[MBTI General] What do you truly think about feelers ?

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

I have mixed feelings about F's, probably because no one is the same, they're all different.

Some of them I can have a great time with, like my sisters for instance. There are some though that I seem to constantly clash with, but I'm not sure if its 'F' related or just 'asshole' related.

I do find though that the people I do clash with (there aren't many, I'm pretty easy going) are most often F's and not T's.

 

[marmandahalf]

well of course, behavioristic reinforcement is partially linked with the pleasure centers, and pleasure is rooted in things that help us survive, so, in general terms eating, having sex and problem solving.
When i say problem solving I mean whatever gives us the means to get ressources (as evolution is all about differencial access to ressources).

But then metacognition comes in, and we draw pleasure from concepts. This ability to conceptualise is directly related to our success as a species (let's not get into defining success ).

where was i?
Yeah so anyway, it then all depends on how horizontal or vertical your prefered neural\information pathways are. [right\left cortex chatter via corpus callosum in relation to each brain's vertical cortex\limbic ]
I'm simplifying as always, it's about ratios and the order of passage of informations etc...but I lack information and I'm too lazy to go on

Psych nerds ftw. We should be friends.

 

[EcK]

Psych nerds ftw. We should be friends.

I'm not a psychology nerd, or a nerd at all.

 

[Lasting_Pain]

They are so fluffy and cute. If you poke them, emotional goo comes out. I keep a few in my closet for comic relief.

 

[Cenomite]

A recent conversation with my ESFP sister:

Me: [stubbed my toe] Goddammit!
Her: You shouldn't say that...
Me: Why not?
Her: Because you just shouldn't.
Me: You haven't given me a reason.
Her: Just don't. You don't know what will happen.
Me: What do you mean "what will happen?" Do you mean to say that something bad will happen to me if I say it? That God will punish me?
Her: I'm just saying that you don't know in what ways God may be protecting you. So don't say it.
Me: So God will punish me by ceasing to protect me if I say "goddammit?"
Her: No, not punishing, just removing protection. God doesn't punish people like that.
Me: But that *is* a form of punishment. Do not parents often punish their children by removing their privileges?
Her: I know what you're doing. You just want to be rebellious. What have you ever suffered at the hands of Christians to make you so bitter?
Me: Huh? What does that have to do with the conversation?
Her: Because you just think that you're so smart and that you know everything. You don't know everything, so you shouldn't take risks by taking His name in vain. You're just being a pseudo-intellectual.
Me: I quit.
Her: That's because you have no point [insert exasperated half-laugh].

I don't think that this is necessarily typical of all Feelers, but it's what annoys me most about the ones that I've encountered. Also the constant vigilance that you need to practice in order not to hurt their feelings is annoying. Even with the healthy ones, their powers of interpretation tend to work on overdrive when it comes to discerning whether or not something said or done was meant as a personal insult.

I can REALLY relate to this, I've had many conversations that went exactly like it.

The ending of that conversation inparticular is familiar to me. I always say "I'm done" or something like that because the conversation is stupid, and they take it as a sign of victory and keep doing what they're doing.

I also hate having to practice emotional vigilance to make sure I don't hurt them. I have to do this with pretty much every obviously-F friend I have. I've gotten the silent treatment thrown at me for things I didn't even know I did / didn't mean to do, or other random passive-aggressive acts.

I usually can't fully be myself around big F types, because they end up taking my brand of humor personally and get hurt.

I have one friend that I actually need to emotionally-baby in social gatherings, or he gets depressed on me for a week after (ie: making sure I throw some comments directly to him, not being too harsh with joking around with him like I am with my other friends, keep him included, etc).

 

[Aleph-One]

I'm not a psychology nerd, or a nerd at all.

My guess is that there are as many reputable psychologists in this forum as there are reputable biologists in a young-earth creationist forum.

 

[marmandahalf]

My guess is that there are as many reputable psychologists in this forum as there are reputable biologists in a young-earth creationist forum.

I'll be a reputable psychologist...eventually...*sniff*

 

[Galusha]

from "why do NFs think they understand NTs?" in the NF forum:

I guess the theory is that since NTs are emotionally handicapped, NFs are able to empathize and understand our feelings better than we can understand them ourselves.

what's not to hate? thinking we're emotionally crippled for having some restraint or the superior, "you poor thing, you just can't understand" attitude?

though once they get over these, I really don't have much of a problem with them. that's not true. but I can deal with it without getting too irritated to finish a conversation.

seeing them use logic is like watching a cat playing with legos. that's always fun. especially if they build something out of it.

 

[EcK]

My guess is that there are as many reputable psychologists in this forum as there are reputable biologists in a young-earth creationist forum.

Yup, that's for sure. but then again define a good psychologist, psychology's "hardly a hard science" if it's not mixed together with biology\physics.

Interpretation of empirical results based on highly socialy relative data isn't really science enough to be (post)modern science.

So yeah we can observe behavior, but then it's not psych-ology, it's behavior-ism\ology.

