User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 216

  1. #51
    Senior Member Sunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ABCD
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To me, that wouldn't make you a Feeler or a Thinker either way.
    There's nothing about fascination that is against Feeling, either. I'm saying that it does not require more than minimal Feeling, but it is totally compatible with Feeling.
    Ah.

  2. #52
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Is it just me, or would it have made more sense to put something about feelers in the NF subforum, the only temperament which is comprised entirely of feelers?

    Why is it in the NT subforum, the only temperament comprised entirely of thinkers?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  3. #53
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I hope no one's said this, but you do need reason to feel. If your boss tells you you're fired, your brain needs to first use decipher the language and logically equate getting fired to having financial hardship, having to find a new job, telling your wife..etc
    All of these facts are handled by perceiving functions. Not Feeling. Perceiving functions certainly appear to have things in common with judgement functions, but they do not blur. That's the entire point of having functions separated, rather than on a spectrum. Each is on its own orbital path.


    You all don't seem to have a very firm grasp of the partition between information uptake and the dealings with that information.

    If I weren't so exhausted from explaining and re-explaining how this shit works I'd do it again.
    we fukin won boys

  4. #54
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default Radical policy against Feeling

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...s-feeling.html

    This essay serves as prolegomenon to this one. The above is a more thorough rendition of the post below. The post below contains only a few elements of supplemental material.

    Definitions.

    Feeling: Faculty of conscious interpersonal scrutiny. Tells us whether something is agreeable or disagreeable to us. (Value judgment)

    Thinking: Faculty of conscious impersonal scrutiny. (Applies logic to give structure to intended projects of thought.)


    I propose that we discourage people from using Feeling in society because when we feel we merely impose our "personal values" which is a euphemism for our prejudices, tastes, likes and dislikes onto others.

    This is a crime against the individual as the values are forced upon him through sheer 'personality'.

    It is acceptable to convince one to change his views based on rationale, or merely point out that his views are false. Hey Charlier today is Tuesday, not Wednesday, check your calendar! Nothing wrong with this.

    Now, Charlie! You ought to like Noodle Soup and not pourage! You ought to be a Christian! You ought to Vote for Nader! Is not acceptable as here you're not giving him reasons to embrace those choices but merely pounding them over his head.

    The former is an example of Thinking, the latter of Feeling.

    Feeling in itself is fine as long as it stays as a conviction of personal sentiment. Our personal sentiments are a reflection of who we are. To attempt to force our values onto others means to have them become more like ourselves.

    This is a crime against the individual. The biggest crime there could be. As that robs the individual of the voice of what he should be like.

    All people must be true to themselves and personal values should not be a reflection of the views of others they have taken upon themselves but reflections of their true selves. Results of their independent thought. There is nothing that is more of an anathema to this than Feeling. As Feeling says, this is how I feel you should too! If you do not do so, I am not going to like you anymore!

    Lets not pretend this isnt happening, as even on this site we find that Feelers tend to be more agreeable with others than Thinkers and many will evne confess that they would be afraid to say something to others that would make them like them less. As I was once asked by a person I was romantically entangled once when I was stating some of my views of concerning religion.. 'Oups..did I just disagree with you there!?'


    Accordingly.

    All political decisions are to be made based on a clear-cut rationale. Any politician who makes a decision based on religion, gut-feeling, hunch, a personal value of any kind should be impeached for abuse of office.

    Organized religion is to be banned. Religion cannot be justified through rationale, 'there is a reason it is called faith!'. You can believe in whatever non-sense that floats your boat, but you have no right to force it onto others. Especially by preying on the innocent children and ignorant adults attending those services.

    When arts, literature and religion are taught in public schools, only facts about the material must be presented. Absolutely no values. Most school teachers are Feelers and seem to be comfortable forcing their values onto the students. Pride themselves on how 'they want to be just like me, they mimic me, they scrutinize every move of mine'. No, no, this is not education. This is inculcation. They are not merely showing them ways of how to think about ideas, they are trying to get students to 'see' things they way they do. No good. Just give them the facts, help them reason through the problem as much as you'd like, but don't you dare tell them how they ought to feel.

    All of this would be fine in private schools or private religious organizations as there people may voluntarily share values and are not shaped to see the world in a particular way.

    Feeling is subjective by nature and has no business handling matters that require sober objective judgments. It has no place in our society, only in your private life where it may rein supreme if you wish. As after all Feeling is the only faculty that insists we believe in things without examination. Feeling is the only faculty that insists we act out on an impulse without knowing what we are doing. 'Listen to your heart!'.

    Feeling is the only faculty leading us to like or dislike people based on not something we know about them, but on some strange 'Feel' we can't even describe.

