[MBTI General] Thinking vs Feeling...a false dichotomy?

[Moiety]

I think all four MBTI dichotomies are false. The are just a filter we use to catalog brain activity. We are simple creatures so we like to think in simple terms. Black and white. Yin and Yang. Doesn't mean that's how the world actually works though. And it doesn't mean that these dichotomies are devoid of merit. They simply aren't perfect.

 

[Poki]

I think all four MBTI dichotomies are false. The are just a filter we use to catalog brain activity. We are simple creatures so we like to think in simple terms. Black and white. Yin and Yang. Doesn't mean that's how the world actually works though. And it doesn't mean that these dichotomies are devoid of merit. They simply aren't perfect.

In regards to T and F. If you use F more you "prefer F" or if you use T more you "prefer T". A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts(wiki definition). At 50%F and 50%T you can word it as either prefer F and prefer T or prefer neither since they are equal. Either way the whole cannot be split into two non overlapping parts. Wording it one way causes overlap and wording the other way requires a third category which is neither.

 

[Jack Flak]

In regards to T and F. If you use F more you "prefer F" or if you use T more you "prefer T". A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts(wiki definition). At 50%F and 50%T you can word it as either prefer F and prefer T or prefer neither since they are equal. Either way the whole cannot be split into two non overlapping parts. Wording it one way causes overlap and wording the other way requires a third category which is neither.

Via induction, that is, every case so far observed has remained consistent, I can say with relative certainty that either T or F has dominance in everyone. They never coexist in equal strength, because they compete.

 

[Moiety]

In regards to T and F. If you use F more you "prefer F" or if you use T more you "prefer T". A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts(wiki definition). At 50%F and 50%T you can word it as either prefer F and prefer T or prefer neither since they are equal. Either way the whole cannot be split into two non overlapping parts. Wording it one way causes overlap and wording the other way requires a third category which is neither.

I'm not sure I follow.

I think F and T are overlapping parts. Furthermore, some concepts attributed to either side could probably warrant names of their own.

I don't think there are only two discernible decision making forces. I think there are more. We just chose to put them in only two bags but there are enough objects to create even more bags.

 

[Poki]

Via induction, that is, every case so far observed has remained consistent, I can say with relative certainty that either T or F has dominance in everyone. They never coexist in equal strength, because they compete.

Relative to what, the people you have observed? How many people have you observed? How many people are in this world. You know what your count is wrong, cuz someone was just born between when you looked it up and you spoke. Sorry for the longest time there was matter, then someone found antimatter. Out of all the matter in this world there is very little antimatter, does that mean it doesnt exist until you find it?

 

[BlackCat]

I think my F and T are fairly balanced. I am driven by what I think is right, but that is to an extent. These inner values are also governed by logic, it's not all plush in my mind. I think that's why the INXP debate goes on. Both INFPs and INTPs are driven by logic, if an INFP just went by how s/he felt then they would be a pretty unhealthy person.

It's hard to distinguish the two. The two types are driven by what makes sense to them (which is what you see on the outside), with INTPs it is their gained knowledge about what they are deciding about, and with INFPs it is about how "good" it feels to them (with reasoning applied).

By the way... If my logic about INTPs is flawed feel free to tell me.

 

[Poki]

I'm not sure I follow.

I think F and T are overlapping parts. Furthermore, some concepts attributed to either side could probably warrant names of their own.

I don't think there are only two discernible decision making forces. I think there are more. We just chose to put them in only two bags but there are enough objects to create even more bags.

Yes F and T overlap in the real world, but in regards to typing being T does not mean you dont use F. It just means you use T more than F or prefer F. So the 2 categories are not T and F. The categories are "Prefer T" or "Prefer F".

What other forces or categories?

 

[Jack Flak]

Relative to what, the people you have observed? How many people have you observed? How many people are in this world. You know what your count is wrong, cuz someone was just born between when you looked it up and you spoke. Sorry for the longest time there was matter, then someone found antimatter. Out of all the matter in this world there is very little antimatter, does that mean it doesnt exist until you find it?

If I've observed 5,000 people, and all prefer either F or T, I have myself a f'n theory, and it's scientifically sound.

 

[Moiety]

Yes F and T overlap in the real world, but in regards to typing being T does not mean you dont use F. It just means you use T more than F or prefer F. So the 2 categories are not T and F. The categories are "Prefer T" or "Prefer F".

Yes, I'm aware of that. I think they are false in the sense that a DI(2)chotomy isn't completely accurate.

What other forces or categories?

I don't know. I'm just convinced there are more because our knowledge of how our brain works is limited and dichotomies are based on arbitrary criteria.

