Why do we dismiss the notion that thinkers could be more emotional than feelers?

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

People seem to have this narrow minded view of thinkers and feelers where they assume that feelers are inherently more emotional/compassionate than thinkers. But the fact of the matter is, when we break down the functions we start to see an entirely different picture. Thinkers repress their feeling function (presumably for a reason) while feelers repress their thinking function (presumably for a reason as well). Now that means that at their core, their base, their innermost self, the thinker is a feeler while the feeler is a thinker. That's why they have to hide it, cause it's vulnerable, it's them at their most vulnerable level. In other words, thinkers are so emotional that they NEED to repress their emotions with rationalization, whereas feelers are so intellectual that they need to repress their thoughts with emotions. This is also the reason I see the feeler need to play the role of victim as unjust, because at their core, they aren't victims, they are intellects. Thinkers at their core? Naive, trusting, emotional, easily exploited. Why else would they put up a front of cold, hard logic, it's because inside, they feel vulnerable, let's just face it. This isn't to say that all thinkers are inherently victims, but rather that they tend to be more emotionally vulnerable than your average feeler due to this highly sensitive disposition and we oughtta start recognizing it instead of assuming feeler automatically equals sensitive, compassionate, emotional while thinker automatically equals cold, detached, impersonal, invulnerable. We have to understand that the primary functions are often contradictory to what lies at the core of the personality.

 

[Norrsken]

MBTI as a whole explains that human beings are never truly 100% extroverted, introverted, sensing, intuitive, and so on. We are all, actually, a mixture of all of these combined, which explains the cognitive functions and that feeling types can certainly use their logical functions and vice versa. I don't think it's about repression anymore than it is about human beings being much more complex than we give them credit for.

 

[rav3n]

It's less about repression and more about what strategies that individuals have adopted through a hot mess of genetics, environmental impact and maturation process.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

You really don't like feelers, do you?

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

You really don't like feelers, do you?

I admire them, but I don't understand them.

- - - Updated - - -

It's less about repression and more about what strategies that individuals have adopted through a hot mess of genetics, environmental impact and maturation process.

Really? I think it's about both.

 

[virtualinsanity]

"Repress their emotions" .. Here we go again. While I like your thread title, I think Ts don't feel as convicted by feelings of right/wrong or appropriate/inappropriate . In Typology, Feeling is different from emotion. (Emotions = sadness, happiness, joy, irritability, etc) . I don't repress my emotions . I'm very emotional but I do try to analyze them.

Look , any human who denies emotion is either a real life bot or a wannabe bot. Emotions don't ONLY mean crying or sadness, either. Unless you dead ass walk around with a damn poker face the majority of the time .. you, (genarlized, "you") , don't repress emotion but only a feeling function.

Ts repress either of the bottom two in favor of T logical systems. It doesn't require that any of us "repress emotion" only feeling. Only the Fi users might not express happy/overjoyous ones as much. (They're still human)..

Fi - subjective convictions of right/wrong, subjective mood
Or
Fe - objective appropriateness /objective mood

The below picture is an example of emotions/emotional expression!

Anybody who think Ts are less/more emotional are basing things on ignorance. As far as compassion goes, I can see Ts being less compassionate because we look to justice before mercy. If the facts/truth/logic points to harsh consequences or supports what some may call harsh, I'm not going to budge.

A thinking type can cry over a mom's jail sentencing and be sad while agreeing with the jail sentence and actually testifying against the mother. Emotions are just...there. They cannot be helped upon first glance but can be analyzed or gotten over rather quickly.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

"Repress their emotions" .. Here we go again. While I like your thread title, I think Ts don't feel as convicted by feelings of right/wrong or appropriate/inappropriate . In Typology, Feeling is different from emotion. (Emotions = sadness, happiness, joy, irritability, etc) . I don't repress my emotions . I'm very emotional but I do try to analyze them.

Look , any human who denies emotion is either a real life bot or a wannabe bot. Emotions don't ONLY mean crying or sadness, either. Unless you dead ass walk around with a damn poker face the majority of the time .. you, (genarlized, "you") , don't repress emotion but only a feeling function.

Ts repress either of the bottom two in favor of T logical systems. It doesn't require that any of us "repress emotion" only feeling. Only the Fi users might not express happy/overjoyous ones as much. (They're still human)..

Fi - subjective convictions of right/wrong, subjective mood
Or
Fe - objective appropriateness /objective mood

The below picture is an example of emotions/emotional expression!

Anybody who think Ts are less/more emotional are basing things on ignorance. As far as compassion goes, I can see Ts being less compassionate because we look to justice before mercy. If the facts/truth/logic points to harsh consequences or supports what some may call harsh, I'm not going to budge.

A thinking type can cry over a mom's jail sentencing and be sad while agreeing with the jail sentence and actually testifying against the mother. Emotions are just...there. They cannot be helped upon first glance but can be analyzed or gotten over rather quickly.

I just disagree with most of what you said here.

 

[Coriolis]

Now that means that at their core, their base, their innermost self, the thinker is a feeler while the feeler is a thinker. That's why they have to hide it, cause it's vulnerable, it's them at their most vulnerable level. In other words, thinkers are so emotional that they NEED to repress their emotions with rationalization, whereas feelers are so intellectual that they need to repress their thoughts with emotions. This is also the reason I see the feeler need to play the role of victim as unjust, because at their core, they aren't victims, they are intellects. Thinkers at their core? Naive, trusting, emotional, easily exploited. Why else would they put up a front of cold, hard logic, it's because inside, they feel vulnerable, let's just face it. This isn't to say that all thinkers are inherently victims, but rather that they tend to be more emotionally vulnerable than your average feeler due to this highly sensitive disposition and we oughtta start recognizing it instead of assuming feeler automatically equals sensitive, compassionate, emotional while thinker automatically equals cold, detached, impersonal, invulnerable. We have to understand that the primary functions are often contradictory to what lies at the core of the personality.

