User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 105

  1. #41
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doomkid View Post
    T vs F is not a real dichotomy: having preference for logic doesn't make you thick-skinned and having a preference for values doesn't make you thin-skinned either so what is the real difference?

    should we add another layer? so that way is 32 personality types instead of 16?
    I don't really understand what thick skin and thin skin have to do with it. That's more about a comical stereotype: Histrionic Feelers vs. cynical Thinkers. Or whatever.

    As for "the real difference," I think you have to look at a few examples of the different ways Feeler and Thinkers analyze things in order to get the drift. The following is how I look at these things:

    Feeling concerns itself with empathy and Thinking concerns itself with equity. Some topics or issues in the world are going to be best addressed by looking at issues of empathy, in which case Feelers are going to gravitate toward those issues and be capable of doing in-depth analysis there. OTOH, other topics or issues are going to lend themselves to an equity analysis, and Thinkers are going to outperform on such issues.

    Example of a Feeler-oriented issue:

    Guy X is hosting a party at home, attended by X's best male friend and X's fiancee. The male friend tends to be cantankerous and loud, and at some point during the party the best friend and the fiancee get into a long, heated argument over some issue. X simply stays out of it and lets the two of them duke it out. Later, after the party has ended, the fiancee chews out X for not stepping in and supporting her. X comes to TypoC and asks what he should have done.

    Feelers are probably going to have a field day with this one. They'll be trying to harmonize the interests of the three parties, with reference to the obligations of partnership/marriage vs. friendship and pulling in side issues like codependency and whether the fiancee might be trying to isolate X from his friends, and so on. Thinkers, on the other hand, probably won't relate much to the situation and will probably do only a cursory equity analysis: X has substantial ties to both parties; both parties have equal claim to support from X; so the fairest thing is for X to stay out of the dispute, exactly as he did. End of story.

    Okay now an example of a Thinker-oriented issue:

    Any purely legal issue will do here, for example, capital punishment. Especially if you debate such an issue in it's most purely philosophical/legal form, i.e., as an abstract concept. In that form, most Feelers will probably have an opinion, but it will be fairly cursory: Well, the murderer took the life of someone else, so he has forfeited the right to his own life. If the state really wants to kill him, then why not? End of story. Meanwhile, Thinkers will probably want to do a much more detailed analysis: Prevalence of capital punishment in other countries, methods of capital punishment used by different states, cost of life imprisonment vs. capital punishment, etc.

    You get the picture.

    Now, you can flip-flop the examples: Turn the story about Guy X into a legal/philosophical debate (friendship obligations vs. marital obligations), and you can get Thinkers to take more of an interest while losing the interest of many Feelers. Then turn the capital punishment debate into a debate about one specific murderer and the specific victims he killed and the feelings and demands of the families of those victims; and at this point the Thinkers will take less of an interest and the Feelers will take more interest.

    These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.

    You tend to see this when INFPs and INTPs debate. INFPs will often relate some first-hand or second-hand personal experience to make a point; but INTPs will claim that such stories are anecdotal at best and not admissible as argument. Then INTPs will spell out a legal/philosophical principle; but INFPs will claim that such principles are dry and empty without application to some real-life example. And so on.

    Anyway, that's how I look at it. Thinking and Feeling aren't necessarily opposites, just as empathy and equity aren't necessarily opposites. Given any specific issue, they can both lead to the same final conclusion (albeit by different routes). OTOH, they are a dichotomy: There seems to be a fairly clear dividing line there in how Thinkers and Feelers deal with issues:

    --Feelers are about empathy and tend to prefer specific, real-life issues: All the better to latch onto the "human-interest" angle in the interests of harmony.

    --Thinkers are about equity and tend to prefer abstract, legal/philosophical issues: All the better to parse the equitable division of rights and responsibilities of the parties.

    Just brainstorming here. YMMV, of course.

