• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Thinkers prefer objectivity while feelers prefer subjectivity

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
In an attempt to simplify things, I've created the above statement. It is for this reason that it would make sense for thinkers to prefer subjects like science and math, and feelers to prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences.

So what do you think? Is this statement true or false?
 

Chiharu

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
662
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hmm, I think this is an over-simplification.

For starters, yes, some feelers prefer reading and social sciences, but not ALL do. Furthermore, their preference may have little to do with subjectivity. Furthermore, if you read your statement in a broad way, it sounds like you're talking about in terms of judgment or laws. Personally, I prefer to look at things objectively, impartially, because I think that's fairer to everyone. That's not to say I never make subjective decisions, but i think you could argue that virtually all PEOPLE do. Now this is a very Fi sort of standpoint. I do notice more subjectivity in Fe users, but that may be my personal bias.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Yes, I'm aware that there are many exceptions to this statement. However, I'm talking about preference in general. Based on my statement, I would assume that a thinker would much rather engage in activities that require more objective, impersonal thinking, while feelers would rather engage in the opposite.

As for your statement on your decision-making, this sounds more like what a thinker would say than a feeler. After all, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are all known as the decision making (judging) functions.

I'm trying to simplify the concept because this theory is somewhat difficult to grasp for me. I don't feel like I (or most people for that matter) make decisions in way such that my decision making is predominately made in either a detached or emotional (for lack of a better word) manner.
 

Eugene Watson VIII

Senor Membrae
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
824
MBTI Type
xxxP
Enneagram
?
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Je (Te/Fe) is considered objective, but all judging is rational. I would say all thinking strives to be logical, with Te being more impersonal/objective. I don't know if you could call Ti subjective and impersonal though.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
In an attempt to simplify things, I've created the above statement. It is for this reason that it would make sense for thinkers to prefer subjects like science and math, and feelers to prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences.

So what do you think? Is this statement true or false?

False.

Hitler and Stalin did prefer subjectivity.
When their aides objected to the atrocities, they said:
- Do not be so emotional.

A judge has a stroke. The right hemisphere is damaged, or the left.
In either case, she is unable to continue her job.

T and F are the rational functions.
Dichotomy of E divides T and F.

Three dimensions is a simultaneous dichotomy of four parties.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
In an attempt to simplify things, I've created the above statement. It is for this reason that it would make sense for thinkers to prefer subjects like science and math, and feelers to prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences.

So what do you think? Is this statement true or false?

I think the statement itself is true, although I prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences and do not see them as necessarily subjectivity bound, in fact I struggle for objectivity in the same.

The greatest thing that ever happened to what I consider was the pinnacle of waxing lyrical about subjectivity, ie post modernism, was its exposure through the production of a deliberately meaningless jargon bound volume by a so called "hard scientist".

It didnt expose the social sciences or soft sciences as necessarily bunk but it definitely, for me, exposed some of the intellectual currents or trends within it as bunk. Definitely. I actually think the fault lines stem from the French but also more broadly what is refered to as "continental philosophy", its verbose, confusing, appeals to or is upheld often by the young, in contrast to the writing style of more objective sources, which can be repetitive or contestable but at least its clear.

Personally I like a lot of this with a crisis which took place within the left wing or progressivist thinking camp as long ago as world war one, which never was reproduced in the right wing or reactionary (not simply stability or traditionalist focused thinkers either). The one trend lost heart, the other was too thick to know what was happening. The whole damn world has sufffered as a result. :laugh:

Although things are getting better, there's hope ;)
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
In an attempt to simplify things, I've created the above statement. It is for this reason that it would make sense for thinkers to prefer subjects like science and math, and feelers to prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences.

So what do you think? Is this statement true or false?
I think it's true to a degree.

But (to play devil's advocate) seeing the world through subjective eyes doesn't necessarily mean that you like the complexity that it adds. When I was in high school, in many ways, I preferred the order and clarity of Maths and Science. The way English and Social Sciences were marked made me uneasy because it seemed like a shifting target. Especially because I felt like continuous information was being marked as if it were discrete and clear cut - it seemed like forcing objective criteria onto something that was not easily categorised. I also found it frustrating at times because with Maths and Science, knowing the answer was enough; in the Humanities you had to also show that you know it and explain something possibly elusive and complex in simple and clear terms. This is much more difficult and it can be frustrating to know something but perhaps not be able to demonstrate it in a way that satisfies others. In my last year of high school my best subjects were Statistics and Physics and my worst was English. The main reason why I got a terrible mark in English was (along with the reasons I mentioned above) because I struggled to do it in exam conditions - it's a hard exam to study for and I wasn't good at writing under severe time constrains. I also think a lot of all this was my reaction as a teenager and being overwhelmed with and confused by the world, and looking for some order and clarity to help steady me.

That said, I love the Humanities and went on to study them at university, and much more successfully at that.