This is probably a bad example but hopefully it will get my point across : let's talk about colors. There are numerous colors. You can choose to look at them as "Warm"/"Cool". That's an arbitrary dichotomy though since it's based on arbitrary criteria. You no longer care what the color is, only if it's "Warm" or "Cold".

That's how I think T vs F works. Thinking is a complex process made of different sub-processes. Ditto for Feeling. Doesn't mean there isn't a different filter with which to catalog the brain processes. It's just an arbitrary spectrum.

 

[Nocapszy]

I think its a false dichotomy. Our brain works in parallel therefore we can think and feel at the same time.

Despite whatever pseudo-science magazine told you so, your brain can't have two conscious streams of thought at the same time even though it works 'in parallel'.
Both Thinking and Feeling can only exist in the conscious realm of thought (otherwise they're perception functions, or un-documented... either way, it won't make it to your conscious stream without a perception function; this is probably where intuition lives).

Ergo, if you're using Thinking, you're not using Feeling and if you're using Feeling, you're not using Thinking. It's got to be one or the other, even if that means switching back and forth at an incredibly high rate, and having the end decision a composite of several smaller decisions.

I'll give you an example:
I used to roller-blade a lot. I would force myself to move my body as efficiently as possible (T) but I chose where to go on the track based on what part of the course I like best (F). But sometimes I would have to use T, because I knew even though I might like that part of the course, I hadn't learned to maneuver myself the right way to effectively use that part of the course.
So my runs were composed of both T and F, but they never happened both at once. In my example, Thinking rejected one of Feeling's decisions. But they didn't work all at the same time. If they did, I'd probably crash knowing full well I was going to.
Anyway, once I decided where to go with F, T took back the reigns and enforced the precise movements I'd trained.

 

[Moiety]

your brain can't have two conscious streams of thought at the same time

How can you quantify or qualify a conscious stream of thought?

And you haven't said anything that proves that Thinking and Feeling are different functions. Who said the brain isn't using F power when solving a puzzle? Who said you don't use T power when choosing what fruit to eat?

And where does instinct fit in, in this discussion?Memories? Only there are short term and long term memories.Do they use different functions?etc

 

[Ardea]

Who said the brain isn't using F power when solving a puzzle?

From what I understand, Fi can be used to "add a bit more spice to a recipe". Take that and run with it.

 

[Moiety]

From what I understand, Fi can be used to "add a bit more spice to a recipe". Take that and run with it.

lol
Martha Stewart understands!

 

[Blackwater]

Hi Evan, I like the post that I'm quoting below. Though I'd like to challenge some points and see what comes up, I hope its okay?

if you're an Ni dominant, there are two choices for MBTI type: INTJ and INFJ. You are INTJ if you use Te/Fi and INFJ if you use Fe/Ti. But what if you're an Ni dominant that uses Fe/Ti but prefers Ti to Fe? You can't call yourself INTJ because the functions don't match. But INFJ implies that you use Fe more than Ti. Neither type is a particularly good description of your function usage.

Indeed this was an open question in Jungian theory before it was quantified into MBTI. - MBTI, however, were right in assuming that for most INFJs Fe supercedes Ti. - Though you could put at least two different spins on it:

1: There are INFJs who really do use Ti more than Fe. Examples of these would include Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer or Plato (for those who believe that these were likely INFJs). - (Likewise, from this perspective Ayn Rand might be said to be close to be Ni/Fi.)

2: Another perspective would be, that indeed, MBTI really did nail all people when they made the types. This is not as unlikely as it sounds. - From this perspective we see that Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Plato are indeed using a very well developed form of Ni/Ti in their reasonings, but yet they still yield to that F-fingerprint of an INFJ type. To put it bluntly: Wittgensteing being in love with reason gives him away as someone who uses, or at least, is naturally disposed to use, F rather than T.
Schopenhauer is an exception, but Wittgenstein and Plato give thenselves away as F-ish-types in their philosophies, even though those philosophies do not rely on F arguments they end up relying on ideals, that have certain trinklish flavour to them. - When Plato says that the ruling elite should live in poverty and that they won't mind because of their virtue, this is a form of idealism that sets him apart from typical NTs who are pragmatic rather than idealistic.
In my personal life I know several INFJs who believe themselves to be INTs. The above mentioned inclanation towards idealism and enthusiam gives them away though

EDIT: Oh yes, and similarily, you could also say that the very notion of wanting to defy the established function orders on extraordinary grounds attests to a certain idealism in itself

Though I don't understand how you arrive at this:

Thinking/Feeling is certainly a false dichotomy.