  2. #42
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    [...] Anyway, that's how I look at it. Thinking and Feeling aren't necessarily opposites, just as empathy and equity aren't necessarily opposites. Given any specific issue, they can both lead to the same final conclusion (albeit by different routes). OTOH, they are a dichotomy: There seems to be a fairly clear dividing line there in how Thinkers and Feelers deal with issues:

    --Feelers are about empathy and tend to prefer specific, real-life issues: All the better to latch onto the "human-interest" angle in the interests of harmony.

    --Thinkers are about equity and tend to prefer abstract, legal/philosophical issues: All the better to parse the equitable division of rights and responsibilities of the parties.

    Just brainstorming here. YMMV, of course.
    Just to spell it out another way:

    Consider the example of a child growing up in a chaotic environment with older, more powerful siblings and parents making lots of demands and operating according to the "squeaky wheel" philosophy in order to get things from each other. If the kid is quiet and retiring, it may be tough to get his needs met in such an environment. To stand his ground and get his needs met, the kid might learn to track and analyze exactly who has gotten what, and then make the argument that an equitable distribution of property should include the distribution of some goods and property to the kid himself. Such a kid is on the way to growing up to be a Thinker.

    Now consider the example of a child growing up in a well-ordered but chilly environment where everything is distributed impersonally, automatically, and equitably according to schedules determined by powerful adults. When the kid has needs that aren't covered by the schedules, it may be tough to get those needs met. But in this case the kid learns that he can get around the schedules by being "the squeaky wheel" and pleading victimhood or a need for empathy due to special circumstances. In time, the kid gains a sensitivity for achieving harmony not by using equitable distribution according to automatic, impersonal schedules but rather by using empathy to track the specific needs of specific people. Such a kid is probably turning into a Feeler.

    I'm not saying that this is how Thinker and Feelers develop in their childhood. It's more just a device for understanding the difference. YMMV.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    Example of a Feeler-oriented issue:

    Guy X is hosting a party at home, attended by X's best male friend and X's fiancee. The male friend tends to be cantankerous and loud, and at some point during the party the best friend and the fiancee get into a long, heated argument over some issue. X simply stays out of it and lets the two of them duke it out. Later, after the party has ended, the fiancee chews out X for not stepping in and supporting her. X comes to TypoC and asks what he should have done.

    Feelers are probably going to have a field day with this one. They'll be trying to harmonize the interests of the three parties, with reference to the obligations of partnership/marriage vs. friendship and pulling in side issues like codependency and whether the fiancee might be trying to isolate X from his friends, and so on. Thinkers, on the other hand, probably won't relate much to the situation and will probably do only a cursory equity analysis: X has substantial ties to both parties; both parties have equal claim to support from X; so the fairest thing is for X to stay out of the dispute, exactly as he did. End of story.
    What, why is a marriage the same relationship as a friendship even if the latter is with your best friend? It's not the same. You share your entire life with your SO, thus share a lot more than with the best friend. In this situation, if I had been X, and neither party was more right about the issue, I would have stood by my fiancée (well if I was a guy lol). Though it's possible that the best friend is right about whatever the argument was about, in this case, I would have pointed out this to SO. In either case, I would have tried to stay OK with my best friend too if possible.

    Is that T or F? :p


    Any purely legal issue will do here, for example, capital punishment. Especially if you debate such an issue in it's most purely philosophical/legal form, i.e., as an abstract concept. In that form, most Feelers will probably have an opinion, but it will be fairly cursory: Well, the murderer took the life of someone else, so he has forfeited the right to his own life. If the state really wants to kill him, then why not? End of story. Meanwhile, Thinkers will probably want to do a much more detailed analysis: Prevalence of capital punishment in other countries, methods of capital punishment used by different states, cost of life imprisonment vs. capital punishment, etc.
    Capital punishment is an action that cannot be undone if you happen to be wrong. This "why not" argument is just so arbitrary. It's also arbitrary to declare that a murderer forfeited their own right to their life. If we are to argue about the right to life, my opinion is that it's better to define it as an absolute right that cannot be alienated. It makes everything simpler to define it that way.

    Life imprisonment costs, yes, but I think a pretty good solution for that would be making the prisoners do some work. Btw I have never thought of analysing the methods of capital punishment, it seems irrelevant in answering the question of whether we want capital punishment or not. Why do you think the exact method is relevant?

