• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Wanting to be both T and F, what made u decide which?

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Oh, it IS expressed or described in some way. But technically, does it have to be articulated or defined?

I place "living something out" as higher than "talking about living it out."

Analysis is always a step away from life, it's a step back. You are no longer living or Being, you are Talking About Living/Being.

That's the point here. Even if you cannot articular the differences, you don't necessarily need to be able to. Analysis is secondary to life.

Well, that's probably because you're a Perceiving type. I agree that it's necessary to live your life out, but I don't really enjoy it so much while it's happening, I get the most pleasure out of analyzing it later on. I often go into a new experience with the attitude that I'll enjoy analyzing it's meaning later. You have to understand that I think symbolically, and if it can't be articulated or defined by something, it doesn't even exist for me, in my mind. My favorite things in life are expression and conversation regarding ideas and/or feelings.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, that's probably because you're a Perceiving type. I agree that it's necessary to live your life out, but I don't really enjoy it so much while it's happening, I get the most pleasure out of analyzing it later on. I often go into a new experience with the attitude that I'll enjoy analyzing it's meaning later. You have to understand that I think symbolically, and if it can't be articulated or defined by something, it doesn't even exist for me, in my mind. My favorite things in life are expression and conversation regarding ideas and/or feelings.

Well, at one point I was where you are now.

But over time, I realized that it was better to live life than think about living. Analysis is not all it is cracked up to be. The shift happened probably in my early 30's up until now.

This is basic Zen Buddhism as well -- that the goal is to immerse oneself in the Now rather than constantly remaining detached from the stream.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
But over time, I realized that it was better to live life than think about living. Analysis is not all it is cracked up to be. The shift happened probably in my early 30's up until now.

Surely you wouldn't presume to define what is better for everyone based on your own experiences? Of course I live my life, and I enjoy some experiences. I just meant that I don't fully enjoy them until I look back on the moment. Sometimes I even later find something good to remember about a bad experience that I didn't enjoy at all during that time.
This is basic Zen Buddhism as well -- that the goal is to immerse oneself in the Now rather than constantly remaining detached from the stream.

Really? I believe it's detaching from your perception of this world, and feeling attuned to the "now" in another reality, such that time loses meaning. Perhaps some can also derive pleasure from being completely attuned to actual reality, but it may be different for everyone.

What might be enjoyable for one person might not ever be for another, especially on opposite sides of the P/J divide. I sort of dislike your subtle intimation that everyone thinks and feels the same way, and eventually enjoy/need the same sort of experiences.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Surely you wouldn't presume to define what is better for everyone based on your own experiences?

Oh, of course I would -- that's what I'm all about, isn't it? ;)

No, I'm just giving you an awareness that what you are feeling so sure about right now might not be something you feel so sure about later.

Certainly your mileage might vary, because we are different people. But you didn't even seem to be aware of the possibility. Now you are. Maybe it won't change for you. Maybe it will. Who knows? At least you won't be surprised if it does, and you'll be able to consciously consider it rather than just dismissing it if you do start to change or perhaps you won't wait so long as you might have otherwise.

Of course I live my life, and I enjoy some experiences. I just meant that I don't fully enjoy them until I look back on the moment. Sometimes I even later find something good to remember about a bad experience that I didn't enjoy at all during that time.

I end up personally averaging the two concepts: I need to live life, but part of me still is being aware of myself and understanding what has happened, so I can either model it or build upon it and discover new ideas. Perhaps ideally someone might just love being in the stream and see that as their goal; the burden of spending part of my time analyzing is a "sacrifice" I am willing to make. And I suppose that, if I enjoy it, it's not a sacrifice at all.

Really? I believe it's detaching from your perception of this world, and feeling attuned to the "now" in another reality, such that time loses meaning. Perhaps some can also derive pleasure from being completely attuned to actual reality, but it may be different for everyone.

I see that as living in the Now and detaching from one's Ego awareness, becoming one with everything.

What might be enjoyable for one person might not ever be for another, especially on opposite sides of the P/J divide. I sort of dislike your subtle intimation that everyone thinks and feels the same way, and eventually enjoy/need the same sort of experiences.

Since that wasn't what I intended, perhaps you like me better now that I have clarified. :)
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
I've always tested close to the T/F divide, the first time I took the test I tested as INTP actually. But when I read the profile I couldn't identify much with it except in parts. When I read the INFP profile otoh it was eerily accurate of my concealed self.

