User Tag List

View Poll Results: Why do some thinkers demonize feelers

Voters
186. You may not vote on this poll
  • They are emotionally immature.

    58 31.18%
  • They just don't understand how feelers make decisions.

    90 48.39%
  • They confuse emotion with the MBTI definition of feeler.

    96 51.61%
  • They have an irrational fear of empathy.

    27 14.52%
  • They lack social skills.

    28 15.05%
  • They're big meanies!

    38 20.43%
  • Feelers are simply better at resolving conflict and dealing with their emotions

    10 5.38%
  • Feelers demonize thinkers in private instead of openly.

    25 13.44%
  • I'm a feeler and I think feelers suck too.

    10 5.38%
  • Other.

    39 20.97%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 152324252627 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 266

  1. #241
    Senior Member syndatha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    ENFJ
    Posts
    256

    Default

    Maybe the OP is just a projection?
    I have no sense of humour.

  2. #242
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas View Post
    What gives you the idea that things exist in duality? May as well say cannot trust just physics because there must be an "anti-physics" which explains what physics cannot. Likewise, logical frameworks can take into illogical actions into accounts once they recognize that the sole source of illogical action is humanity.
    Outstanding. This is worthy of a signature.

  3. #243
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas View Post
    What gives you the idea that things exist in duality? May as well say cannot trust just physics because there must be an "anti-physics" which explains what physics cannot. Likewise, logical frameworks can take into illogical actions into accounts once they recognize that the sole source of illogical action is humanity.
    And models of value can certainly take into account logical lines of reason, especially once they recognize them as valuable. The difference between the Thinker & Feeler is which angle they start from, not necessarily the conclusions they come to.

    Another misconception some have is to say that Feeling is illogical, when it is alogical. It is not opposed to logic, it simply has a different function, one which is just as rational (as logic is only one form of rational thought). Something can be true factually, and logically consistent, but not be important. It can be a frivolous piece of info, or a line of reasoning, however accurate, that focuses on something trivial & blows it out of proportion; Feeling is what will gauge its significance. On the other hand, something may not be able to be proven as logical truth, but it may still prove to be very significant. Feeling too gauges value there. No wonder Feeling is associated with art, psychology, philosophy, spiritually, etc - areas chock full of significant ideas that fall outside the bounds of logic, but which don't necessarily contradict it either.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas View Post
    What gives you the idea that things exist in duality? May as well say cannot trust just physics because there must be an "anti-physics" which explains what physics cannot. Likewise, logical frameworks can take into illogical actions into accounts once they recognize that the sole source of illogical action is humanity.
    The sole source logical action is also humanity.. This is exactly what I am talking about.
    We are not discussing physics, we are in fact discussing "humanity".

    Everything "humanity" perceives exists within the spectrum of "human" perception.
    Every spectrum is made up two extremes or opposites.
    Good cannot exist without bad.
    Love with out hate. Concern without apathy.
    Intelligent without stupidity.
    Scientific extremes are also included , Hot cannot exist with out cold.
    Light cannot exist with dark, sound cannot exist without silence. Close cannot exist without far
    Morally a lie cannot exist with truth.
    And most certainly logical cannot exist without illogical.
    And the great thing is? It's all relative an open to interpretation.


    What don't you understand??

  5. #245
    Member The Machine Stops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    T9W1
    Posts
    31

    Default

    I closely interact with two people, two types, in a very deep way, and so my perspective on this is mostly based on my experiences with them. One of them is an ESTJ, the other an ISFJ. Both types that avoid experiencing emotion in their own way, for their own reasons. One through disconnection, the other through avoidance and repression of "negative" emotions.

    I no longer see T and F on the opposite side of a spectrum, but on a line of potential progression and growth.

    I reject the basis of thought that emotion is irrational. It is not easily understandable, hard to follow, especially when viewed from outside. One sees the tip of the iceberg, but not the massive weight that rests under the surface of expression. Bound by the same laws of causality as anything else emotional responses are as logical and rational as rationally thought out ideas. You can ask why, and you can find a reason. You can find out why and how A let to B let do a meltdown, or breakdown. The meltdown itself, in this example, is not an end of functioning, but serves it's own purpose, has a function of its own, consequences that follow both internal and external.