Then we can observe the brain and link it to behaviors but that's not really what psychology does most of the time.
We can hardly, at the present time, point to a physical data patern in the brain and say 'that's the general concept of apple, and it can link itself to this that and that other process in this, that and that way'.

For now on, we don't have enough data. So psychology's a broken science, using very incomplete data and saving too much computations, rounding up the maths too much to be called exact or even acceptable.
At the present time we're far, far, far from having the computation power to simulate a human brain or even more than a few neurons at the atomic and subatomic scale.
We do not have the knowledge to model a brain either.


But at the moment what I notice is that you, Aleph, tend to comment negatively on things without ever giving even one word that could make one think you're actually in a position to pass judgement on others, that you do have an understanding of things and do not confuse bookish knowledge with actual knowledge. Everybody can be a parrot, but parrots never changed the world, well, except they've made pirate movies really cool.


I mean, when I comment, I rarely say everything that's on my mind, with all the details, because it would just be too long and i'm a geniunely lazy person. In fact I don't really give a damn about most people here because I do not consider this forum to be enough of a real place for me to really implicate myself.
Then there's the fact that in alot of fields I just lack data and cannot hope to construct a working model+ That I too consider most of the talks here to be simply idiotic and not worth wasting my time explaining things, but I do not barge in and call them stupid either. If I'm too lazy to get into a conversation then I also have to accept giving up the pleasure of crushing people's egos.

So, please, give us your opinion or i'll end up believing you're one more bore confusing social displays of pseudo intellectual superiority with actual intellectual or\and personnal worth.

Go on, don't be shy
btw, i did like ur joke (and doctor who), don't take me wrong.

 

[Aleph-One]

Provisionally ignoring the total irrelevance of your personal opinion on the state of psychology, it's worth pointing out that whether or not psychology has an "atomic" or "subatomic" model of the brain is an extremely poor gauge of that state. The processes of the brain are a thousand times too large and ten orders of magnitude too slow to be modeled by that kind of physics. I wonder why you would bring it up, since it is not merely an irrelevant requirement, but an unachievable one as well.

Details aside, if your intent was to suggest that psychology can't be a science because it does not have a complete model, then not a single one of our so-called sciences is a science either. And we certainly don't need a complete theory of the brain to call a bogus psychometric "bogus" -- typology fails on its own merits.

I am not, in any case, going to run through the reasons that I think this, there are already several posts in this forum and papers elsewhere which are readily available, and it isn't a good use of my time to regurgitate them here.

There is also no reason to resort to personal musing when we can make an evidential case. I have no need to defend my position that reputable psychologists do not make a habit of posting here on any grounds other than the fact that there do not seem to be any reputable psychologists posting here.

Do you ask someone to justify his reasoning when he says the sky is not pink? No. It's easily settled by direct observation.

 

[Salomé]

A recent conversation with my ESFP sister:

Me: [stubbed my toe] Goddammit!
Her: You shouldn't say that...
Me: Why not?
Her: Because you just shouldn't.
Me: You haven't given me a reason.
Her: Just don't. You don't know what will happen.
Me: What do you mean "what will happen?" Do you mean to say that something bad will happen to me if I say it? That God will punish me?
Her: I'm just saying that you don't know in what ways God may be protecting you. So don't say it.
Me: So God will punish me by ceasing to protect me if I say "goddammit?"
Her: No, not punishing, just removing protection. God doesn't punish people like that.
Me: But that *is* a form of punishment. Do not parents often punish their children by removing their privileges?
Her: I know what you're doing. You just want to be rebellious. What have you ever suffered at the hands of Christians to make you so bitter?
Me: Huh? What does that have to do with the conversation?
Her: Because you just think that you're so smart and that you know everything. You don't know everything, so you shouldn't take risks by taking His name in vain. You're just being a pseudo-intellectual.
Me: I quit.
Her: That's because you have no point [insert exasperated half-laugh].

I don't think that this is necessarily typical of all Feelers, but it's what annoys me most about the ones that I've encountered. Also the constant vigilance that you need to practice in order not to hurt their feelings is annoying. Even with the healthy ones, their powers of interpretation tend to work on overdrive when it comes to discerning whether or not something said or done was meant as a personal insult.

LOL. I've so had that conversation!
Although the SF exasperation usually ends up in tears in my case. And I'm like WTF just happened here?

 

[EcK]

Ah he caught the bait. Sweet

Provisionally ignoring the total irrelevance of your personal opinion on the state of psychology, it's worth pointing out that whether or not psychology has an "atomic" or "subatomic" model of the brain is an extremely poor gauge of that state.

ow, do you mean that the brain and the rest of the universe are in another realm and that physical laws don't apply to it because it's 'too complicated'?
Meet Descartes, you two should be great buddies.
I'd like to point out that this flavor or (bad) logics is basically the main argument of young earth creationists, that the metaphysical and the physical are just on other planes, and that while the metaphysical God is supposed to have created and rule\influence the universe it's irrelevant to use our empirical science to judge statements on said deity.

