User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: F

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I was thinking about each of the letters in MBTI recently and I began to wonder why the term Feeling is used. It seems to me that Feeling is more of an intuitive thing, whereas Emotional describes emotions. I understand that there is already a letter E in MBTI, and I also understand that emotional has an inherent negative connotation, but for the sake of argument pretend that neither exists.

    The way it is currently, you can be a Feeler, yet have absolutely no ability to "feel" people's emotions (S's). Whereas, an NT might be able to "feel" things.

    Anyways, this could be a product of my being awake at a late hour and an attempt to push the envelope on procrastination concerning my test studying, but I'd like to hear some input.

    I can understand how one can think that 'F' in typology is mis-labeled.

    Yet, we should note that Jung used the word Feeling in a non-vernacular fashion. He wasnt talking about literally experiencing feelings, but actually something that is more along the lines of 'thinking about feeling'. Or reflecting on one's feelings concerning the scenario and then making decisions based on that.

    Hence this is actually thinking about the personal aspects of our knowledge, as opposed to the impersonal as we get with (T). Hence both feelers and thinkers 'Think', in a vernacular sense of the word and this is why they are called the judging functions. Once again, the only difference is that one thinks about personal entities, and the other about impersonal.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I can understand how one can think that 'F' in typology is mis-labeled.

    Yet, we should note that Jung used the word Feeling in a non-vernacular fashion. He wasnt talking about literally experiencing feelings, but actually something that is more along the lines of 'thinking about feeling'. Or reflecting on one's feelings concerning the scenario and then making decisions based on that.

    Hence this is actually thinking about the personal aspects of our knowledge, as opposed to the impersonal as we get with (T). Hence both feelers and thinkers 'Think', in a vernacular sense of the word and this is why they are called the judging functions. Once again, the only difference is that one thinks about personal entities, and the other about impersonal.
    This sounds right to me.

    So both Ts (thinkers) and Fs (feelers) actively think and make judgments from their "thoughts"...

    However "feelers or Fs", who have thought about a subject, will take how they feel about their thoughts into higher consideration - especially when finalizing a decision or judgment - than the typical thinker.

    OR to put it another way...

    "Thinkers or Ts" who have feelings about a subject will take what they think about a subject (while actually disregarding their emotional response) into higher consideration in finalizing a decision or judgment than the typical feeler.

    In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

    Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people.

    However,

    * Thinkers tend to base their decision and the explanation of that decision on their thought process.
    * Feelers may tend to base their decision on how they feel about what they thought, and they use their feelings as the basis of their explanations.


    The real difference I have found in thinkers and feelers is not a matter of logic, reason, or emotion but instead language. We all think, have widely differing values, and emote... However, we do tend to communicate differently. I have to add, nothing is absolute.

    Its not that feelers are illogical, or lack objectivity, its just that thinkers are missing a certain component.. Just kidding, I poke a stick at you. nah nah, n nah nah...

  3. #23
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    This sounds right to me.

    So both Ts (thinkers) and Fs (feelers) actively think and make judgments from their "thoughts"...

    However "feelers or Fs", who have thought about a subject, will take how they feel about their thoughts into higher consideration - especially when finalizing a decision or judgment - than the typical thinker.

    OR to put it another way...

    "Thinkers or Ts" who have feelings about a subject will take what they think about a subject (while actually disregarding their emotional response) into higher consideration in finalizing a decision or judgment than the typical feeler.

    In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

    Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people.

    However,

    * Thinkers tend to base their decision and the explanation of that decision on their thought process.
    * Feelers may tend to base their decision on how they feel about what they thought, and they use their feelings as the basis of their explanations.


    The real difference I have found in thinkers and feelers is not a matter of logic, reason, or emotion but instead language. We all think, have widely differing values, and emote... However, we do tend to communicate differently. I have to add, nothing is absolute.

    Its not that feelers are illogical, or lack objectivity, its just that thinkers are missing a certain component.. Just kidding, I poke a stick at you. nah nah, n nah nah...
    And to all of this I want to add that it is a mistake to deem thinkers objective and feelers subjective. Objectivity should be thought of as seeing the world for what it is and subjectivity as not being able to seperate yourself from your biases.

    Feelers tend to be objective about affairs that require personal reasoning and thinkers about those that require impersonal reasoning.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    And to all of this I want to add that it is a mistake to deem thinkers objective and feelers subjective. Objectivity should be thought of as seeing the world for what it is and subjectivity as not being able to seperate yourself from your biases.

    Feelers tend to be objective about affairs that require personal reasoning and thinkers about those that require impersonal reasoning.
    Gonna disagree here.