    Lets face it people, with 'Feeling' we do not know what the hell we're doing. We only have a naive 'feel' of cognizance with respect to this but no more. Hopefully after this regime has been practiced for an extended period of time it will lead this cognitive tendency of ours into recession, and the dom, auxiliary F types will either die off(evolve into types more adept at survival in the T oriented environment) or for the very least fade into the background.

    Noone will be screaming 'OUGHT TO FEEL!' will not have silly feuds over frivolous matters, e.g myspace group 'INFPs against ESTJs', less wars because someone's 'honor' was hurt. All actions will be assessed in terms of desirable or undesirable. Rational or irrational. The rational folks won't have to bend over backwards to please the childish whims of heart-centered thinkers.

    All ideas will be weighed out carefully based on their merits, not based on who they offend or who they do not offend.

    Yes, the heart-centered organizations will go underground, but we will have to go underground with them with under-cover agents. This will create much havoc for the next century at least, but in the end we will be in the position where we are free to make rational decisions. Free to do what makes sense instead of worrying how we can go on with our lives without setting off some unexpected emotional reaction.

    The classical conflict between science and religion is an example of this. This is still happening at the hands of modern Muslim extremists. They are murdering individuals for disagreeing with their values. Classical example of a conflict between a Thinking faculty and a Feeling.

    In short, the Thinker states his rationale, and the Feeler responds 'OUGHT TO FEEL MY WAY' GRFRRHOEREOHOHRIREHOOHRHOTIHOIEOEIHETOHTEOHEOHIOHI EOHIE.

    If you do not feel his way, he shall attack you.

    Anyone who may still cherish the hope of man becoming a rational animal must see the existence of such cognitive tendencies within our psyche as an abomination.

    Many will rightly protest here.

    In this context, many Feelers are to be considered thinkers. Especially on this board. This is not due to any merit of Feeling. Far from it. Many of you Fs here have been trained to use your Thinking through education, not inculcation as described above. Especially those of you who have experienced 'higher' education.

    Most Fs just know better than this. They are well on their way to having this tendency eradicated, but in pure essence, it is exactly like the ignominous behavior described above. We only have our rational faculties to thank for why this is not happening as frequently as the pure element of Feeling would have allowed for it to.
    "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/

  5. #55
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Definitions.

    Feeling: Faculty of conscious interpersonal scrutiny. Tells us whether something is agreeable or disagreeable to us. (Value judgment)

    Thinking: Faculty of conscious impersonal scrutiny. (Applies logic to give structure to intended projects of thought.)


    I propose that we discourage people from using Feeling in society because when we feel we merely impose our "personal values" which is a euphemism for our prejudices, tastes, likes and dislikes onto others.

    This is a crime against the individual as the values are forced upon him through sheer 'personality'.

    It is acceptable to convince one to change his views based on rationale, or merely point out that his views are false. Hey Charlier today is Tuesday, not Wednesday, check your calendar! Nothing wrong with this.

    Now, Charlie! You ought to like Noodle Soup and not pourage! You ought to be a Christian! You ought to Vote for Nader! Is not acceptable as here you're not giving him reasons to embrace those choices but merely pounding them over his head.

    The former is an example of Thinking, the latter of Feeling.

    Feeling in itself is fine as long as it stays as a conviction of personal sentiment. Our personal sentiments are a reflection of who we are. To attempt to force our values onto others means to have them become more like ourselves.

    This is a crime against the individual. The biggest crime there could be. As that robs the individual of the voice of what he should be like.

    All people must be true to themselves and personal values should not be a reflection of the views of others they have taken upon themselves but reflections of their true selves. Results of their independent thought. There is nothing that is more of an anathema to this than Feeling. As Feeling says, this is how I feel you should too! If you do not do so, I am not going to like you anymore!

    Lets not pretend this isnt happening, as even on this site we find that Feelers tend to be more agreeable with others than Thinkers and many will evne confess that they would be afraid to say something to others that would make them like them less. As I was once asked by a person I was romantically entangled once when I was stating some of my views of concerning religion.. 'Oups..did I just disagree with you there!?'


    Accordingly.

    All political decisions are to be made based on a clear-cut rationale. Any politician who makes a decision based on religion, gut-feeling, hunch, a personal value of any kind should be impeached for abuse of office.

    Organized religion is to be banned. Religion cannot be justified through rationale, 'there is a reason it is called faith!'. You can believe in whatever non-sense that floats your boat, but you have no right to force it onto others. Especially by preying on the innocent children and ignorant adults attending those services.

    When arts, literature and religion are taught in public schools, only facts about the material must be presented. Absolutely no values. Most school teachers are Feelers and seem to be comfortable forcing their values onto the students. Pride themselves on how 'they want to be just like me, they mimic me, they scrutinize every move of mine'. No, no, this is not education. This is inculcation. They are not merely showing them ways of how to think about ideas, they are trying to get students to 'see' things they way they do. No good. Just give them the facts, help them reason through the problem as much as you'd like, but don't you dare tell them how they ought to feel.

