User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 105

  1. #61
    Senior Member HBIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE Se
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    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. 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.
    Edited out the examples because they weren't really good, but this extract is great.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Btw where did you get the idea to use the expression "equity" for T? I still think that's not the best word to describe it. Though it's pretty good, but "impersonal objectivity" is more to the point, I think. I used the word "simplicity" but that's only part of it.

    Whether "empathy" is all-encompassing enough to define F, I'm not quite sure about that, either.
    Yeah, his choice of terms...

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    T is about materialism, pragmatism, rationalism, (all) objects' utility...

    F is about spiritualism, idealism, romanticism, (living) objects' value...

    As for the original question... I think T and F are both functions tied directly to an individual's ego whereas N/S are tied to superego and id...

    So for someone to have a thick skin in relation to a function, he has to have that function in the introverted direction, that is to say Ti or Fi...

    Someone with Fi cannot be (in my theory) hurt by Fe feedback for instance... A Fi function would imply that the individual has a disregard for Fe i.e. social structures and rules... So you cannot hurt someone with something he\she doesn't value... However, he\she would be vulnerable to criticism of whathever he\she holds dear in his\her Fi... (i.e. things of the F domain that he\she cherishes and defines his identity with...same goes for Ti but the things are of the T layer this time...)

    The same goes for Ti and Te as well... So a function being externalized means we are susceptible to feedback from that layer... and it hurts if the function is tied to ego (i.e. F or T) and the feedback is negative...

    I don't think someone with Se and Ne can get (emotionally\mentally) hurt by negative Se or Ne feedback... But may use such feedback for precautionary means...i.e. to check whether the owner of Se or Ne feedback could pose a threat to him\her...
    That is correct.

  2. #62
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    T is about materialism, pragmatism, rationalism, (all) objects' utility...

    F is about spiritualism, idealism, romanticism, (living) objects' value...
    I disagree with this dichotomy. Jung described the Judging Functions as being "Rational". Feeling may not be pragmatic or as driven by hard logic, but it is rational because it is based in reason. True, Feelers are more inclined to be idealistic or spiritual but this is not what defines it as a function.

    @OrangeAppled help me out here. You're better at this.

    Someone with Fi cannot be (in my theory) hurt by Fe feedback for instance... A Fi function would imply that the individual has a disregard for Fe i.e. social structures and rules... So you cannot hurt someone with something he\she doesn't value... However, he\she would be vulnerable to criticism of whathever he\she holds dear in his\her Fi... (i.e. things of the F domain that he\she cherishes and defines his identity with...same goes for Ti but the things are of the T layer this time...)
    This is interesting. I never thought about it that way. I would tend to agree.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  3. #63
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    I disagree with this dichotomy. Jung described the Judging Functions as being "Rational". Feeling may not be pragmatic or as driven by hard logic, but it is rational because it is based in reason. True, Feelers are more inclined to be idealistic or spiritual but this is not what defines it as a function.

    @OrangeAppled help me out here. You're better at this.

    This is interesting. I never thought about it that way. I would tend to agree.
    Yeah, if we consider romanticism true for F, then I was mistaken in using "rationalism" as its opposite... Perhaps "realism" instead of rationalism would fit more..?

    Thanks

    Edit: Oh and Jung may have been referring to T\F as rational functions in that they are tied to the ego and are wielded "consciously" whereas N\S (I personally believe) are tied to superego or id therefore lie outside the conscious control of ego, therefore they are irrational...

    So perhaps rationality and irrationality in Jungian sense may actually be conscious and subconscious nature of the functions respectively...
    Last edited by yeghor; 04-11-2014 at 07:23 AM. Reason: Edit

  4. #64
    hypersane Hive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,005

    Default

    I feel like a lot of misunderstandings and stereotypes could be prevented by rebranding the categories.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    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.
    This is a very well-thought, insightful and nuanced description of the differences.
    Masculine presenting transgender lesbian


    At heart, I’ll always be a bleeding heart liberal.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

    Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

    Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

    Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?

  7. #67
    Senior Member Doomkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

    Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

    Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

    Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?
    ok that is one difference between people, but what I'm saying is that there is another differece...man it's hard to explain just by typing

    you'd have to see an argument between me and my mother to understand....oh look I'm almost at 100, well 97 is enough. Bye see you in a year or so

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

    Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

    Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?
    I have a problem with this example. Specifically with the T part of it. Assume Timmy prefers T here. How does Timmy get to think of wanting to take Tammy originally? And when Timmy decides to take Tammy because he doesn't care about Tommy's feelings, what kind of decision is made exactly? Is it just "I don't care about Tommy"? That to me doesn't sound T. If that's not it, then what is it? What is his decision making process like?

  9. #69
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

    Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.
    In psychology even today the word feeling is not really used for emotion, instead emotion and affect are used. Feeling is mostly used for emotion just in common language(and this is not what typology terms are for).
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #70
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Here is something that people should know about what feeling means(not jungian term, but the current definition) and how its different from emotion:

    http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_Da...ng_and_Emotion
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

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