfs

    I once wanted to start a discussion with my friends where the premise basically was: "Please explain how feeling can be counted on to be rational and objective, because when you read about the feeling function it seems that it really isn't." That didn't go so well: Only a few thinkers responded and when I pointed this out, one thinker told me: "Yearh but you initiated the discussion on T terms". - I don't know exactly what that was supposed to mean but I refuse to believe that rational discussion is the sole domain of the Ts.

    (By the way I know all about Jung's definition of Feeling as being a rational function, but in that case Jung defined rationality as the quality of being internally consistant. Which is not what I am getting at above. Sharia Law is pretty internally consistant, after all, yet very irrational when it comes down to it.)

    In my experience, attempting to discuss feeling and feelers objectively is a discoursive nightmare: You immediatly get hit with the same accusations that prevent gender difference, race difference, intelligence etc. from being discussed rationally. Furthermore, you also get kind of incriminated ad hominem; casted as a fun-spoiler, unable to grasp the charms and enjoyment of feeling. (Cue Monty Python's "Logic versus Sex").

    Incidentally, I am not saying, that there is necessarily anything to racism, sexism etc. - just like I refuse to believe that rational discussion is the sole domain of the Ts. But I find it striking that some people employ the same rhetoric in the "defense" of feeling as they would employ in their defense of any other group that has traditionally been percieved as weak (that would be women, Africans etc.). So what I would like was some good, rational arguments on the merits of Feeling that avoid the championing of feelers as human cuddle toys.

    It may sound provocative, but believe me, I have asked and read around and am yet to find such arguments.
    Extraverted feeling is rational AND objective.

    As for 'reading about the feeling funtion'. I don't know how you got to your conclusion. Feeling is not intrinsically emotional. That myth aside, feeling is just as rational. It's based on helping or hurting. I bet the whole percievd 'irrationality' doesn't even come up in other cultures besides the U.S

    Here's something, that's Not intended to be have a 'sting' but it deserves to be mentioned. Thinking types are much more likely to make disasterous decisions using feeling. Inferior feeling can manifest as: wildly overblown retaliations to disloyalty, misplaced trust, secret prejudice, able to be completely manipulated by flattery...now that stuff certianly doesn't seem rational.

    Extraverted Feeling (Mrs. Manners is VERY rational and objective)

    When I listen to people who prefer extraverted feeling it often sounds like "it's nice to do this+it's nice to do that-it's not nice to do that-it's Really not nice to do that. Therefor I am/not on his side"
    So say you invite a new friend to dinner with you and your brother. Your friend makes some off the cuff remark that seriously offends your brother. OK. So your brother won't be friends with this person too bad. So you just think of a gesture to show your friend that you haven't abandoned them. You're brother already knows you're not 'taking her side' because you make sure to talk it over with him.

    Of course, I'll admit I've never understood why extraverted feeling isn't considered objective. Why is it not considered objective?

    I'd also wonder (as someone preferring subjective feeling) why someone has to be counted on to be 'rational and OBJECTIVE" Is it important to be objective? (I don't think so) Do you think it is?

  3. #3
    Senior Member OctaviaCaesar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    211

    Default

    If F and T are decision-making functions at heart, then either of them is very subjective: to the person and to the person's type. I think the "fluffiness" of an F depends on their other functions and attitudes. Think about the differences between these kinds of Feelers: ENFJ, ESFP, ISFJ--the express their F in different ways due to the interaction with the other letters. The same goes for Ts.

    Also, T and F are functions relating to values. One is oriented toward deductive logic, I believe, and the other is oriented toward what I would call "the-logic-of-human-interactions." There are certain things to care about when one wants to get things done, and things to care about when one wants to focus on the interpersonal effects of a decision. T and F are equally objective and subjective functions.

  4. #4
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    Extraverted feeling is rational AND objective.

    As for 'reading about the feeling funtion'. I don't know how you got to your conclusion. Feeling is not intrinsically emotional. That myth aside, feeling is just as rational. It's based on helping or hurting. I bet the whole percievd 'irrationality' doesn't even come up in other cultures besides the U.S

    Here's something, that's Not intended to be have a 'sting' but it deserves to be mentioned. Thinking types are much more likely to make disasterous decisions using feeling. Inferior feeling can manifest as: wildly overblown retaliations to disloyalty, misplaced trust, secret prejudice, able to be completely manipulated by flattery...now that stuff certianly doesn't seem rational.
    i totally agree.

    EVERYONE is emotional. T types seem to be much less equipped to deal with their emotions (or emotions of others) than F types.

    i think it's quite rational to accept human emotion as a constant


    back to the topic: i think "fluffiness" is basically an EP thing (i guess EJs too, to some extent). coldness seems to be just an I thing.

    of course, any type can be fluffy or cold, depending on the situation.

  5. #5
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OctaviaCaesar View Post
    Also, T and F are functions relating to values. One is oriented toward deductive logic, I believe, and the other is oriented toward what I would call "the-logic-of-human-interactions."
    i think all judging functions are limited to deductive logic. they just all start with different premises.

Similar Threads

  1. Fs and Ts, how much do you care about people?
    By Elfboy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-16-2012, 11:36 AM
  2. Ts and Fs and being offended
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 04:46 PM
  3. [NT] NTs Blowing Hot and Cold??
    By seeker22 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 12:56 AM
  4. Fluffy Ts and Cold Fs
    By miss fortune in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 10:39 AM

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