[MBTI General] Feelers: What Do You Really Think About Thinkers?

[heart]

I wish we had a Feelers private forum so the SF could reply on this thread but we don't so...

Anyway, what do the folks here in the NF private forum really think about Thinkers?

 

[Atomic Fiend]

I'm indifferent toward them.

 

[Athenian200]

Sometimes I'm jealous of them, honestly. It really seems like they can just push through things that I can't.

But when I see the pitiful, broken, childish emotions that crawl out of their tortured minds once in a while, that jealousy quickly turns to pity.

 

[runvardh]

I find them easier to tolerate than other Feelers really. Even the Extroverts of them are more likely to give me my time alone than some IFs. It's kind of funny, my better friends tend to be Ts that are older than me up to 5 years. With Fs they almost have to be 10 or more years older than me for me to start taking many of them seriously.

 

[Amargith]

Love most of 'em, just roll my eyes at them when they either dismiss feelings as irrelevant or just simply deny having them coz it makes them feel uncomfortable, though I do understand that they might not feel them as strongly as some feelers.

Occasionally the whole bias toward the whole rational attitude that society has drives me bananas. If you're no good at that, you're inferior, that sort of thing. And if you then point out their own weaknesses, they're not 'relevant'. Must say that coz of MBTI on this site, it's a lot less present than out there in the real world, so I do appreciate that very much.

 

[BerberElla]

Love most of 'em, just roll my eyes at them when they either dismiss feelings as irrelevant or just simply deny having them coz it makes them feel uncomfortable, though I do understand that they might not feel them as strongly as some feelers.

Occasionally the whole bias toward the whole rational attitude that society has drives me bananas. If you're no good at that, you're inferior, that sort of thing. And if you then point out their own weaknesses, they're not 'relevant'. Must say that coz of MBTI on this site, it's a lot less present than out there in the real world, so I do appreciate that very much.

Drives me nuts too.

I don't really appreciate the way I keep being told emotions have no value, I also don't agree with it.

On the other hand I also admire the fact that they don't have to navigate this minefield of emotions as often as I do, and are therefore tougher in the face of those decisions that sometimes cripple me, lucky buggers.

 

[Moiety]

What I really think? I don't even know what my façade idea of them is.

In relation to me, if I were to stereotype, I find them a bit more insipid but a bit more diligent in their rational processes.

Now, was that vague? I hope so.

 

[garbage]

Stereotyping, but I can't get close to them unless they're mature. My dad's the one exception I know; everyone else who's close to me is a Feeler.

Sometimes that's preferable, such as in the work environment. I don't want to get that close to my coworkers, and I'm glad they don't want or expect that from me. Other times, however, it's a huge hassle.

 

[BlackCat]

When thinkers are in touch with their feeler side then things go just fine. Most of the time they try to be in touch with this side or are in touch with this side, so interaction isn't so awkward most of the time. Hell, I can get along with anyone who is a little considerate and who doesn't seem to be a robot (not literally).

I tend to have more issues with much preferred feelers than much preferred thinkers. I just get along much better with thinkers I believe, I like them. I feel grounded around them. I already have plenty of fleeting emotions, so why add more to that mess in my life? I think that thinkers enjoy my presence generally because I am emotional but not overly so (I don't try to overload people), so it also may feel grounding (not sure of that though) to them. I especially get along well with TJs, since I think apart of me unconsciously "senses" (?) their Fi. I think that they like seeing my Te come into play as well. I don't have that sort of bond with TPs, but they're fine all the same.

Overall I think that thinkers are good people, and I enjoy having them in my life. Most of my friends are thinkers, and that doesn't really phase me at all.

 

[Nyota]

Any type that is balanced is preferred. I absolutely LOVE having T friends; they challenge me, get me thinking. Thinkers tend to be easier for me to get along with. They aren't emotional.
But then again, that's the problem. For a deeper relationship, I need to connect on a much deeper emotional level as well as intellectual level. With a balanced T, this is not a problem. But if a T thinks that all emotions are irrational and not needed, a close friendship won't really work out. That's just as bad to me as a F thinking logic is not needed.
Balance is key, always.

 

[BlueScreen]

ENTJ: Love, worship, feel they are improved versions of ENFP dammit. If there is coldness, I've never noticed it. They just don`t weigh in on the crap.