    All the pieces of the puzzle are there to logically and rationally follow the trail of gut instinct, intuition, emotional responses and get a cohesive causality chain. Once you have that chain, you begin to understand a person as a whole and are able to predict their reactions and actions in the future. If F was irrational, how would it be possible to predict someone guided by it. I see it as a greater, deeper logic. T types are easy to understand, F types are a challenge, but follow the same set of rules. If I would put something on the opposite spectrum of this, it would not be human.

    More than that though, I do not believe you can have change and growth, maturing, without connecting to F. Emotions are the drive, the energy that is expended that move the little pieces around within us that make up who we are and how we process. Often a painful process, a fundamentally scary one. Deeply aware of my own processes, seeing how the ESTJ is not, if we both went through a similar trauma, the loss of a child, for example, it would take him ten times longer to come to terms with it, if he ever would. That is not a different but equal way to process something.

    As scary as it may seem, change and growth is something that I see as necessary. Repressed emotions pile up, rot, internal walls that are build grow taller, insurmountable, and the maturing, and growing that happens then... in the case of the ESTJ, he would have developed to a draconian, brutally out for efficiency, but deeply lonley and self loathing man, and the ISFJ would have eventually ended up in a prison of self imposed isolation to escape to external stimuli that exposes her own internal self to her, makes her feel "bad".

    Hence I voted emotionally immature.

  6. #246
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    The idea that feeling always equals emotions to some people bothers me. My reasoning process does not feel "emotional". When I feel emotional, I recognize it and don't just run with it. I can think, "I may feel this way, but logically I know that is true".

    I am an emotional person, yes, but I am not totally run by emotions, and I think Feeling is a much more refined and complex function than simply feeling "happy" or "angry" or whatever.

    I would say that thinkers use logic and feelers use discernment. One is sort of black & white, and the other is colored, and each has its advantages in reasoning out what is true and what is false.
    I agree completely. I definitely use discerment and so does the only other person I know to be an INFP. The subtle difference between logic an discernment is: logic is fixed and discerment is not. I often say that such and such makes "sense." Discerment is fluid. Logic not so much so, at least from what I've observed. I don't believe logic to be an absolute, though I think it's very useful.

  7. #247
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    This quote from Gifts Differing raises an interesting concept.....that Thinkers "demonize" Feeler because their own feeling is infantile, and most people think that others operate as they do, so they assume that F decisions must be faulty, as their own Feeling is not trusted due to its poorer development. It's never a surprise to me that Ts who do not "demonize" Feeling often are relatively more comfortable/good with their own Feeling process.
    I agree and have observed the same.

  8. #248
    Senior Member Lucas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    The sole source logical action is also humanity.. This is exactly what I am talking about.
    We are not discussing physics, we are in fact discussing "humanity".

    Everything "humanity" perceives exists within the spectrum of "human" perception.
    Every spectrum is made up two extremes or opposites.
    Good cannot exist without bad.
    Love with out hate. Concern without apathy.
    Intelligent without stupidity.
    Scientific extremes are also included , Hot cannot exist with out cold.
    Light cannot exist with dark, sound cannot exist without silence. Close cannot exist without far
    Morally a lie cannot exist with truth.
    And most certainly logical cannot exist without illogical.
    And the great thing is? It's all relative an open to interpretation.


    What don't you understand??
    Everything.
    The entire world acts in a logical fashion, following sets of rules. Humanity is the only exception.

    Good can exist without bad, so long as good is something other than "not bad", and bad something other than "not good".
    Love can exist without hate, as long as we define love as something other than "not hate".
    If you insist on defining things by what they are not, then of course they cannot exist without an opposing concept.

    As for the scientific extremes, dark does not exist, only light does. Dark is defined by the absence of light, but light is not defined by the absence of dark.
    The same holds true for sound, hot, close and everything else.

    As for the opposites of logical and illogical, what I contest is not that they exist, but the idea that they require one another, and that they are equally valid and important. If logic is defined as a sphere of relations in which actions or events relate to each other by a set of criteria, it will of necessity exclude other types of events or actions, otherwise it is meaningless. But that does not mean it is dependent on those other types of events or actions existing.

    To insist that the entire world is logical would be incorrect I agree. This does not mean that the world cannot be entirely explained in terms of logic, or, if you so desire, in terms of illogic.
    "Those are my principles and if you don't like them......well, I have others"

    -Groucho Marx

    "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

    - Frederich Nietzsche

  9. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas View Post
    Everything.
    The entire world acts in a logical fashion, following sets of rules. Humanity is the only exception.

