[NT] Hurt feelings and NT's

[garbage]

It's the conscious rejection of feeling.

Some of my NF friends tell me that I must be holding my emotions back because their full intensity must not be fully expressed, because my emotions--and my responses to my emotions--aren't as intense as theirs.

It's possible that some here are exaggerating their "robotic" tendencies. It's also possible that they just aren't as affected by feelings as other types.

I suppose it's also possible that they're not in touch with their feelings and so aren't aware of them.

But I guess I just find it highly unlikely that every single NT, or at least those in this thread, has suffered some form of abuse, and that is the cause of their lack of emotion.

 

[Haphazard]

I suppose that could be true.


But then there's that whole other issue of whenever an NF decides that somebody must be feeling a certain emotion at a certain point, then if they refuse, there's something wrong. Perhaps someone did have a fucked up childhood and are refusing to accept it -- or they could be telling the truth and you don't know/understand them well enough to make such judgments about their emotional state. Or, possibly more likely, they just don't think they have to tell you.

 

[redacted]

But then there's that whole other issue of whenever an NF decides that somebody must be feeling a certain emotion at a certain point, then if they refuse, there's something wrong.

Well, yeah. It's clearly ridiculous of anyone to assume that they are right about someone else's feelings all the time.

I'm just talking about people that take the stance "emotion is weak". Those people have some major problems on their hands.

 

[redacted]

But I guess I just find it highly unlikely that every single NT, or at least those in this thread, has suffered some form of abuse, and that is the cause of their lack of emotion.

Jeez. I never said anything remotely like that.

What I'm talking about isn't restricted to NTs, nor does it apply to all of them.

I was an example of what I'm talking about earlier in my life. Definitely not only an NT thing.

 

[Haphazard]

I'm talking about the entirety of this thread. It seems to be based on this assumption.

 

[garbage]

I'm just talking about people that take the stance "emotion is weak". Those people have some major problems on their hands.

Oh, whoops. Sorry for misreading you.

I agree with you, but I'd like to generalize. I believe that there's definitely a place for feeling and thought judgments, a place for intuition and sensing, and all of the possible combinations thereof. I watch in awe as my good ENFJ friend is able to pick up on social cues instantaneously and naturally, for example.

To say that one type or one way of viewing or valuing the world is more valid than others overall and without question is just.. absolutely ridiculous.

 

[redacted]

I'm talking about the entirety of this thread. It seems to be based on this assumption.

Oh. Well I jumped in sometime in the last few pages, so I have no idea...

This is the problem with typology. It's too black/white. You're either a T or an F. If you're one, there's one set of things that applies to you, if you're the other, it's an entirely different set. What a bunch of bullshit.

 

[redacted]

To say that one type or one way of viewing or valuing the world is more valid than others overall and without question is just.. absolutely ridiculous.

Well, there are certainly losing strategies...but all types can have winning strategies.

Honestly, though, there are many ways of viewing the world that are incredibly maladaptive.

 

[garbage]

Honestly, though, there are many ways of viewing the world that are incredibly maladaptive.

Oh yeah, my statement was in regard to the archetypal representations of the types themselves, that one isn't on the whole better than any other. Surely, unhealthy individuals of any type might have a distorted view of the world that is, well, unhealthy and maladaptive.

 

[redacted]

So if we're talking about archetypes, I'd say the archetypal unhealthy NT pretends (unconsciously) that they don't have feelings. And they're wrong.

But yeah, healthy people are fine

 

[A Schnitzel]

So if we're talking about archetypes, I'd say the archetypal unhealthy NT pretends (unconsciously) that they don't have feelings. And they're wrong.

If you close your eyes they go away.

 

[redacted]

If you close your eyes they go away.

 

[Sunshine]

Many people that cling to the letter T (not all Ts of course, just the ones who pretend not to have emotions) have incredibly strong feelings that they constantly suppress.