I mean, its as false as any other intellectual dichotomy, but not more so than that?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Despite whatever pseudo-science magazine told you so, your brain can't have two conscious streams of thought at the same time even though it works 'in parallel'.
Both Thinking and Feeling can only exist in the conscious realm of thought (otherwise they're perception functions, or un-documented... either way, it won't make it to your conscious stream without a perception function; this is probably where intuition lives).

Ergo, if you're using Thinking, you're not using Feeling and if you're using Feeling, you're not using Thinking. It's got to be one or the other, even if that means switching back and forth at an incredibly high rate, and having the end decision a composite of several smaller decisions.

When it gets to the bottom of it, this doesn't actually explain why the two can't happen at the same time. So you can only have one stream of conscious, and and Thinking and Feeling are both conscious, but this does not describe why one stream of conscious cannot qualitatively be Thinking and Feeling at the same time. Even the exmaple doesn't explain why, it just describes the apparent process, supposing that the statement is true.

And of course, that is only concerning the conscious, but I doubt humans aren't making some value judgement at a sub-conscious level. I think it would be difficult to coordinate if people really good only act on what either Thinking or Feeling was processing at a given moment.

In my own thought processes, it seems that even if I am focusing on the work mostly handled by Thinking or Feeling, the focus is still in some sense framed by the other function. One function keeps the other in place. Is this just an extremely rapid alternation of functions? Even if it is, it leads into this question:

How can you quantify or qualify a conscious stream of thought?

Most of this won't make any sense until it is explained exactly what one stream of thought is. To me, a stream seems to imply a flowing series of something. That is why I tend to think of rapid alternation between Thinking as Feeling as being a singular stream of though unto itself. That one split moment of checking something with T doesn't seem to qualify as a stream in its own right.

And you haven't said anything that proves that Thinking and Feeling are different functions. Who said the brain isn't using F power when solving a puzzle? Who said you don't use T power when choosing what fruit to eat?

And where does instinct fit in, in this discussion?Memories? Only there are short term and long term memories.Do they use different functions?etc

Interesting questions.

You know what? I'd like to throw this forum at Steven Pinker and George Lakoff, and see what they make of most of the crap that's asserted at this place.

 

[redacted]

Indeed this was an open question in Jungian theory before it was quantified into MBTI. - MBTI, however, were right in assuming that for most INFJs Fe supercedes Ti. - Though you could put at least two different spins on it:

1: There are INFJs who really do use Ti more than Fe. Examples of these would include Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer or Plato (for those who believe that these were likely INFJs). - (Likewise, from this perspective Ayn Rand might be said to be close to be Ni/Fi.)

2: Another perspective would be, that indeed, MBTI really did nail all people when they made the types. This is not as unlikely as it sounds. - From this perspective we see that Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Plato are indeed using a very well developed form of Ni/Ti in their reasonings, but yet they still yield to that F-fingerprint of an INFJ type. To put it bluntly: Wittgensteing being in love with reason gives him away as someone who uses, or at least, is naturally disposed to use, F rather than T.

I don't really see these options as much different. Even INFJs that use Ti more than Fe still use Fe more than any extroverted function -- which means they have to translate Ni/Ti thoughts through Fe language.

I see your point about being in love with reason, though -- that certainly describes me.

Schopenhauer is an exception, but Wittgenstein and Plato give thenselves away as F-ish-types in their philosophies, even though those philosophies do not rely on F arguments they end up relying on ideals, that have certain trinklish flavour to them. - When Plato says that the ruling elite should live in poverty and that they won't mind because of their virtue, this is a form of idealism that sets him apart from typical NTs who are pragmatic rather than idealistic.

I dunno...to say that NTs are not idealistic...I agree that on average NTs are less idealistic than NFs, but Ni/Ti INFJs shouldn't be more idealistic than an INTJ for example.

In my personal life I know several INFJs who believe themselves to be INTs. The above mentioned inclanation towards idealism and enthusiam gives them away though

Yeah...I don't really agree with this point. Or at least I don't think it applies to me, but then again, I don't have a very objective view.

EDIT: Oh yes, and similarily, you could also say that the very notion of wanting to defy the established function orders on extraordinary grounds attests to a certain idealism in itself

I defy the function order because a) it doesn't make sense and b) I've seen counterexamples.

Confirmation bias? :rolli:

Though I don't understand how you arrive at this:

I mean, its as false as any other intellectual dichotomy, but not more so than that?

It's false in that I'm an F in type code, but I use Thinking more than Feeling. T vs. F does not capture what it's meant to, for me and others I've observed. And it's not like if you Feel more, you Think less or vice versa.

