User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 163

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Okay.

    How about, "Discussing MBTI without a preliminary definition of some version of the concepts..."?

    Discussing Ni in this case seems relevant for the discussion seems to be warning that if the functions as conceived by Jung mean anything, it is as abstractions, being that none of the functions make genuine sense if viewed completely in isolation.
    When Myers & Co. appropriated the functions, there's nothing at all to lead me to believe the definitions were left untouched, as far as intent is concerned. MBTI makes sense on its own terms, but only as long as there's no reference to Jung and his functions, and so I would say it was influenced by his work, but not based on it, even if it is claimed to be.

    But now I'm interested... what are the better ways of conceiving Thinking and Feeling?
    I've discussed my read on the matter in this very thread, for your viewing pleasure.

  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    But now I'm interested... what are the better ways of conceiving Thinking and Feeling?
    Ti Te Fi Fe

    We all know they work in completely different ways, and do completely different things. I sometimes can't follow an Fe type's argument any better than a thinker can. Obviously there are some similarities, but not enough to group them. An Ni Fe argument shouldn't be that different from an Ne Fi argument except the focus, but if you put the two side by side, they are worlds apart. Are Te and Ti that similar either?
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  3. #123
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I've discussed my read on the matter in this very thread, for your viewing pleasure.
    That would be this?:

    Why? There's no reason it should be. Those who receive the proper result based on the four pref's have been categorized, and the only necessary next step is to analyze them. We don't have to apply functions to their psyches, we can analyze their behavior. The observable is all that matters in some schools of thought.
    Jung calls F & T conscious, but I'm not so sure, especially with F. I don't use that angle at all, normally, in order to skirt the issue.

    I define Feeling as the emotional processing of information, resulting in judgments, one example being "This is morally right." It can be separated from Thinking, the logic engine, because T is not concerned with end states, it only provides impersonal conclusions. What occupies more concentration would decide a preference. Abstractly, the person who makes 1000 internal F judgments per day and 600 T judgments is F.
    Emotional processing? Okay. I'll go along with that because there isn't going to be any decisions of any kind without processing of some kind.

    Consider an ENFJ. Lives in the here and now, is assailed by signs and signals of... stuff... that will affect his/her sense of well-being, acts. On what? An Fe/Ni/Se/Ti combo punch, yeah? There's yer processing. His/her behaviour shows a reaction to/anticipation of/shaping of environmental indicators--which happen to be of an "emotional" nature.

    So, feeling is an affective state. It affects you. You get affected. (It was the ENFJs sense of well-being that got the ball rolling.)

    Consider an ENTJ. Lives in the here and now, is confronted by imperfection and inefficiency, acts. But what the hell is getting him or her of their asses?

    That question proves nothing in particular, merely suggests that in people it's really a lot easier to see how feeling makes things happen. Which sort of leads to the question, why does thinking happen?

    Is it really just that way back when, with a glimmer in Daddy's eye and a quickening of Mommy's breath, someone started your biological engine going and these days you have to do something to deal with the stimulus that daily comes at you so you get used to doing various kinds of somethings...

    Is it really that Thinking is the harder to give a satisfying definition too, or am I being dense? (Because I'm INTJ and Feeling so obviously contributes to what I do without my say so, so I think it is just affective rather than... something else?)


    I seem to be getting nearer and nearer to saying Thinking and Feeling are abstractions that don't make complete sense conceived as discrete processes.


    Wouldn't it be ironic if the famous INTJ caveat, I'm only interested in what I'm interested in, is not a product of cold and impersonal logic, but that interest is prompted by Feeling. Actually, I think that this is so. And probably, if I may wildly extend this intuition... INFJs are interested in what they're interested in not totally just from warm fuzzies, but from concern over what's true too (hence the famous harshness, perhaps.)


    If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Consider an ENFJ. Lives in the here and now, is assailed by signs and signals of... stuff... that will affect his/her sense of well-being, acts. On what? An Fe/Ni/Se/Ti combo punch, yeah? There's yer processing. His/her behaviour shows a reaction to/anticipation of/shaping of environmental indicators--which happen to be of an "emotional" nature.
    Since everyone uses all 8 Jungian functions, even according to Jung, I always think it's quite silly to take a function and say it caused some thought or action unless you're very careful about it (No one is). When people give "ownership" of a function to a type, and say "That's why they do this, and no other type can do this," I really lose it.
    So, feeling is an affective state. It affects you. You get affected. (It was the ENFJs sense of well-being that got the ball rolling.)