A paraplegic who must use a wheelchair to get around is physically more vulnerable than a star athlete. By your reasoning, he is also just as or more physically capable. If thinkers feel more vulnerable emotionally, it is because this is not our forte; we have less ability to handle things on this level than the average feeler. Sure - all humans both think and feel, but the whole point of typology is that we each prefer certain modes of operation over others, and will become more proficient in those.

Anybody who think Ts are less/more emotional are basing things on ignorance. As far as compassion goes, I can see Ts being less compassionate because we look to justice before mercy. If the facts/truth/logic points to harsh consequences or supports what some may call harsh, I'm not going to budge.

If there were more justice in the world, there would be less need for mercy. Mercy is often the bandaid applied after the fact in an attempt to remedy an injustice.

 

[virtualinsanity]

I just disagree with most of what you said here.

I'm not shocked.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

I'm not shocked.

Me neither, honestly.

 

[Red Ribbon]

I don't repress emotions, more like, I focus more on Te. For me, 'I feel bad' is not an argument to/not do something. So in that way, I repress my emotions. When my dog died, I decided to do stuff so that it can help take my mind off of the grief. An Fi dom or aux might try to understand what they're feeling and try to make themselves feel better, which is maybe the healthier thing to do, but to each his own I guess. I don't believe I feel more or less than any feeler who lost a beloved family pet, if that's what you're implying.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

I don't repress emotions, more like, I focus more on Te. For me, 'I feel bad' is not an argument to/not do something. So in that way, I repress my emotions. When my dog died, I decided to do stuff so that it can help take my mind off of the grief. An Fi dom or aux might try to understand what they're feeling and try to make themselves feel better, which is maybe the healthier thing to do, but to each his own I guess. I don't believe I feel more or less than any feeler who lost a beloved family pet, if that's what you're implying.

I disagree, I think by definition, thinking types all repress their feeling function, at least to some degree, that is why it is underdeveloped in their personality.

 

[tchudak]

I don't repress my emotions. I just don't know how to deal with them most of time, even good emotions like happiness. I get annoyed when I feel something that I know doesn't make much logical sense, because I'm always looking for something that is logical above all.

 

[Qlip]

In Jungian terms Feeling is a subjective rational process--it's not the cause of emotion. But, it takes emotion into account. Because of this a Feeler would tend to be more comfortable with emotion than a Thinker, but not necessarily have more emotions. I could easily imagine a Thinker having stronger and more varied emotions from being in a difficult point in their life, or just being naturally predisposed to strong emotion, they'd just tend to take them less into account.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

In Jungian terms Feeling is a subjective rational process, it's not the cause of emotion, but it takes emotion into account. Because of this a Feeler would tend to be more comfortable with emotion than a Thinker, but not necessarily have more emotions. I could easily imagine a Thinker having stronger and more varied emotions from being in a difficult point in their life, or just being naturally predisposed to strong emotion, they'd just tend to take them less into account.

How does that work? Wouldn't you think the ones with more and varied emotions would be more likely to take emotions into account? I'm not doubting what you said is true, I'm just wondering how that works.

 

[tchudak]

How does that work? Wouldn't you think the ones with more and varied emotions would be more likely to take emotions into account? I'm not doubting what you said is true, I'm just wondering how that works.

I have strong emotions, what matters is how I manage them. I'm sure there are feelers out there who doesn't have emotions as strong as the ones I feel. The difference is that, big or not, they act more instinctively with them, they know better how to deal with them and they also take those emotions more into account.
I can feel something very intensely, still, I have no idea what it means exactly and how to act, so instead of "following my emotions/my heart" I put some logic in it.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

I have strong emotions, what matters is how I manage them. I'm sure there are feelers out there who doesn't have emotions as strong as the ones I feel. The difference is that, big or not, they act more instinctively with them, they know better how to deal with them and they also take those emotions more into account.
I can feel something very intensely, still, I have no idea what it means exactly and how to act, so instead of "following my emotions/my heart" I put some logic in it.

Why would one who feels less/less varied emotions be more likely to take emotions into account?

 

[tchudak]

Why would one who feels less/less varied emotions be more likely to take emotions into account?

Perhaps because it's their natural cognitive process. I can't speak for feelers, but what I think based on observations is that they tend to act on their emotions, being these emotions strong or not (of course not all feelers will do this, i'm generalizing). I can feel something very strongly but many times I can distantiate myself from that feeling and analise it.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

Perhaps because it's their natural cognitive process. I can't speak for feelers, but what I think based on observations is that they tend to act on their emotions, being these emotions strong or not (of course not all feelers will do this, i'm generalizing). I can feel something very strongly but many times I can distantiate myself from that feeling and analise it.

Hm, sounds like selfishness to me; acting on your emotions whether or not they are actually strongly felt, meanwhile those who actually have strong emotions to deal with are able to distance themselves from their emotions and analyze them. Seems very un-noble to say the least

 

[tchudak]

Hm, sounds like selfishness to me; acting on your emotions whether or not they are actually strongly felt, meanwhile those who actually have strong emotions to deal with are able to distance themselves from their emotions and analyze them. Seems very un-noble to say the least

LOL selfishness? Only if you feel that you SOULD deal with your emotions on a logical level instead of let them take care, then you are not analyzing it instinctively, you are forcing yourself into doing something you are not really naturally inclined.