"Feeling" & "Thinking"

[Butterfly]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

What say you??

 

[Seanan]

I have opinions on this but, frankly, the last week or so, its getting increasingly hard to state one's opinion without offending someone... so I'm not going to do it. I will say this though, from what I've seen, this thread is going to go in the direction of everyone is objective/subjective most of the time or, at least, everyone is going to come out as being pretty much identical... so just throw out MB.

 

[Kiddo]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

What say you??

I think you are going down the wrong road there. Thinking and Feeling are indicative of the natural Systematizing and Empathizing parts of the brain. That has nothing to do with "Objectivity" or "Subjectivity". It has to deal with how information is processed in the brain. An example would be a thinking type would process information as words and numbers whereas a feeling type would process information as images and symbols. Everyone has both of those capacities unless they have some sort of disorder (Ex. autistics lack the empathizing capacities), but it really comes down to preference when typing. The difference that people tend to associate with using these different faculties is social interaction where Thinkers tend to value the process (routines, rules, procedures, etc.) behind discussion and Feelers tend to value the experience (connections, bonds, emotions, etc.) of discussion.

 

[INTJMom]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

What say you??

I understand how you feel, but I think it's too late to change it now.


Seriously though, I think it's incumbent upon whoever is doing the teaching that they explain the difference, as the books that I use most certainly do teach, that feelers can think, and thinkers have feelings, and that's not the technical use of those words in this context anyway.

Just like when Carl Jung calls iNtuition "irrational". It's not that it's not rational, as we understand rational.

It's like learning a foreign language. We have to learn the definitions of these words in this different context.

 

[Totenkindly]

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

It might be more descriptive... but wow, it is a mouthful, isn't it?

If there was some other shorter terminology, that would help.

 

[Butterfly]

I have opinions on this but, frankly, the last week or so, its getting increasingly hard to state one's opinion without offending someone... so I'm not going to do it. I will say this though, from what I've seen, this thread is going to go in the direction of everyone is objective/subjective most of the time or, at least, everyone is going to come out as being pretty much identical... so just throw out MB.

Seanan, Dont fear!! Say it ..gwan i dare you to say ur opinion Offend all u like, as long as its not personal

I think you are going down the wrong road there. Thinking and Feeling are indicative of the natural Systematizing and Empathizing parts of the brain. That has nothing to do with "Objectivity" or "Subjectivity". It has to deal with how information is processed in the brain. An example would be a thinking type would process information as words and numbers whereas a feeling type would process information as images and symbols. Everyone has both of those capacities unless they have some sort of disorder (Ex. autistics lack the empathizing capacities), but it really comes down to preference when typing. The difference that people tend to associate with using these different faculties is social interaction where Thinkers tend to value the process (routines, rules, procedures, etc.) behind discussion and Feelers tend to value the experience (connections, bonds, emotions, etc.) of discussion.

Mmmm ok...i didnt know that. thanks for insight.

I understand how you feel, but I think it's too late to change it now.


Seriously though, I think it's incumbent upon whoever is doing the teaching that they explain the difference, as the books that I use most certainly do teach, that feelers can think, and thinkers have feelings, and that's not the technical use of those words in this context anyway.

Just like when Carl Jung calls iNtuition "irrational". It's not that it's not rational, as we understand rational.

It's like learning a foreign language. We have to learn the definitions of these words in this different context.

Thats exactly what i mean!! Those words have certain meaning attached to them, so it makes it very confusing in laymans terms or even everday usage. Oh well. Tough.

 

[Seanan]

It might be more descriptive... but wow, it is a mouthful, isn't it?

If there was some other shorter terminology, that would help.

Subjective/Objective Perspective

 

[Butterfly]

It might be more descriptive... but wow, it is a mouthful, isn't it?

If there was some other shorter terminology, that would help.

lol....hehe yeah its a mouthful alright! I;ll let u think of a better alternative then, any suggestions?

 

[Kiddo]

lol....hehe yeah its a mouthful alright! I;ll let u think of a better alternative then, any suggestions?

Systematizing and Empathizing?

I don't really see where you are getting the Subjective/Objective.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, it's been discussed before on the forums here, last summer... I just don't remember the outcome of all that.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Oh boy.
I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sum-up complex concepts in single words, and let me tell you, trying to get the perfect connotation is practically hopeless. It's very unlikely that you can build a concept that requires a couple of paragraphs to explain and find a word that already exists for it.

Not only that, but words change over time, especially in terms of connotation. Jung came up with this stuff many decades ago.

There's really no option but to create your own definition. For people such as yourself, the main thing you have to do is clear your mind of the previous connotations. This is a whole new definition for thinking and feeling, which is specific to this field. The plenty of words that have field specific definitions, you know?

 

[Nadir]

Feeling? Intuitive valuation.
Thinking? Step-by-step.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Feeling? Intuitive valuation.
Thinking? Step-by-step.

No. Never ever use the same word to label two different values or variables.

 

[Nadir]

No. Never ever use the same word to label two different values or variables.

Wasn't it yourself who said:
There's really no option but to create your own definition. For people such as yourself, the main thing you have to do is clear your mind of the previous connotations.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, I agree with Magic in this case: Yes, certainly, clear your mind of previous connotations...

...but you cannot use the name of one of the other seven functions to describe the eighth function. That is a recipe for confusion/disaster.

(My tech-writer teeth are getting bared on this one, sorry.)

 

[Nadir]

Well, I agree with Magic in this case: Yes, certainly, clear your mind of previous connotations...

...but you cannot use the name of one of the other seven functions to describe the eighth function. That is a recipe for confusion/disaster.

(My tech-writer teeth are getting bared on this one, sorry.)

Do you really think that Sensing is Sensing and Intuition is Intuition, Jennifer?

 

[Seanan]

Holistic perspective
Linear perspective (or analytical)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Do you really think that Sensing is Sensing and Intuition is Intuition, Jennifer?

It doesn't matter what the functions are precisely called, just don't repeat the labels, because that defeats the point of labels.

 

[Nadir]

It doesn't matter what the functions are precisely called, just don't repeat the labels, because that defeats the point of labels.

Or we can change the labels. I see no reason why "Intuitive"/"Intuition" can't be called "Abstract"/"Abstraction" when viewed in the context of MBTI. There's no point in slaving ourselves to such labels, either.
For example, I believe Seanan's descriptions have similar meanings to mine, though the word choice is different -- and probably more to your liking.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you really think that Sensing is Sensing and Intuition is Intuition, Jennifer?

That's rather irrelevant to this particular point, since my comment simply means you can't call something "Intuition" if you're going to use the term elsewhere.

If you'd like to change "Intuition" to something else (so they are all still different), go for it.

But to answer the question -- intuition is a broad word that has been selectively narrowed for the MBTI terminology. One could say that sensors have "intuition" based on their experience of the tangible world: They can recognize tangible patterns in what is happening around them, then make the "leap."

Still, the big difference I guess is that this is still more like "experience" than "abstracted intuition." They have seen it work before, so they recognize when things have lined up once more and will probably lead to the same outcome. The closer the details are from situation to situation, the more likely they'll make the leap; the less similar the inconsequential details are, the less likely they'll make the leap.

Intuitives right now as defined in MBTI are able to take patterns they have experienced in one domain and apply them loosely to OTHER areas appropriately. The situation does not have to be the same, and it could even be another completely different field, with different cosmetic details, but they recognize the broad pattern and make an intuitive leap between things that tangibly don't look much the same at all.

EDIT: Abstraction is definitely one way to sum up "Intuition." I'd have trouble thinking of a better word right now. The sensors could be the Tangibles. They want to get their hands on their things.