    Consider an ENTJ. Lives in the here and now, is confronted by imperfection and inefficiency, acts. But what the hell is getting him or her of their asses?
    Feeling drives everyone to action. There's no logical reason to do anything but sit in one place and do nothing until you die of dehydration.

    I seem to be getting nearer and nearer to saying Thinking and Feeling are abstractions that don't make complete sense conceived as discrete processes.
    Why not? All of this is the explanation of psychological systems, not neurological. We deal with the behavior we can observe, and it's not as if we're comparing Functional MRIs of "thinkers" and "feelers." Though it's not a bad idea, now that I think of it, today it is indeed abstract.


    Wouldn't it be ironic if the famous INTJ caveat, I'm only interested in what I'm interested in, is not a product of cold and impersonal logic, but that interest is prompted by Feeling. Actually, I think that this is so.
    It is.

    And probably, if I may wildly extend this intuition... INFJs are interested in what they're interested in not totally just from warm fuzzies, but from concern over what's true too (hence the famous harshness, perhaps.)

    If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.
    Pure intuition you mean? (You probably don't, but I call INTPs Intuition/Thinking and INTJs Thinking/Intuition.)

  5. #125
    Senior Member Wild horses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,917

    Default

    In response to original OP; I absolutely agree! I have always felt that T and F are not clearly definied boxes to put people into. It also needs to be said that if someone employs a 'me-first- attitude in their decision making they are in fact being illogical. If someone is going to look after their selves and not others that person better start learning the art of self-sufficiency because if they do not then by not taking care of others they are in fact not taking care of themselves.

    Take alturism out of the equation and look at everything in the universe as made up of tiny models of something bigger. If we think of the word 'body' it can mean our own physical selves but it can also mean something bigger, a group of people. Now as you would not neglect one part of your body and expect every other part to function optimally what would lead one to believe you can do that with the macro model of a body either. In a company if the floor workers are not working at their best then the mangement certainly will not prosper. Even the planets rely upon one another. It is madness not to care for others!
    ... couldn't drag me away

    eljko Ranatovic: argus
    eljko Ranatovic: do you want heir's?
    WildHorses: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    eljko Ranatovic: to carry your genealogical code??

  6. #126
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.
    Pure intuition you mean? (You probably don't, but I call INTPs Intuition/Thinking and INTJs Thinking/Intuition.
    D'y'know, it's not until I try writing things down that I realise how often I speak/write inaccurately. No, I meant pure Thinking and pure Feeling. Thinking just of those two, and using the conventional model of function order, the influence of Thinking/Feeling on its opposite number is, or hypothetically is, lesser in INXPs (and in ENXJs) than in INXJs.

    A novelty observation, perhaps. And perhaps wrong. Dunno.

  7. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    I've thought on and off about the dichotomy between thinking and feeling for about five years now. My ideas on it have evolved over the years. Initially, I thought the thinking-feeling dichotomy was a good way to compartmentalize the way decisions are oriented by different people. Then, for a period of time I came to the conclusion that it's possible for there to be no dichotomy between thoughts and feelings--that a person could fall in love with an idea. More recently, a few ideas have emerged. First, that this "thinking-feeling" binary distinction is based on a gross oversimplification about the way people make decisions. Even the horribly stupid questions on the Myers-Briggs test like "do you make decisions with your head or heart?" is based on a fictitious dichotomy. No one makes decisions with their heart, all decisions stem from the brain. There are those who take others into consideration and there are those who consider only themselves. But to call those who consider others feelers and those who consider themselves logical is an invalid inference. Logic is only a system invented by and used for humans. If a basic assumption is that humans ought to pursue their own self-interest and maximize utility, as Adam Smith posits, then a person's logic should be oriented toward the self. If however we hold the basic assumption that decisions should be oriented around the self and the group (as John Nash posits) than the logic we employ will reflect this end goal which differs from Smith's.

    Then we get into the "why" of how logic came to be annexed with self-interest. And I'd argue it has evolved this way primarily due to the influence of the wealthy class. In this sense, the wealthy have brainwashed society into believing that the "Right" is logical and anyone who is on the progressive "Left" who's actually trying to put a little more food on the table or raise the minimum wage must be an illogical feeling type. Such fictitious lies don't square well with economic and social realities, and I am here to expose this myth.

    Thoughts?
    My thoughts?

    I stopped reading after you took "do you make decisions with your head or heart?" literally.

    Thats my logic, and no I won't soften the blow to your feelings.