I guess what I say could apply similarly to Thinkers and objectivity. Perhaps so much of the world is obvious and straight-forward to them, that they may end up being drawn to the exceptions and the more elusive aspects of life.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What is important to remember is that reason can be applied to both. I have noticed that some extreme "T's" and various people do not know how to approach subjectivity and can dismiss it as something like a free-for-all with the assumption that there is no way to apply reason or to organize it into comprehensible systems, but rather it is assumed that each person just creates their own subjectivity and there is no other way to approach it. It is much like those who say that art is whatever a person likes, and assumes that there is no way to analyze or critique it.

I have always been fascinated by subjective systems because they contain a complex integration of different types of data. To apply reason to these systems, one has to tease apart the different elements. Carl Rogers demonstrates this ability in his work because he was a champion of understanding and applying empathy, while also being a pioneer in establishing research methods in the field of psychology. I will use a few different examples of approaching subjective systems.

Pain is subjective because it is experienced inside the person, but it is a complex layering of measurable physiology and internal perception. Because there is an element that cannot be objectively measured, this does not mean that pain is meaningless and useless. Elements of physiology can be measured to determine pain, but it is likely that two people can experience the same level of physical pain, but perceive it differently. To approach pain holistically it is necessary to combine external measurement and empathy.

Art is also a subjective system that has externally analyzable elements and internal perception that come into play in fully comprehending it. An artistic expression contains many symbols, both conscious and subconscious, that represent the ideals, philosophy, culture, and perception of the individual. We can examine these symbols and what they communicate on all of these levels. There are also elements of proportion and inner coherency which can be analyzed using mathematics. I would venture to say that aesthetics cannot be fully comprehended without this understanding of both mathematics and philosophy expressed in a language of sensory-based symbolism. In addition to this, internal perception is relevant in a holistic approach to the arts since they often communicate the artist's personal experience creating a sensory-based visceral empathy.

I find that individuals who are focused solely on "objectivity" have a fragmented approach to understanding the nature of reality. External measurement and fact-building is an important element, but unless the subjective elements are also acknowledged and understood, there is the danger of dismissing relevant information, and there is the danger of not being able to identify when subjective perception is playing a role in interpreting external, objective data.

Individuals who focus solely on personal perception without comprehending these elements within the context of larger, more complex systems, and without acknowledging the impact that the external, measurable world has on our internal worlds, will also have a fragmented and incomplete concept of reality.

Objective, external systems rely on precision of definition and measurement. The tools required to approach these systems are different from what is required to approach the subjective systems of perception and empathy. Subjective systems rely on approximation of definition and conclusion. To create an accurate empathy of another individual's perception and the expression of it, it is necessary to remain open to ever-shifting, ever-clarifying information. If precision of definition is forced onto these systems initially, the result is meaningless.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I am very objective and analytical. Though I would say in action I am very strong both subjectively and objectively and try to tie those 2 together to get the best overall results. My objectivity will see subjectivity and take that into account. I would say I am very objective, but do not force it upon others. Its just how I work and I can use my objectivity to allow subjectivity into the picture.
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
In an attempt to simplify things, I've created the above statement. It is for this reason that it would make sense for thinkers to prefer subjects like science and math, and feelers to prefer subjects like writing and the social sciences.

So what do you think? Is this statement true or false?

Hmm, sort of true, sort of false.

I think I tend to be very fluid and negotiable and subjective about things at first. But there will come a point, a line, a moment when suddenly I am just done with the situation and I get very black and white about it. I look at "what is true here" and I don't care about anything else. And then I make a decision based on that, versus what I may want or desire. And that decision tends to be absolutely final despite how I may feel in regards to it later.

As an aside, I was very good at math and science as well as language and art. I tend to crave the stark simplicity of math problems at times. :isweird:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
someone suggested it was S vs. N in antoehr thread not T vs. F
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it is to some extent true, otherwise there wouldn't be so many questions to this effect on the tests in an attempt to categorize people as "thinkers" and "feelers." If the distinction is not reasonable, we need to revise the tests.

I prefer to think of myself as a thinker partly because of this line of reasoning. I try not to let my personal version of reality cloud my ability to see the big picture. I have a lot of subjective feelings and judgments, but the more I think about them the more I find them incomplete and biased, and it tends to cause me problems. So a big part of my evolution over the years has been attaining this objectivity. I would imagine feelers would tend to like their subjectivity and not seek to get rid of it; but as one ENFP mentioned, not all of them do apparently. So who knows. Even though generalities compromise precision in favor of accuracy, they're all we have to go on in typology. Which is why the system can only make approximations if it is to apply to all people. Feelers who prefer objectivity must have other feeling characteristics which override this thinking tendency.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
someone suggested it was S vs. N in antoehr thread not T vs. F

There's always a bigger dunce.

I think it is to some extent true, otherwise there wouldn't be so many questions to this effect on the tests in an attempt to categorize people as "thinkers" and "feelers." If the distinction is not reasonable, we need to revise the tests.

