User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: F

  1. #11
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    I don't think they necessarily have similar values, but I think they'd tend to use the subjective values that they do have to make decisions more than T types.
    I guess we can agree that all types have and use values, however I am unsure as to what an objective value vs a subjective value looks like. Could you give me an example?

  2. #12
    shoshaku jushaku rivercrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    The Thinking and Feeling functions were named that way by Jung, who himself admitted these were not the best terms.
    Who rises in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "I think I will do something stupid today?" -- James Hollis
    If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Whaling is illegal in Oklahoma.

  3. #13
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    I guess we can agree that all types have and use values, however I am unsure as to what an objective value vs a subjective value looks like. Could you give me an example?
    Well, all use them. Some prefer to remove themseves far from them.

    Feelers come from a position of arguing inherent qualities in a debate-- something is good, another less good (or another quality), and personal feeling, experience, and temperment contributes this notion.

    Thinkers often must start there as well, but where possible, their language will be far removed from personal preference or experience. One action should be taken based on disembodied principals supported by checked and re-checked facts and a variety o sources. Any given Solitarywalker is a good example of this.

    I really don't feel I've done justice to the utilitiy of Jungian Feeling-based logic, so I'll illustrate.

    You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
    Let's do this thing.

  4. #14
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    I do wish "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" were used instead of "Feeling" and "Thinking." Feelers can be very good at qualitative logic.
    I agree those are less confusing poles. Well put.

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Judging and Perceiving come from the function theory of MBTI...

    Keirsey basically agrees, without a function theory behind it. If you'd rather gather information, you're a P, if you'd rather make a quick decision, you're a J.

    Socionics doesn't look at behavior, but instead personal experience. They look at the first function to determine J vs P, so it differs in both type description and on what type certain introverts are. Personally, I find socionics a leeetle kooky, but it's an important distinction to make.
    There is also the quality of collecting the most comprehensive information possible so that when a decision is made, it can in fact be final. A quick decision and no decision can share the same quality of needing continual revision. I find my Thinking is strongly P, but my Feeling and Sensing are J. It's an interesting dichotomy. I wonder how many other people experience something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Well, all use them. Some prefer to remove themseves far from them.

    Feelers come from a position of arguing inherent qualities in a debate-- something is good, another less good (or another quality), and personal feeling, experience, and temperment contributes this notion.

    Thinkers often must start there as well, but where possible, their language will be far removed from personal preference or experience. One action should be taken based on disembodied principals supported by checked and re-checked facts and a variety o sources. Any given Solitarywalker is a good example of this.

    I really don't feel I've done justice to the utilitiy of Jungian Feeling-based logic, so I'll illustrate.

    You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
    It would seem useful to have enough adaptability to use the style of analysis best suited for a given task. Discussing 'fun' reasonably requires a different process than discussing philosophy.

    Perhaps that is one reason this forum is of value. When placed in various discussions that requires different types of processing one can increase their adaptability in their analysis.
    ************************************************** *****

    This is a related question I would be curious to hear input from others on. The more you have invested research and personal experience in a topic, do you find yourself personalizing it more or less than information you are most recently presented with? It would seem expected that the greater investment = greater personalizing of said topic, but for myself I find it quite the opposite. There are a handful of topics that I have basically invested my life in and for some reason, those are the easiest for me to remain personally distanced with during a discussion.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    This is a related question I would be curious to hear input from others on. The more you have invested research and personal experience in a topic, do you find yourself personalizing it more or less than information you are most recently presented with? It would seem expected that the greater investment = greater personalizing of said topic, but for myself I find it quite the opposite. There are a handful of topics that I have basically invested my life in and for some reason, those are the easiest for me to remain personally distanced with during a discussion.
    Maybe I'm just exhausted from surviving the week, but could you clarify what you mean here? I'm admittedly lost as to what exactly you're asking. Thanks, Toony!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Maybe I'm just exhausted from surviving the week, but could you clarify what you mean here? I'm admittedly lost as to what exactly you're asking. Thanks, Toony!
    Me too. That's probably why it needs clarifying. For specifics, the question of god and the role of compassion in human interaction have occupied my mind since childhood. Because of investing the time to view it from every possible angle, it is easier for me to discuss it at a distance, by removing myself from it, than it was to discuss issues in my profession when I first encountered them. I did get emotionally invested in online discussion regarding those, but now that I am a few years into my career, the distancing process is in place.