ENTP: Think they overestimate themselves sometimes. Are smart, but often the certainty of that and the need to display it undermines their adaptability and the integrity of their cause. Love them a tonne though, and always want to meet more of them. They are probably more motivated and inspiring than us ENFPs.

INTP: Can over logic me sometimes, but admire them for their logical integrity, and their endless generousity. Have hearts of gold, even though they can be very honest when you don`t want to hear it.

INTJ: Can be hard to get to know. I`ve found a little slow to get to accept you, but priceless once you know them

I love all NTs I think.

 

[FemMecha]

I respect my T friends. The one's I get along with are markedly reasonable people. They really are quite clear thinking and objective, even-tempered, logical, rational, able to think outside the context of their own ego. They are a little like Commander Data. I value those aspects of myself that are coherent and reasonable. Such friends strengthen these aspects of myself.

The brand of Ts that are invested in ego, drama, being rude, social dominance do not seem that clear thinking to me. There is a kind of fragmented objectivism that can be cohesive and enlightening in certain contexts, but then evaporates once ego is struck. In debates I find myself to be more rational in these situations, but because of the designations and social expectations, one makes their argument, have the other come back with personal insults, strawman arguments, and other game tactics to try to prove their dominance. I have been disappointed when there is someone who seems capable of having an enlightening debate who gets so ego invested or fixated on MBTI categories with prejudice that it is impossible to communicate. It's not clear to me how people on this end of the spectrum share a category with the ones described in the first paragraph. To each their own and more power to them, but I find it to be a false application of the MBTI categories. Such methods of thinking are what some people choose and it can also help them achieve what they want in life, but it is not clear thinking in its fullest manifestation and to call it so is simply not honest. Being egotistical and not caring about people's feelings doesn't make someone a genius either. You actually have to be smart and able to demonstrate it. Obviously only a few get this extreme, but it does happen. What happens more often is a some degree of correlation between ego-invested social dominance and the assumption of intelligence.

 

[Moiety]

ENTJ: Love, worship, feel they are improved versions of ENFP dammit. If there is coldness, I've never noticed it. They just don`t weigh in on the crap.

ENTP: Think they overestimate themselves sometimes. Are smart, but often the certainty of that and the need to display it undermines their adaptability and the integrity of their cause. Love them a tonne though, and always want to meet more of them. They are probably more motivated and inspiring than us ENFPs.

INTP: Can over logic me sometimes, but admire them for their logical integrity, and their endless generousity. Have hearts of gold, even though they can be very honest when you don`t want to hear it.

INTJ: Can be hard to get to know. I`ve found a little slow to get to accept you, but priceless once you know them

I love all NTs I think.

Who are you trying to fool Noigmn?? These are NTs we are talking about....NTs for crying out loud!!!

 

[cascadeco]

I respect my T friends. The one's I get along with are markedly reasonable people. They really are quite clear thinking and objective, even-tempered, logical, rational, able to think outside the context of their own ego. They are a little like Commander Data. I value those aspects of myself that are coherent and reasonable. Such friends strengthen these aspects of myself.

The brand of Ts that are invested in ego, drama, being rude, social dominance do not seem that clear thinking to me. There is a kind of fragmented objectivism that can be cohesive and enlightening in certain contexts, but then evaporates once ego is struck. In debates I find myself to be more rational in these situations, but because of the designations and social expectations, one makes their argument, have the other come back with personal insults, strawman arguments, and other game tactics to try to prove their dominance. I have been disappointed when there is someone who seems capable of having an enlightening debate who gets so ego invested or fixated on MBTI categories with prejudice that it is impossible to communicate. It's not clear to me how people on this end of the spectrum share a category with the ones described in the first paragraph. To each their own and more power to them, but I find it to be a false application of the MBTI categories. Such methods of thinking are what some people choose and it can also help them achieve what they want in life, but it is not clear thinking in its fullest manifestation and to call it so is simply not honest. Being egotistical and not caring about people's feelings doesn't make someone a genius.

Great post!!

In my personal life most people I know aren't invested in mbti, don't know much about it, or scoff at it. So I don't really run into instances of people stereotyping or a false application of mbti.

Your examples of different 'brands' of T is interesting, and I have seen both examples in real life. I tend to ignore the latter, as I find that level of debate/argumentativeness/egoism petty and immature. But F's have are not immune to these types of tactics either so I'd feel the same way about them. This might be one of those things that falls outside of mbti to a degree.