This makes absolutely no sense. If it's probably true because it's in the tests, then why would we ever think to revise them?


Anyway, when we say "Ts prefer objectivity, Fs prefer subjectivity," what exactly does "prefer" mean? Does it mean that we prefer these things (broadly speaking) as worldviews? Or does it mean that the type of mental processes we use leads us to prefer certain activities over others? I think this is all a bunch of bullshit, especially the latter formulation (which seems to have taken over this thread as the main focus of discussion.) Styles of thinking are form, not content.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
False.

Hitler and Stalin did prefer subjectivity.
When their aides objected to the atrocities, they said:
- Do not be so emotional.

A judge has a stroke. The right hemisphere is damaged, or the left.
In either case, she is unable to continue her job.

T and F are the rational functions.
Dichotomy of E divides T and F.

Three dimensions is a simultaneous dichotomy of four parties.
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. Can you explain this a little more?

Anyway, when we say "Ts prefer objectivity, Fs prefer subjectivity," what exactly does "prefer" mean? Does it mean that we prefer these things (broadly speaking) as worldviews? Or does it mean that the type of mental processes we use leads us to prefer certain activities over others? I think this is all a bunch of bullshit, especially the latter formulation (which seems to have taken over this thread as the main focus of discussion.) Styles of thinking are form, not content.
I was thinking more along the lines of the bolded statement. My thought is that thinkers will generally enjoy engaging in activities that are more impersonal in nature and feelers will generally enjoy engaging in activities that are more personal in nature. Obviously a thinker is not going to just engage in objective activities and a feeler is not going to only engage in subjective activities, but it seems that they may mostly prefer to do so.

How do you think the original statement would work in a broader sense anyway? My sensor mind isn't good with this.

Would you mind explaining a bit more why you disagree with this? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I just want to hear a different viewpoint.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
There's always a bigger dunce.



This makes absolutely no sense. If it's probably true because it's in the tests, then why would we ever think to revise them?


Anyway, when we say "Ts prefer objectivity, Fs prefer subjectivity," what exactly does "prefer" mean? Does it mean that we prefer these things (broadly speaking) as worldviews? Or does it mean that the type of mental processes we use leads us to prefer certain activities over others? I think this is all a bunch of bullshit, especially the latter formulation (which seems to have taken over this thread as the main focus of discussion.) Styles of thinking are form, not content.

Well, looks like you're in a bad mood did you think about how that'd effect your ability to best communicate today?
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, looks like you're in a bad mood did you think about how that'd effect your ability to best communicate today?

:shrug: Communication seemed straight forward to me. I understand exactly what was said and agree with it.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
:shrug: Communication seemed straight forward to me. I understand exactly what was said and agree with it.

Labeling people dunces and calling bullshit are not the best ways to open a dialogue in my experience.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Labeling people dunces and calling bullshit are not the best ways to open a dialogue in my experience.

ESTP's aren't exactly known for their Fe. :)

And I took no offence to the bullshit thing. Instead I seek to understand why he thinks this way.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Labeling people dunces and calling bullshit are not the best ways to open a dialogue in my experience.

:shrug: Some people dont mind it and others do. Some people will even take ofense and argue where as they would normally ignore it. In these instances I just take what was said objectively and ignore everything else.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This makes absolutely no sense. If it's probably true because it's in the tests, then why would we ever think to revise them?


Anyway, when we say "Ts prefer objectivity, Fs prefer subjectivity," what exactly does "prefer" mean? Does it mean that we prefer these things (broadly speaking) as worldviews? Or does it mean that the type of mental processes we use leads us to prefer certain activities over others? I think this is all a bunch of bullshit, especially the latter formulation (which seems to have taken over this thread as the main focus of discussion.) Styles of thinking are form, not content.

It makes plenty of sense if you think about it. Typology is useless without certain things, and this generalization is one of them. If you get rid of it you take away part of the definition of thinking as defined by the system. What I mean by revising the tests is that the people who created them might be overgeneralizing even more than necessary, or they might have an incorrect definition of thinking. If the mystical "they" who created typology need to revise their thinking, then they need to revise the tests. If not, these generalizations are part of the system and are true for all practical purposes. Typology works on the same principles as astrology, only it's not as old or accurate.

It's the same as the following: I don't know your birth date, and so I decide to give you a test to try to determine which zodiac sign you are. I make a list of characteristics and modes of behavior I associate with all the signs and give you the test. I decide fire signs are outgoing. You are actually a Sagittarius, which is a fire sign, but you aren't outgoing in general, only under certain circumstances, so you answer no. It turns out I was over generalizing, and I should have specified in the questions when and under what circumstances you are outgoing, and with what motivations. So I revise the test.

Yes, "prefer" is used in both of those ways, and preferences of cognitive functioning tend to lead to preferences in activity. But that is an even greater generalization.

I think the system is imperfect, but it is useful for a lot of people, so I don't care to throw it out.
 
Top