ah, interesting, well then maybe im a T in disguise then, as "If I don't cut costs in the company, then the company will go under, and we'll ALL be unemployed." is exactly the thought process id use,lol... Id just feel bad for the person I let go...and I think a T if they liked the person would as well most likely.
That doesn't make you a T; if you're an auxiliary F; it's likely then tertiary T. That has to be taken into consideration too. And a personal concern can always be operating uder that. What determines the preference is what is the starting point or focus.
The point there was, that did seem a more "technical" concern moreso than "personal".
The "T" will likely get rid of #1 - he is concerned with efficiency and the "bottom line" - he simply compares the productivity of the 2 individuals and it's easy to see who is more productive. The truth of the matter is plain to see: the older guy is costing the company money. The younger guy is making money for the company. Therefore, the older guy has to go.
The "F" will likely get rid of #2 - they will reason that the younger guy can easily get a job somewhere else and do well in his career. He has no burdensome financial obligations, no children to feed/put through college, no house payment, etc. Plus, the older guy has been such a loyal and true employee over the years - it wouldn't be fair to just throw him on the street now that he is close to retirement. He was loyal to the company, now the company has an obligation to be loyal to him.
I would be tempted to get rid of #2. I would get rid of #1 only if I believed that the company couldn't survive if I didn't fire him. But if it seemed likely that the company (and I) could get by with a little less profit, I would fire #2 to keep #1.
The "T" will likely get rid of #1 - he is concerned with efficiency and the "bottom line"
This is an interesting way to put it. I think that the bottom line in life in general is to make life a little more enjoyable for everyone. I wouldn't want some petty game like making maximum profit come before this ideal. I want to make money to live nicely, not live to make money nicely. If that maikes me an F, then are Ts people who don't think about things like what's really valuable in life at all? Are they unable to prioritise if all they can think about is winning games?
Of course, it wasn't clear in the example whether the choice was about maximum profit vs lesser profit or lesser profit vs the company going down. If it was between maximum profit and lesser profit, then I would keep the old friend. Otherwise, I'd have to fire him but in that case I'd surely explain to him that it's nothing personal and I would also help him find another job (if I had time) if he still wanted to find a new job.
Edit: It'd be a really tough decision if it seemed something like 60-80% probable that the company survives with the old guy but 20-40% probable that the company will go down if I keep him, even with the best efforts. So perhaps the correct answer to this dilemma is that a true Feeler would choose to keep the old guy even if the likelihood of the company surviving was less than 50%? Or something? :x And the less the probability has to be for someone, the more F they are. I wonder what the "turning point" between T and F would be, though? Would it still be a more Feelerish decision to keep the old guy with a 75% chance that it works?
I honestly don't know what probability would convince me to keep him. It's hard to predict one's own behaviour in such a complicated and possibly stressful scenario. It's possible that I'd still fire him with an estimated 85% percent chance of the company surviving with him, if I really didn't like the idea of finding another job for myself in that situation.
"How dreadful!" cried Lord Henry. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." ~ Oscar Wilde - The picture of Dorian Gray