As for how I feel about thinkers...I'm fine with them. I tend to get along well with them, and can't think of any major issues I've had. We may view things from different perspectives at times, but a lot of the times we do come to the same conclusions or think/feel the same way about things. They amuse me at times (as I no doubt amuse them), but really I see no major barriers between us. Communication is fine.

 

[FemMecha]

Great post!!

In my personal life most people I know aren't invested in mbti, don't know much about it, or scoff at it. So I don't really run into instances of people stereotyping or a false application of mbti.

Your examples of different 'brands' of T is interesting, and I have seen both examples in real life. I tend to ignore the latter, as I find that level of debate/argumentativeness/egoism petty and immature. But F's have are not immune to these types of tactics either so I'd feel the same way about them. This might be one of those things that falls outside of mbti to a degree.

That seems like a reasonable way of dealing with it. Feelers by category don't have the same claim to clear thinking, which is the issue I was attempting to address. I've found some of the same principles in real life, but outside the labeling system of MBTI. Part of the problem might be that the actual individual can be a rather messy example of an MBTI category. The danger of a personality description is that an individual can change the way they see themselves and so if they answered questions about not being concerned with feelings, end up with a T designation, and then read that T's are logical, there can be false connections made, especially immature people who are still getting to understand who they are. There is also a set of cultural assumptions that can evolve from this process in online communities or work communities that apply MBTI.

Edit: I guess part of the problem I am addressing goes deeper than dealing with people. It has more to do with various aspects of the validity of MBTI in terms of accuracy of testing, usefulness as a theory, and problems with the way it is applied socially. Placing empathy and logic at mutually exclusive poles doesn't reflect reality imo. I have not seen a convincing case made for that assumption. There are people who clearly have one or the other as a strength, but I propose there is more of a correlation than exclusivity. Both require the ability to think outside the box of self/ego. The relationship to self/ego could be argued to be the most fundamental component in shaping the way a person thinks and acts on the world. If this is disregarded by MBTI, then its ability to form a complete picture should be reevaluated.

 

[cascadeco]

Edit: I guess part of the problem I am addressing goes deeper than dealing with people. It has more to do with various aspects of the validity of MBTI in terms of accuracy of testing, usefulness as a theory, and problems with the way it is applied socially. Placing empathy and logic at mutually exclusive poles doesn't reflect reality imo. I have not seen a convincing case made for that assumption. There are people who clearly have one or the other as a strength, but I propose there is more of a correlation than exclusivity. Both require the ability to think outside the box of self/ego. The relationship to self/ego could be argued to be the most fundamental component in shaping the way a person thinks and acts on the world. If this is disregarded by MBTI, then its ability to form a complete picture should be reevaluated.

I agree wholeheartedly, and have similar thoughts on its applicability to reality. I feel like a broken record whenever I write this, as I've written it so many times on here, but I think when mbti is viewed as 16 'trends'/tendencies, it is most useful. But, it is also very generic as well when viewed in this light (but it *should* be more generic, should it not? Seeing as we are putting billions of people into only 16 ways of being). It's when you try to make it more detailed and rigid that it becomes inconsistent. Most people, in reality, don't fit the stereotypes. Granted, there are some that fit them to a T, but most step out of the box of what they're 'supposed' to be doing, whether it's situationally or in a broader context.

Back to T/F, I think it can be highly illogical, from a survival/social standpoint, to lack empathy and feeling, as there are many elements of existance and life as a member of a social species that require feeling. Well, 'require' might be the wrong word, as one could without a doubt survive without it (and people on the extreme T end do), but it certainly wouldn't make for smooth sailing. Just as it's detrimental, and doesn't really make sense, to rely solely on empathy. That's just as counterproductive to being 'successful' in certain areas of life as being strictly logical. The reality is that most people are somewhere in the middle - T's and F's alike. There isn't the giant gaping T/F difference that many people like to create. I mean, obviously both have preferences, and I'm not saying the differences don't exist - as it's apparent they do. But most people don't fall on either end of the extreme.

 

[Thalassa]

Some of them I love for their interesting facts, articulate arguments, and succinct manner of turning a phrase. Sometimes T's seem "calmer" which can be good.

On the other hand, other T's are condecending, rude, and superior acting. Some believe their way of thinking is the "best" way of thinking, which can come across as being as rigid and closed minded as someone who makes judgements based upon their feelings.