    And, why do you see this example as something more objective than the first situation? I don't see it as objective, it's always going to involve a subjective moral system. I don't see this as a subject analysed by objective thinking as objectively as, for example, completely impersonal science stuff. I do try to avoid using as much of the subjectivity in analysing these sort of things, but there is no denying that the general act of valuing life (as in this example asking about what to do with a murderer) is a subjective valuation. Objective only in the sense that most people do value life.. I said "general act of valuing" because that's what the entire legal system is based on - a somewhat arbitrary way of dealing with the matter of how society should generally function. I hope I'm making sense here, it's hard to explain what I really mean. I can try clarifying if needed.


    Now, you can flip-flop the examples: Turn the story about Guy X into a legal/philosophical debate (friendship obligations vs. marital obligations), and you can get Thinkers to take more of an interest while losing the interest of many Feelers. Then turn the capital punishment debate into a debate about one specific murderer and the specific victims he killed and the feelings and demands of the families of those victims; and at this point the Thinkers will take less of an interest and the Feelers will take more interest.
    These obligation matters, I again don't see this one as objective. Actually this is less objective than the capital punishment question. I wouldn't bother too much with analysing this topic deeply. I did happen to give my answer above anyway, a marriage is deeper involvement than a friendship. But in general I'm not good at analysis of relationship obligations. No matter if general or specific situation.

    The philosophical debate (of a legal or whatever issue) is interesting though, to find the simplest way to deal with the question. The real life specific situation (specific murderer) is interesting because oh... it's just interesting on its own as a real life thing. Not as a debate though, just simply hearing the story of what happened etc.


    These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.
    That equity thing, for me it's often about simplicity, but yes I get what you mean, I think. Though in that first example of yours (argument at the party), I would have focused on the harmony stuff too, beyond analysing who is right in the argument.

    Do you think my answers are more F or more T?



    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    Just to spell it out another way:

    Consider the example of a child growing up in a chaotic environment with older, more powerful siblings and parents making lots of demands and operating according to the "squeaky wheel" philosophy in order to get things from each other. If the kid is quiet and retiring, it may be tough to get his needs met in such an environment. To stand his ground and get his needs met, the kid might learn to track and analyze exactly who has gotten what, and then make the argument that an equitable distribution of property should include the distribution of some goods and property to the kid himself. Such a kid is on the way to growing up to be a Thinker.

    Now consider the example of a child growing up in a well-ordered environment where everything is distributed equitably, according to schedules determined by powerful adults. But in this case the kid learns that he can get a bit more than his fair share by being "the squeaky wheel" and pleading victimhood or a need for empathy due to special circumstances. In time, the kid gains a sensitivity for achieving harmony not by equitable distribution but rather by using empathy to track the specific needs of specific people. Such a kid is probably turning into a Feeler.

    I'm not saying that this is how Thinker and Feelers develop in their childhood. It's more just a device for understanding the difference. YMMV.
    Heh I had older siblings. I don't relate to either situation as described though. I mainly just had a temper and liked to get what I wanted.

  4. #44
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    [...]Do you think my answers are more F or more T?
    Take your questions to the "What's my Type?" forum. I was illustrating a point, not looking for debates or hearing about your personal spin on the illustrations given. If you don't like the illustrations that I provided, then provide your own illustrations.

    The main point of my posts was the use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    Take it to the "What's my type" forum. I was illustrating a point, not looking for debates or hearing about your personal spin on the illustrations given. If you don't like the illustrations that I provided, then provide your own illustrations.

    The point was empathy vs. equity as an illustration of F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations.
    Well if you took this personally, by saying "not looking for debates", then you're oversensitive. If you put out your opinion on something on a forum, be ready for someone challenging it.

    My point was analysing your definitions and illustrations on a real life example: myself. If you are not ready to deal with an analysis of your ideas, that's not my problem.

    Thus, yes, I asked your opinion on my T/F preference to see how you'd analyse what I said, in light of your opinion on the T/F dichotomy. Not because I would like to know my type.