They consciously don't think their feelings get hurt, but they're just lying to themselves. It's like they're constantly getting rocks thrown at them and they never move out of the way. When I protect them from the rocks, they act like I'm crazy; they think they're invincible. They think the people who dodge the rocks are silly, but every once in a while they wonder...hmmm...where are all these bruises coming from? And then they move on to the next thought as fast as possible because they realize they're the ones being immature and they don't want to admit it.

.

 

[Sniffles]

Could all the F's please be direct and quote the T posts they're referring to, so I can tell whether you've misunderstood me or whether you were reading someone else's posts and I can stop being confused and paranoid?

(CLARITY!!!!)

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, I can't say I'm hurt by this...
.. but it does scare the hell out of me.

 

[Night]

I was offended until I saw the wink.

Now, I'm just regaled...!

 

[Totenkindly]

I was offended until I saw the wink.
Now, I'm just regaled...!

And fileted -- I think the fat guy has a knife.

 

[Stigmatic]

I suppose that could be true.


But then there's that whole other issue of whenever an NF decides that somebody must be feeling a certain emotion at a certain point, then if they refuse, there's something wrong. Perhaps someone did have a fucked up childhood and are refusing to accept it -- or they could be telling the truth and you don't know/understand them well enough to make such judgments about their emotional state. Or, possibly more likely, they just don't think they have to tell you.

It is fear. They need to believe others have deep wells of repressed emotion because they can then appraise themselves healthy for dealing with theirs. The thinker's common low regard for feeling - the forte of the NF - is insulting to the feeler unless they see it as pathology. It is a selfish will to power, no matter how much they couch it in concern for "the health" of the thinker.

 

[Kestrel]

It is fear. They need to believe others have deep wells of repressed emotion because they can then appraise themselves healthy for dealing with theirs. The thinker's common low regard for feeling - the forte of the NF - is insulting to the feeler unless they see it as pathology. It is a selfish will to power, no matter how much they couch it in concern for "the health" of the thinker.

Huh? This is outlandish speculation at best. Why would anyone feel fear about this? Why waste my time trying to justify how others should do things that don't come naturally to them?

Anyway, the way I see it.. The T's who do put some effort in regulating or at least acknowledging the existence of some degree of emotion within their being, are far better off than those who don't. If you seek to stifle, deny, or ignore something for too long, it's going to slow you down in the long run.

With that said, I don't think T's "process" emotions the same way that F's do. But they are there, and should be acknowledged to some degree, at least to one's self (not publicly, the bane of a T).

 

[Totenkindly]

Anyway, the way I see it.. The T's who do put some effort in regulating or at least acknowledging the existence of some degree of emotion within their being, are far better off than those who don't. If you seek to stifle, deny, or ignore something for too long, it's going to slow you down in the long run.

With that said, I don't think T's "process" emotions the same way that F's do. But they are there, and should be acknowledged to some degree, at least to one's self (not publicly, the bane of a T).

Is there a flip version of this?

That the Feeler might fear to be seen as uncompassionate or not concerned/considerate enough and will have a tendency to cater to the emotive aspects of things regardless of what intellectual assessment might be made of the situation? (i.e., they know what was said and expected... but they still feel the need to cover their bases and show they were thinking of the other person's feelings.)

Just as T's might find emotive displays or acting off "personal values" rather than justifiable standards more threatening to their sense of well-being, do F's find the thought of acting from some impersonal assessment more threatening to their sense of being compassionate considerate people?

I'm just curious.

(I thought a lot of NTs that spoke here would rather be thought of as "mean" than "illogical," if given the choice. NFs often seem to veer in the other direction.)

EDIT: Which leads me to this idea, now that my mind has raced ahead.

After a situation has been resolved, if you see someone (often a T) insisting on reexplaining their view/logic or articulating it more deeply (after the fact), it stems from a fear of being seen as stupid or irrational.

And if you see someone reiterating their commitment/sensitivity in that same context (often an F, and doing it when there's no point to it, since the situation was already resolved) just to be safe, it stems from a fear of being seen as mean or insensitive.

I've seen myself do both. It's not really done for the other person; it really IS more fear... of how I might be mistakenly perceived.