    Very often with politics, religion, etc. if a person has invested a great deal of thought into, they will 'tend' to be more passionate, feel a certain entitlement to being right, consider their personal experience and research 'makes' them right, etc. To a point it does increase credibility, but what I'm talking about isn't about credibility, it is about staying detached vs. becoming passionate about the topics that mean the most to you as a person. I'm not saying one is right or not, but I'm curious about the relationship of this to the whole F and T business.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  7. #17
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Makes sense to me. A lot of times the more I learn the less I know.

    I can still have my own views or feelings about things, but if I have a wide exposure to a subject, I have a wide exposure on the varying views of intelligent knowledgeable people on that subject and I can see how they came to the conclusions that they did. It makes me less likely to be emotionally invested in my own views to the exclusion of all others.

    Is that something like what you're saying or do I have it all scrambled?
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  8. #18
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    Very often with politics, religion, etc. if a person has invested a great deal of thought into, they will 'tend' to be more passionate, feel a certain entitlement to being right, consider their personal experience and research 'makes' them right, etc. To a point it does increase credibility, but what I'm talking about isn't about credibility, it is about staying detached vs. becoming passionate about the topics that mean the most to you as a person. I'm not saying one is right or not, but I'm curious about the relationship of this to the whole F and T business.
    I... don't know, to be honest.

    One thing that always frustrated me about myself with religion or other similar things was that other people who believed in it could fight for it very ardently. But it seemed like the more I studied it and tried to get a grasp on it, even while I have some strong and broad inner convictions, I am even less prone to "debating it" on the outside with others, at least in terms of "promoting my point of view." I see things from too many different angles. What I usually do in any discussion is fill in the missing gaps for people -- I explain whatever side I feel is not getting clearly examined. If I lead the conversation and promote a viewpoint and someone points out one of the other ways to looking at it, I tend to lose steam.

    I don't know what this means at all. We've discussed Ni some (which really tends to the "detach from the preferred meaning of something, and examine it from all sides to see all potential meanings" function), and one of my anomalies for being INTP is that the function test portrayed me as having an atypically strong Ni along with my normal functions. I don't know whether this is Ni or what exactly.

    If this missed what you were aiming for, feel free to clarify and we'll hone in on it somehow.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #19
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Fortunato and cafe hit the nail on the head. I've tended to fill in the missing gaps as well in a discussion. On hot-topic items I typically have a history of being raked over the coals by both sides. That actually amuses me a bit. My position is that if something is worth believing, it should be strong enough to hold its own. Even if the position is lost in a debate, whatever is really true, will still be. Whatever is true is bigger than my opinions of it. It's for me to continually search until my thoughts reflect what really 'is'. Its more of a process than a destination.

    Back to the question of F. Emotions do influence everyone. We are measurably hardwired to process emotions and have a fair amount of grey matter devoted to it. It would seem worth exploring it more thoroughly than MBTI does. It might help account for all the variations within each type. I'm still hoping for a system that analyzes cognitive processes based on the physical components of the brain and on scans to test where activity is concentrated, etc. The less conjecture the better. Honestly though, I still have more to learn about the systems that are in place already like MBTI.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  10. #20
    Member s0532's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I also understand that emotional has an inherent negative connotation,
    I don't think this is true. You may have perceived a bias around these T-oriented forums, but generally speaking, I see emotionality as something which is quite universally celebrated- I'm thinking of television/ film/ literature/ music/ art - drama and emotional expressiveness as essentialist-ly human experience. Sometimes I think emotionality is used synonymously with (conflated with) "humanity." To be rational somehow recalls coldness, the mechanical, the inhuman.

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    I do wish "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" were used instead of "Feeling" and "Thinking." Feelers can be very good at qualitative logic.
    No understand how this could apply at all. T's are not necessarily mathy. You once proposed V for Value instead of F, I think that speaks much better toward explicating the distinction.

    Of course I'd say ultimately I think we're all fundamentally values-motivated. Maybe T's simply value, and aspire toward, objectivity over subjectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
    I can see why you say more efficiently- I am still learning- like, when shopping, to just pick the color which pleases me best, because, well, it pleases me best, no need to overthink and brew. But I would say it's only more efficient if one's goal/ agenda at hand is direct emotional satisfaction vs understanding or something. I think my cogitations about the value of fun, play, pleasure are very interesting, and um, pleasurable- sometimes I form conceptual insights and connections about these kinds of things that get me all profoundly ecstatic- I value that.

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