    Feeling logic is subjective, thinking logic less so. Feeling logic is more appropriate at times, and feelers are often capable of being objective, some of them more than some thinkers, but no, feeling logic still, by definition, must start in the qualities perceived to exist by the observer.

    As for whether one can see the world for what it is, I'll leave that one to the cognative scientists and philosophers. I have no clue if it's even possible.
    Let's do this thing.

  5. #25
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by s0532 View Post
    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.
    Speaking as an extremely expressive person, no one trusts a "human" with their money. Emotionality'll getcha a hubby or make you a painting. Starving artist or housewife doesn't sound fun to me. I'd rather be called a robot any day.
    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.
    Yeah, I tend to value the product of overthinking more than my original feely goal too.
    Let's do this thing.

  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Gonna disagree here.

    Feeling logic is subjective, thinking logic less so. Feeling logic is more appropriate at times, and feelers are often capable of being objective, some of them more than some thinkers, but no, feeling logic still, by definition, must start in the qualities perceived to exist by the observer.

    As for whether one can see the world for what it is, I'll leave that one to the cognative scientists and philosophers. I have no clue if it's even possible.

    Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..

    Some of the best character writers were NFs (like Shakespeare (INFP), Dostoevsky(INFJ).. Tolstoy (ENFP)... and so on...

    NTs tended to struggle in that regard... The character writing skills of master novelists like Nietzsche (INTJ) and Voltaire (ENTP) seemed crude in comparison to their Feeling oriented counterparts..

    Of course feelers wouldnt do well with questions like 'what is the world like'.. but that is because this requires impersonal reasoning... they'd do much better with what requires personal reasoning... After all... you as an NF probably trust your suppositions about people... this means that you deem for them to be objective.. or dont you.. you wouldnt really trust them if you thought that you were just caught up in your prejudices.. either way this is the case in point for the argument of how true definition of objectivity implies epistemic confidence in virtue of having extricated yourself from your biases... as you..as a Feeler trust your suppositions about people more than your insights about how the world is.. once again.. because you probably think that your suppositions about people are more likely to have you arrive at the truth than your suppositions about something that requires impersonal reasoning.

    So... I am not sure if I really caught your drift... because I just found myself repeating what I said in the post that you've just responded to...(clarify please..?)
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..
    I agree. But accuracy does not make the process by which one comes to a conclusion objective. The nature of the process makes the process objective or subjective.

    Your language is muddy. I can name three or four thinkers who are a great deal better at reading people than the majority of feelers I know. It's not possible to make a good statement about what a thinker would or would not be good at, as any given thinker may have very good use of his feeling functions.
    Let's do this thing.

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    I agree. But accuracy does not make the process by which one comes to a conclusion objective. The nature of the process makes the process objective or subjective.
    I've defined objectivity as the success of a proposition in inquiry and subjectivity... the lack of... so accuracy is exactly what I understood for objectivity to be... It appears that you understand for objectivity to be something other than this...

    I have an idea of what you meant... though I am not certain... another way to think of it would be that subjectivity... almost by definition suggests the primacy of a subject over an object... so in this case the object is assessed in terms of how it relates to the subject (this is a classical attitude of Introversion)... and objectivity would be the other way around...(classical attitude of Extroversion)...

    Though I am not sure if this has a lot to do with the Thinking/Feeling discrepancy that you seem to have in mind...

    Seems to me that you're suggesting that personal is subjective and impersonal objective...regardless of where it all stands in relation to accuracy/inaccuracy..or even less regard for extroversion/introversion..

    There are many ways to think of the objectivity/subjectivity problem...we should define it clearly for the sake of getting the best results possible...

    Also it is clear that there would be thinkers who do a good job of reading people... but again... I'd say this would be in virtue of their good use of the Feeling faculty... as you've previously noted... the 'Thinking' faculty is less likely to make you meritorious in that regard than the 'Feeling'.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    Senior Member Langrenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..
    Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?

    I'm not too hot on MBTI, so feel free to shoot me down on this...
    January has April's showers
    And 2 and 2 always makes a 5

  10. #30
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Langrenus View Post
    Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?

    I'm not too hot on MBTI, so feel free to shoot me down on this...

    I am suggesting that Fs would read people better because of their ability to empathize. Their ideas would be more likely to be accurate. Whereas Ts, being unable to empathize, simply wouldnt understand people and their suppositions about how they are left with a higher propensity to error.

    This is a lot like Ts tend to understand logic with a relative ease, yet Fs tend not to and therefore be more likely to make errors.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

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