As you well know, just because the quotes BW put out by those people might've indicated a feeling function doesn't make them feeling types, because, as you are so fond of preaching, we use all 8 processes.
I wrote, because, in my opinion, the whole "well BW, you might just be talking about UNhealthy feeling types" thing is a lame, piecemeal, false arguement. They (the three people mentioned by BW) might very well not even be feeling types!
Gabe m'boy, you failed to address my question. I should refine it I suppose.
A great number of your type diagnoses make use of the last 4 in the order, rather than the first 2, which, as you well know, are the the most important.
I'd say something that appears more rarely might be inconsistently proportioned, in terms of frequency and strength of use, and are therefore far less reliable than the main two in identifying type!
You did not disprove. You only attempted to state how you felt. Miked's response was almost wholly irrelevant to the topic he attempted to give treatment to.
Oops. Sorry. Not proving wrong. Pointing out your false generalizations though...that's what Mike was doing.
What I was doing was:
A)Clarifying the definition of F
B) Pointing out that F is not an inferior function because the feeling issue that you and Gray were talking about (using pure emotion and nothing else to make a decision) is not the definition of F.
However, if you don't believe that F is inferior at making decisions then no, I wasn't proving you wrong.
And no that was not an attempt to express my emotions.
A lot of what you're saying reminds me of what Spinoza says about emotions in 'The Ethics' - I notice you’re a fan of his. One of my favourite bits in ‘The Ethics’ (I didn’t exactly feel spoiled for choice) is how Spinoza tries to be so emotionless and impersonal, yet when speaking about unrequited love, you can totally tell he's been burned. To me your original post reminds me a little of that.
I'm not sure if I feel especially enlightened after reading this thread, in fact to me your original post didn't have a great deal of substance. You used some examples of people you have personally typed, [I disagree with Rousseau, for example - an S? He wrote 'the Social Contract' one of the most 'bigger picture' books ever, where the will of the individual subject is lost in favour of the greater good] and seemed to think anecdotal stories of them proved your ‘objective’ point. Rousseau didn’t take responsibility for something as a child (have you ever spent more than 10 minutes with a child? Most young children have difficulty accepting responsibility for their actions, F or otherwise) and was paranoid when he spent time with Hume... I’m not sure what your point is. Kierkegaard got caught up in unrequited love – so? I’ve seen as many T’s as F’s get caught up in unrequited love, and in fact, because T’s are perhaps less used to powerful emotions, I think some of them have been hit harder. Perhaps Kierkegaard didn’t logically analyse why he felt as he did, but I’m not sure that understanding the reason behind feeling something always means we can be freed from that feeling. Besides, feelers are often keen on people discussing feelings to gain greater insight into why they feel as they do, I’m not sure that T’s are any more proficient than F’s in gaining insight into why they feel as they do. I’m not quite sure what you’re demonstrating with your Augustine quote/apple thing and what tremendous insight that one quote gives you into Fi as a whole, so I don’t really know how to engage with it. Even if Fi did lead to the negative behaviour above, all you seem to be saying is that there are downsides to the Fi personality, but there are downsides to all types. For example obviously *entirely* hypothetically speaking, sometimes T’s can be really arrogant and make posts claiming to demystify things when they don’t at all, simply because they are so convinced by their own strange logic. I don’t subsequently generalise that all T’s do that.