Details aside, if your intent was to suggest that psychology can't be a science because it does not have a complete model, then not a single one of our so-called sciences is a science either. And we certainly don't need a complete theory of the brain to call a bogus psychometric "bogus" -- typology fails on its own merits.

Well of course, science is never exact, I merely stated that most of psychology's methodology is just too culturaly relative to satisfy our own standards.
Ultimately, by the way, you do need a complete theory of the brain, and by our own 21st century standarts anything else is bound to be unsatisfying. We wouldn't be researching the brain and neural networks if we were satisfied by our current models, they are forced upon us and often lead to or come from quasi mystical ideas and our tendency to categorize the world into categories of things when we obviously lack knowledge to make such statements.
We label the unknown on a scale going from general concepts and mental objects to notions of a creator god.

Do you ask someone to justify his reasoning when he says the sky is not pink? No. It's easily settled by direct observation.

Actually I would, and do.

And I did mention the word empirical, which implies I don't believe any science can be exact or based on some kind of truth.
And I never openly supported typology, so i don't even see why u'd bring it up.

Ur just defending yourself by getting all legal on me,
been there, done that.


What you're doing is like reading a legal document and saying 'this is a legal document', then considering you just won the case or something.


You're being all passive aggressive on everybody, then state u don't like passive aggressive people (on another thread).
If 'attacked' you just throw legal talk on people.
It's just that I haven't seen you expressing any opinion in a way that could leave you open to any sort of criticism, ever.

It's like poking a turtle that confuses its shell with the universe

 

[Aleph-One]

I don't believe you read my post carefully. Please try again, and then write a coherent response.

 

[EcK]

I don't believe you read my post carefully. Please try again, and then write a coherent response.

I did leave openings in what I said so U'd take a risk and actually argue, but you didn't.
Thanks for confirming what I just said.

been a pleasure.

Turtle!

 

[paintmuffin]

They're worth being around because they're really fun. But really, long conversations with them can be a bit much. They don't often talk about interesting things. Well, no, there are exceptions. I can get very into a conversation with an ISFP, for instance, even though they usually don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Zoom]

I think diagramming people based on what you think they are (type-wise) generally doesn't lend well to actual interaction.

As for the people we're speaking of, my thoughts are the same as with all others: as long as they are not a nitwit, self-centered or purposefully ignorant, I try to meet them halfway... and if they don't do the same it can't work. It doesn't really matter if they are a F or T on the scale we sometimes use too much.

However, people more focussed on feeling do tend to remind me that it's okay to be emotive and experience that a bit more often, which is pleasant. I try to remind them that sometimes, thoughtful action is really necessary to complete the experience of life, and wallowing in any negative emotion simply burns further and further into one's soul.

 

[cheerful-pessimist]

Most of my really good friends are F types. Maybe even all of them. :/
I like Fs because they're more spontaneous in a way. Also, although my emotions are mild and I rationalize them often, I find F's free emotions to be contagious. When one of my F friends get excited or melancholy, it brings out the emotional side in me too, and I consider that an interesting part of life.
While I like F emotional moments occasionally, I don't like it when they're too sappy or emotionally philosophical. I also don't like how many of my F friends have highs and lows where their self-confidence fluctuates. It bothers me to have to reassure them all the time.
However, I lean very heavily towards my F side. The only time I've actually tested T, it was only by 1%, even though there's no doubt that I'm ENTJ. That may be why I get along with them so well.

 

[Cady]

I tend to get along well with F's assuming they're guys. Girl F's though?

**runs far far away**

I think it's because guys my age, regardless of type, tend to be less inclined to share their feelings, which works out just fine for me. I tolerate their very mild Fness and they tolerate my random theoretical tangents. One of my best friends for example, is an ENFP, and we both like shaking things up, value uniqueness, and enjoy discussion. When he does bring up his feelings he does it in a way that let's me respond with thought instead of with feelings of my own.

Eg.

Him: I feel awkward around those people.

Me: I wonder if awkwardness serves some sort of evolutionary purpose?

NF girls are generally far too extroverted-feeling for me though, I have trouble with group mentalities, community values, and generally trusting NF's conclusions. ENFJ girls I've been friends with tend to get frustrated or find me boring when I respond to their feelings with thoughts. Most of the time we both end up very tired of each other.

They also seem to be more spiritual? Something I have a huge problem trying to accept let alone relate too.

My mom's an NF and she get's upset a lot because whenever I try to discuss an idea with her, or debate, she believes I'm angry with her, or attacking her when really some part of the conversation has caught my interest and I want to explore it.

 

[Son of the Damned]

I find Feelers to be extremely interesting. They're emotional investment in their lives and the expression there of is both refreshing and strange. I tend to keep my emotions in check, but most things don't stimulate a response.

my only problem with F-types is that I can hurt their feelings quite easily and not be aware of it. but, that's my problem, not theirs.

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

I like feelers. They take me to a place I don't usually venture. Always an exciting phenomenon.