For example, my ENTP ex would be considered a very strong T, but I think we use Ti about exactly as much as each other. But I use Fe more than she does. So even though my Thinking is as strong as hers, she's considered more of a Thinker.

I just don't think it captures enough information, and makes it easy for people to draw false conclusions.

I guess this is true with a lot of intellectual dichotomies, but this one seems particularly bad.

 

[lookoutbelow84093]

Ive thought a lot about this as well. I read a book a while back which explained these types of things in terms of neurotransmitters, and your affinity for them. Such as an I might be more sensitive to norepinephrine (dont remember which one is which) than an E. This means that the I would be less likely to find activities which produce high levels of this stimulating, but instead overwhelming. I could see how this would work with feeling as well. Feeling function also had one of these where they were more sensitive to that neurotransmitter. In the end I think this would mean that the things which motivate a feeler have more to do with novelty, newness, and intensity of the experience or idea than maybe a thinker would. I dont necessarily think it has to do always with emotion necessarily.

 

[Xander]

Are there any TRUE dichotomies in the MBTI? I think not. Not if the definition is taken literally.

Me thinks too many people want to be right and not enough want to understand though....

 

[BlueScreen]

I've been thinking for some time that the fact they called it "Thinking" causes this line to be drawn that isn't there. Almost all Dominant Intuitives I know also do extremely well in their work. My friend who is an INFJ always does well at things. Changes areas and picks new things up very quickly. And I got close to perfect scores for 3 maths subjects in my final year of school without studying (argh! F makes this thinking and logic so confusing... hehe).

It is bad because I often see INTPs as slow because I have to wait for them to get a bit of paper to draw the whole problem on it before they agree with me on the answer. And I noticed I'm way more purist when it comes to theory than a lot at university. As a characteristic of being ENFP, I rarely trust another's work or accept it as a solid part of the system if I can't verify it. And I re-derive everything. Like knowing how to build it from the ground up goes into memory normally, rather than anything rote learned.

In this whole thinking-feeling war, all of this is missed. Dom Ne will always be a killer at systems because their whole world, cognition, understanding, works based on them. Nothing is allowed to be isolated. And almost every rational problem is a system. A system of logic, a system of reason, a connecting of concepts. The fact it is backed up with an F just means I go for core understanding and relevance, over logical consistency. But logical consistency is incorporated in it, if the conceptual links don't make sense there is no way they'll be accepted. Plus at the age of 27 I have tertiary developed, so I've got Ne Te. Thinking in the external world shouldn't be too hard. Not that it ever was.

 

[Blackwater]

repply for evan

I don't really see these options as much different. Even INFJs that use Ti more than Fe still use Fe more than any extroverted function

Point taken - Though what I was trying to set apart was they in one view (1) types such as Ni/Ti/Fe do exist and MBTI function hierarchies do not do such types justice. this is what you are arguing. - in another view (2) MBTI function hierarchies really *do* nail everybody; presumed Ni/Ti/Fe-types, then, are in fact INFJs repressing Fe from its "natural" position. (and they inadvertibly give themselves away when doing so.). the second view implies that Ni/Ti/Fe types are abnormal or pathological to some extrent. the first view doesn't.

Personally, I lean towards (2) but of course people should be allowed to use the system in the way it makes the best sense to them
The reason I lean towards (2) is because I have repreatedly observed INFJs in my personal life who believe themselves to be INTs when they clearly qualify as feelers in my book. but i'm talking about my own experiences. - to challenge you, personally, I'd have to meet you in RL situations involving coffee

I dunno...to say that NTs are not idealistic...I agree that on average NTs are less idealistic than NFs, but Ni/Ti INFJs shouldn't be more idealistic than an INTJ for example.

this is exactly why I presented the two views above:

if we go with view (1) then there is no reason Ni/Ti/Fe types should be more idealistic than the average NT. - Though my point was that such Ni/Ti-types often end up being very idealistisc so none the less, even though there is no good theoretical reason why they should be so. - Which speaks for the function hierarchies established by the MBTI, i.e. view (2).

I defy the function order because a) it doesn't make sense and b) I've seen counterexamples.

Confirmation bias?

Right, I know my reasoning here isn't especially NT-esque, so take it for what it is - but psychologically, I have observed how NTs, especially NTJs seem distressed when someone, or they themselves, do not fit neatly into the system. Whereas the INFJs that I know seem to revel in the fact that they somehow do not fit into the boxes. But again, I'm telling you what my Ne has observed IRL. Not who you are