    All of this would be fine in private schools or private religious organizations as there people may voluntarily share values and are not shaped to see the world in a particular way.

    Feeling is subjective by nature and has no business handling matters that require sober objective judgments. It has no place in our society, only in your private life where it may rein supreme if you wish. As after all Feeling is the only faculty that insists we believe in things without examination. Feeling is the only faculty that insists we act out on an impulse without knowing what we are doing. 'Listen to your heart!'.

    Feeling is the only faculty leading us to like or dislike people based on not something we know about them, but on some strange 'Feel' we can't even describe.
    ALL political decisions SHOULD be made through rationality, but PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me you really do not think they WILL?!?! And besides, what is rational, my dear?! Hmm...ask 50 different people, and you will get 150 different definitions. I'm sure that plenty of people think a social welfare state is rational; others do not. Still feeling does not play a role. So you won't get rid of problems that way. It ain't that easy. This guy totally oversimplifies things.

    IMPEACHED FOR A GUT DECISION: ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Dude, thank GOD you are not president. We would have killed each other by now.

    Oh bluey, bluey, bluey....you have a lot of growing up to do, hon. REALLY.
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

  6. #56
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Literature should be dealt with only the facts?!?!?! How do you want to do THAT??!

    Oh, god, I gotta stop now before I go crazy, get a heart attack, or get myself banned....

    Whew, need to wait til that good ol Te kicks in...<takes some deep breaths>
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

  7. #57
    Alexander the Terrible yenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Your war against feeling is pretty Fi sh, BW. Though I admire your tenacity.

    I propose a new definition, thinkers learn from their thoughts, feelers learn from their feelings.

  8. #58
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    ALL political decisions SHOULD be made through rationality, but PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me you really do not think they WILL?!?! And besides, what is rational, my dear?! Hmm...ask 50 different people, and you will get 150 different definitions. I'm sure that plenty of people think a social welfare state is rational; others do not. Still feeling does not play a role. So you won't get rid of problems that way. It ain't that easy. This guy totally oversimplifies things.

    IMPEACHED FOR A GUT DECISION: ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Dude, thank GOD you are not president. We would have killed each other by now.

    Oh bluey, bluey, bluey....you have a lot of growing up to do, hon. REALLY.
    Who is going to decide what is rational?

    Not the philistines, philosophers and scientists. We arent going to have 150 definitions. For a clear-thinker there is only one truth. If we go through the grand philosophical dictionary of technical terms, we will find that a majority of scholars agree on how each term is to be defined. They mostly debate the semantics and nuances of the idea.

    Highly doubt that after we have done this much work we will have trouble sorting out the political decisions which are simplistic by comparison.

    What you speak of is a result of a confused mindset. Confusing the 'feel' of an idea for real thought.

    As for literature. You read the novel. You do not tell the student how you feel about it. If they ask you how to think about it. You give some ideas. Be very dispassionate about it. Make sure you do your best to conceal your opinions from students. This tactic is well practiced by philosophy professors in front of their PHL 101 class. This is what we need for all other subjects, especially those where students are most prone to be poisoned by the bias of their teachers, such as arts and literature.
    "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. #59
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Who is going to decide what is rational?

    Not the philistines, philosophers and scientists. We arent going to have 150 definitions. For a clear-thinker there is only one truth. If we go through the grand philosophical dictionary of technical terms, we will find that a majority of scholars agree on how each term is to be defined. They mostly debate the semantics and nuances of the idea.

    Highly doubt that after we have done this much work we will have trouble sorting out the political decisions which are simplistic by comparison.

    What you speak of is a result of a confused mindset. Confusing the 'feel' of an idea for real thought.
    Okay, I want one clear cut answer from you that does not take five thousand years to read to this simple question:

    If there is a rational formula for domestic and foreign policy, what would you implement? Or are you just here to rile us Fs and provide a pseudo-intellectual analysis of messed-up politicians?
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

  10. #60
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    Okay, I want one clear cut answer from you that does not take five thousand years to read to this simple question:

    If there is a rational formula for domestic and foreign policy, what would you implement? Or are you just here to rile us Fs and provide a pseudo-intellectual analysis of messed-up politicians?
    I am not saying I have the answer. All I am saying is, we need to sit down with a cool-head, lay our values aside and analyze the problem as carefully and dispassionately as possible. We are not doing this because our personal sentiments get in the way and we are too worried about being impinged upon by people whose values may be offended.

    Under my plan, its just too bad, they can be offended all they like, they shall have no voice unless they can provide rational grounding for their dissent.
    "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/

Similar Threads

  1. Thinking/Feeling and Mercy
    By Asterion in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-31-2011, 04:58 PM
  2. What personality type do you think he has?
    By Tish211 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 06:32 AM
  3. [INTP] I think Feelings are important. And I'm an INTP
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 04:44 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

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