    Also it was about a lot more than just saying my opinion on the capital punishment question. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity, etc.

    PS: I was still editing my post above, not sure if you read the recent additions.

  6. #46
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Well if you took this personally, by saying "not looking for debates", then you're oversensitive. If you put out your opinion on something on a forum, be ready for someone challenging it.

    My point was analysing your definitions and illustrations on a real life example: myself. If you are not ready to deal with an analysis of your ideas, that's not my problem.

    Thus, yes, I asked your opinion on my T/F preference to see how you'd analyse what I said, in light of your opinion on the T/F dichotomy. Not because I would like to know my type.

    PS: I was still editing my post above, not sure if you read the recent additions.
    In my original post, I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    [...]These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. [...]
    The examples were just shorthand illustrations of a larger analog. Try to address the point of the overall post as a whole. The main point of my posts was the use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations. If the analog doesn't work for you, just say that and be done with it.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    They were just shorthand illustrations of a larger analog. Try to address the point of the overall post as a whole. If the analog doesn't work for you, just say that and be done with it.
    You are not getting what I'm saying. It's not simply that the "analogy doesn't work for me". So I can't just "be done with it". I care more about refining of concepts.

    Perhaps you didn't read my additions though. It was about a lot more than just saying my personal opinion on the example questions. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity. I mentioned that I think not all subjects are equal in terms of objectivity. I also implied my take on how simplicity and equity would be related.

    Though yes, I didn't make a neat list of definitions of T and F. It's all embedded in whatever stuff I said. That's how I tend to work, my way of seeing things is all embedded like that. That does cause problems with people who do not try to analyse what I'm saying.

    So anyway, if you can't be bothered with testing your ideas on datapoints that other people provide, to learn more and refine your concepts, or with analysing what others say when it's not all listed in neat points, then too bad.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Doomkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.
    That's making a lot more sense now, thanks

  9. #49
    Senior Member Doomkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    You tend to see this when INFPs and INTPs debate. INFPs will often relate some first-hand or second-hand personal experience to make a point; but INTPs will claim that such stories are anecdotal at best and not admissible as argument. Then INTPs will spell out a legal/philosophical principle; but INFPs will claim that such principles are dry and empty without application to some real-life example. And so on.
    yeah I imagined it would be something like that

  10. #50
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    You are not getting what I'm saying. It's not simply that the "analogy doesn't work for me". So I can't just "be done with it". I care more about refining of concepts.

    Perhaps you didn't read my additions though. It was about a lot more than just saying my opinion on e.g. the capital punishment question. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity. I mentioned that I think not all subjects are equal in terms of objectivity. I also implied my take on how simplicity and equity would be related.

    Though yes, I didn't make a neat list of definitions of T and F. It's all embedded in whatever stuff I said. That's how I tend to "work", I my way of seeing things is all embedded like that. That does cause problems with people who do not try to analyse what I'm saying.

    So anyway, if you can't be bothered with testing your ideas on datapoints that other people provide, to learn more and refine your concepts, or with analysing what others say when it's not all listed in neat points, then too bad.
    I just see your points as nitpicking. I stated in my original post that the examples were just illustrating stereotypes of T-vs.-F thinking. As such, I agreed with the weakness of the examples, and you're just agreeing with me by pointing out how easily you can argue them.

    Meanwhile, you ignore the main point of my post: The use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. That's really the point I would like you to acknowledge, not the weakness of the examples, which I admit. The examples only exist to illustrate the analog; they're disposable. If you wish, approve or disapprove the analog and then propose illustrations of your own, if the illustrations are so important to you.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Adam-12: GREAT Display Of Thinking Vs. Feeling
    By LauraIngallsWalton in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 04:19 AM
  2. Thinking vs Feeling
    By Eastwood in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
  3. Thinking Vs Feeling
    By oxymoron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Thinking vs Feeling...a false dichotomy?
    By Provoker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 02:48 PM
  5. Thinking vs. Feeling: What if...
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 11:43 AM

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