I think I admired NT men a great deal when I was younger because I thought that they were so knowledgeable, but now that I'm older I see that they also sometimes have serious ISSUES with their emotions, which makes me perceive them much more as my equals than I did ten years ago.

 

[FemMecha]

I agree wholeheartedly, and have similar thoughts on its applicability to reality. I feel like a broken record whenever I write this, as I've written it so many times on here, but I think when mbti is viewed as 16 'trends'/tendencies, it is most useful. But, it is also very generic as well when viewed in this light (but it *should* be more generic, should it not? Seeing as we are putting billions of people into only 16 ways of being). It's when you try to make it more detailed and rigid that it becomes inconsistent. Most people, in reality, don't fit the stereotypes. Granted, there are some that fit them to a T, but most step out of the box of what they're 'supposed' to be doing, whether it's situationally or in a broader context.

Back to T/F, I think it can be highly illogical, from a survival/social standpoint, to lack empathy and feeling, as there are many elements of existance and life as a member of a social species that require feeling. Well, 'require' might be the wrong word, as one could without a doubt survive without it (and people on the extreme T end do), but it certainly wouldn't make for smooth sailing. Just as it's detrimental, and doesn't really make sense, to rely solely on empathy. That's just as counterproductive to being 'successful' in certain areas of life as being strictly logical. The reality is that most people are somewhere in the middle - T's and F's alike. There isn't the giant gaping T/F difference that many people like to create. I mean, obviously both have preferences, and I'm not saying the differences don't exist - as it's apparent they do. But most people don't fall on either end of the extreme.

We are on a rather similar page in this topic I believe.

For the purpose of the topic, I want to clarify the difference I see in the T/F poles vs. the E/I poles for example. If a person does not like being alone, this suggests they prefer being social. If a person does not like being at a party, they likely want to be alone. The absence of one trait suggests the presence of the other in the E/I poles.

If someone is too egotistical to think logically, it is likely they are too egotistical to be empathetic. If someone cares enough to be willing to set aside their own feelings and try to understand a situation from someone else's point of view, this same person has a higher likelihood of listening to reason (which might exactly be the other person's view). The way in which the absence of one trait can actually suggest the absence of the other makes this pole fundamentally different from the E/I pole.

Where I do see legitimacy in T/F is in the kinds of information a particular brain naturally absorbs. Some people just don't see emotional cues often and some people can't remember technical information. The type of information that is remembered does not necessary indicate the way in which that information is processed. The type of information absorbed tends to be related to whatever has been required of a person in their life to survive and they have designated larger portions of their brain to gather those details.

 

[Stanton Moore]

they can have a 'bull-in-the-china-shop' quality, that I find primitive and annoying, but I get along fine with those who lack that propensity.

I have a strong T, since my dad was such a brilliant and logical man, but let's face a fact here: at base, humans are emotional. It's the T's who deny (or are blissfully ignorant of) this that I find troublesome. I generally prefer the company of feelers...but...
I have LOTS of T friends, who I really like, so It's all a case-by-case things for me. I know some INFP's who I have a hard time being around because they are too emotional for me at times.

T's are cool.

 

[FemMecha]

compartmentalized vs. integrated thinker

A thought crossed my mind today. I wonder if the designations of compartmentalized vs. integrated thinker would create a similar divide that we see using the terms thinker vs. feeler? Having discussed questions I have about the mutual exclusivity of the T and F poles in previous posts, I was wondering if we are essentially talking about the difference between thinking in a compartmentalized vs. an integrated manner. The compartmentalized thinker will isolate various types of data according to their function and similarity. This is the approach that will isolate logic and fact from the more uncertain and immeasurable questions of human experience and feeling. This would also explain the individual who can debate a particular topic using hard logic, but then lose control emotionally and scream and yell in another setting. The integrated thinker may tend towards less pristine logic, but may also tend to apply it a larger variety of contexts. This approach also accounts for emotion in all individuals which is observable and hard-wired in the brain. There are also neurologically compelling reasons observed in the way the two hemispheres are connected that can contribute to these categories (compartmentalized vs. integration) as being fundamentally legitimate to cognitive processing.

These designations are more neutral than T and F and more mutually exclusive by nature. The absence of one quality strongly suggests the presence of the other. It's just a thought, but does explain a lot of the application on first examination.