    Good can exist without bad, so long as good is something other than "not bad", and bad something other than "not good".
    Love can exist without hate, as long as we define love as something other than "not hate".
    If you insist on defining things by what they are not, then of course they cannot exist without an opposing concept.

    As for the scientific extremes, dark does not exist, only light does. Dark is defined by the absence of light, but light is not defined by the absence of dark.
    The same holds true for sound, hot, close and everything else.

    As for the opposites of logical and illogical, what I contest is not that they exist, but the idea that they require one another, and that they are equally valid and important. If logic is defined as a sphere of relations in which actions or events relate to each other by a set of criteria, it will of necessity exclude other types of events or actions, otherwise it is meaningless. But that does not mean it is dependent on those other types of events or actions existing.

    To insist that the entire world is logical would be incorrect I agree. This does not mean that the world cannot be entirely explained in terms of logic, or, if you so desire, in terms of illogic.
    The entire world acts in a logical fashion, following sets of rules.
    Only By human definition. Nature breaks its own rules all the time. Have you heard of the X factor, chaos , miracles and those little unexpected exceptions to the rules. that seem to have been confounding humanity since it's genesis?

    We think we have structural engineering down pat.. and so far it seems to be working , kind of. Things still fall apart.
    I don't see one other science we have even come close to mastering.

    Also We have yet to explore 98% of the ocean floors and still 11% of the land surface. We don't even know whats going on, on our own planet.
    Our brain can't figure it self out .
    I See your "rules" being broken all the time.

    Good can exist without bad, so long as good is something other than "not bad", and bad something other than "not good".
    Love can exist without hate, as long as we define love as something other than "not hate".
    If you insist on defining things by what they are not, then of course they cannot exist without an opposing concept.
    I am not defining anything by what it is not? (Although that is something Ni does) I am aware of "duality".. Every good scientist knows about spectrum . You obviously can't get your head around this concept, despite it being "out there" and well received in science , religion, philosophy and psychology.

    As for the scientific extremes, dark does not exist, only light does. Dark is defined by the absence of light, but light is not defined by the absence of dark.
    The same holds true for sound, hot, close and everything else.
    Light is the absence of darkness, Now what? Definitions are human constructs.. I think the real argument here is you are arrogant in your humanity and I am not. You believe science has all the answers already, instead of understanding it I might have all the answers some day but not in your life time. And that's a scientific fact

    As for the opposites of logical and illogical, what I contest is not that they exist, but the idea that they require one another, and that they are equally valid and important. If logic is defined as a sphere of relations in which actions or events relate to each other by a set of criteria, it will of necessity exclude other types of events or actions, otherwise it is meaningless. But that does not mean it is dependent on those other types of events or actions existing.

    To insist that the entire world is logical would be incorrect I agree. This does not mean that the world cannot be entirely explained in terms of logic, or, if you so desire, in terms of illogic.
    Yeah, my point is to not pick one over the other It's to understand that they have equal value. Which is what this thread is actually about. How people perceive and to not depreciate each other based on those perceptions, especially when we often end up at the same place anyway.

    If science doesn't include what might exist outside of " necessity exclude other types of events or actions" then we get things like Mr Gore's Hockey stick graph, which was very controlled data that insisted only one possibility of the cause.
    That's why 3 weeks ago he was saying "We always knew Global warming was going to cause Global cooling"
    ( I sat though his hour and half bullshit movie one more time just to make sure he didn't mention the word cooling, he didn't, not once)


    Are we demonizing each other? No.. we just value different things. The problem is only when one human being thinks their perception is absolute.

    The whole world could vanish tomorrow and the universe wouldn't even blink. How's that for your human arrogance??
    If you died tomorrow , save for a few people who care for you. Your town wouldn't even notice.
    Put things in perspective and be thankful you are alive and experiencing enough to ask these questions.
    You puny carbon based brain is never going to figure it all out and neither is mine. If we work together instead of apart. we are one step closer to defying the abyss.

    That is really what w are talking here. and Humanity is all about duality.

  10. #250
    Junior Member cbizzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    "Then again, most people are stupid." lol. Gotta love INTJ's. That sounds just like my dad. Thank you for the smile :')
    Everyday is a gift, thats why they call it the present. -Puppy eyes-

Similar Threads

  1. Why do some people on this forum seem to dislike MBTI?
    By sofmarhof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 11-19-2015, 08:43 PM
  2. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 01:30 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