  8. #128
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Thoughts?
    I've been thinking the same thing actually. See SolitaryWalker (Bluewings) post:

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...722-100-f.html

    This is full on implicit emotion. But is emotion the same as feeling? I score pretty high on the Thinking scale, but would never say I am devoid of feeling. I read in some book or another that feelings as physical manifestations of emotions--sounds reasonable to me.

  9. #129
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Your failure to carefully apply language is most probably the result of very low Thinking skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poriferan
    adjective-
    1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
    2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
    3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
    4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
    5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
    6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
    Well, that was pretty vague. Let's look at some of the words that keep coming up in those definitions.

    [Reason]
    noun
    1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
    2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
    3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
    4. sound judgment; good sense.
    5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
    Well by these definitions feeling could be rational, but then it still doesn't elevate feeling in terms of making good decisions.

    All it does is to open up the word rational.
    That is, me being wrong doesn't change the essence of Feeling.
    All it does it to allow Feelers to be allowed in the proverbial 'cool kids' circle.

    Everyone wants to be rational: most people aren't. It's too bad we keep changing the language to solve problems 'cause language doesn't even exist.
    All we do when we change the language is to ignore a problem/advantage.

    And you're giving it to them! You're defending the Fs (as if it were really even an attack...) -- much like an F would: By finding the definitions you like instead of finding the one that most appropriately conveys the message.
    Changing the contents of the capsule -- but not the capsule itself.
    If you do that in medicine, it's called malpractice, and people die.

    I have an idea!! Why don't we have every word mean everything??!!??
    Panacea all around!
    Nevermind that no one will have any idea what anyone else is thinking!!! Nevermind lasting side effects!!!
    It'll be so great!!

    Exactly what is the point of slamming my post? Other than that you like to (think that you) make me look stupid (even though you haven't really...), I can't really see what progress is made.

    Seems counter-operative to your claimed M.O. You're the one who's all about productivity, and ceaselessly complain about my lack of it -- which by the way is another worthless claim, by the way, since I've never lied regarding typology.

    I think you just had a pimple on your asshole the same day I insulted you, and, like an ape, blamed me for the pain.
    Now every time you see my name, it reminds you of it and you just rage all day for the rest of the day.

    Well I have to apologize for my bad timing, but you ought to at least apologize for irrationally for calling me a pain in the ass as it really wasn't my fault.

    Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings for me, my post actually has some relevance -- I suggest you give it a genuine look over and thinking to yourself "Oh this guy is an idiot!" after reading my post, instead of doing it beforehand, because I have [i]reason[/b] to suspect that these feelings affect your rationality, by improperly focusing your attention.
    we fukin won boys

  10. #130
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    As an example, introverted feeling creates a system of values, constantly checks and rearranges the values trying to make there definitions tighter and clearer. It then analyzes any incoming data against that system of values in order to make a decision on how to act. It even supposedly creates these values through an interpretation of what will make you happiest, using primordial images, instincts, archetypes and all that. And that ability is supposedly what makes it skilled at producing "meaningful" art, essentially trying to translate them in a way other people will understand.

    That is as rational as any other J function. You could probably solve a quadratic equation using that alone, though S and T functions are more efficent at that.

    Fi is subjective because it's only present within the person, not the environment. Te and Fe on the other hand, are both concerned with data that is present only in the enviroment thus inter-subjective and thus more objective.

    There's no clear empirical data backing any of this up, as with all Jung and MB's work.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F and T does seem like a false dichotomy, as schizophrenic patients seem to gain their symptoms from having blunted emotions. They lose motivation and clear logical thinking because of this. So it would seem emotions cause the motivation to be logical and the ability to be logical. More and more studies are pointing towards this theory. This essentially destroys the main distinction between F and T functions.

    All the functions of Feeling, Intuition, Sensing and Thinking require logic for there actions to be possible. Why Thinking would favour logic any more than the other functions who require it equally makes little sense.

    Thus I agree that F and T is likely a false dichotomy. Unless they have little relation to logic and emotions, leaving nothing but a shared name.

    EDIT: I just skim read Jung's descriptions, and surprise surprise he mentions logic once in reference to extraverted thinking, as a common factor of it. He mentions emotions once in reference to introverted feeling, but only to say Fi rarely responds to other people's emotions.

    So it would seem Jung played little part in linking emotions and logic to T and F.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Adam-12: GREAT Display Of Thinking Vs. Feeling
    By LauraIngallsWalton in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 04:19 AM
  2. Thinking vs Feeling
    By Eastwood in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Thinking vs Feeling
    By Doomkid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 06:49 AM
  4. Thinking Vs Feeling
    By oxymoron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
  5. Thinking vs. Feeling: What if...
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 11:43 AM

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