I attempted to de-INFP myself during my teen years, since boarding school is only slightly less hostile to INFP males than prisons. I decided that detachment was something that would make my life a hell of a lot easier, and would make me less of a target. But even then I was always aware of values first when making assessments or decisions, even when I chose to ignore them in favour of perceived logic.

Thus, for me, I think the best test of where you fall on the T/F divide is in which profile describes you best when you were around 10-15. Some things can muddy the waters I suppose, like traumatic childhoods and religion.

And yeah, F is primarily about values, not emotion.
 

Ms. M

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
80
MBTI Type
INTJ
When I first took the Myers-Briggs test in high school (over a decade ago now - eek), I was an INFJ, with the FJ slightly stronger than TP traits. It wasn't until I went to grad school and was forced to hone my analytical skills that I became a solid TJ.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,511
MBTI Type
ENTP
FWIW, booyalab, this has become my rule of thumb also.

Related rule of thumb: If in doubt (as an observer) as to whether a woman is T or a man is F, then they probably are (and their preference seems unclear due to socialization).

Yes, that could be. But speaking as a female T, I'm sure no one who knew me well would be unclear as to what my preference is. They could make the mistake if I was an acquaintance.
 

Park

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
263
MBTI Type
INTP
I think it's a shame of having to choose between T and F. Does the T side handle the emotions adequately, and is it fun and ethical? Does the F side handle thinking adequately, and is it consistent and logical?

It's not like you have to choose. All functions are just tools we use to navigate with in everyday life and many situations calls for a variety of tools. Furthermore, preference does not equal skill i.e. a person with a F preference could easily make better use of T than a person with a T preference. Ivy is a good example, she often comes though much more logicall and nuanced than many NTs because she is capable of skillfully applying a variety of functions on many issues.

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the N/F scale and what made you decide which one you are?

No, I've never been uncertain about my T preference. I took the MBTI test, looked at the result and after being explained what the various letters stood for I just thought to myself - yeah, that pin points it very well.
 
R

RDF

Guest
It's not like you have to choose. All functions are just tools we use to navigate with in everyday life and many situations calls for a variety of tools. Furthermore, preference does not equal skill i.e. a person with a F preference could easily make better use of T than a person with a T preference. Ivy is a good example, she often comes though much more logicall and nuanced than many NTs because she is capable of skillfully applying a variety of functions on many issues.

I agree. I'm a solid F by nature, and that comes through loud and clear to anyone versed in the distinction between T and F. On the other hand, I grew up in an NT-dominated household (my father is INTP), and I quickly adapted to T environments like the military and the business world. I respect and understand the rules and values of Thinking, and I know there are times when it's appropriate to put aside my personal feelings and examine things through the T prism. So I use my T "situationally."

I always took it for granted that I needed to have some T skills to get by in the world, especially as a male, and so I put in a lot of time studying logic and analysis skills from the outside. I often refer to my use of T as "faking it" in the sense of "fake it till you make it" (IOW, just keep doing it until it feels natural).

My first exposure to MBTI was when I was professionally tested on the full MBTI at my workplace when I was in my 40s. We weren't given any instructions at the start of the test or even told what the test was for. So I answered the questions in my "business mode" and I scored as an INTJ. There were 30 questions measuring T vs F, and I answered all 30 questions as T and none as F (talk about overcompensation). Of 29 questions measuring J vs P, I answered 18 as J and 11 as P.

But I consider those test results to be a "situational" application of T and J. I was just giving the testers what I thought they wanted to hear: I was showing them the way I interact at work when I'm in a no-nonsense, tough-as-nails mode. On the other hand, as soon as I did some background reading, it was quickly clear to me that I'm an INFP when I'm not specifically in my maximum "business mode." I also ran my results past other folks who are knowledgeable or certified with MBTI, and they all agree that I'm pretty obviously an INFP (but also pretty balanced when it comes to dealing with real-world issues).
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I always took it for granted that I needed to have some T skills to get by in the world, especially as a male, and so I put in a lot of time studying logic and analysis skills from the outside. I often refer to my use of T as "faking it" in the sense of "fake it till you make it" (IOW, just keep doing it until it feels natural).
Did you feel seeming as unauthentic when you used your T function? Using T is less showmanship and display than using F, in my opinion, so I wouldn't think of most people considering that an "act". Perhaps an immature or harsh T would expect flawless T-like behaviour from others, but I find such unreasonable. I understand if you didn't feel like yourself at first when using T.

People dont value emotions and feelings so much as I'd like here in Finland, which was very draining for me few years ago. I easily noticed to being taken more seriously when I toned down my F and started to extravert T, even when I was sometimes visibly annoyed for having to deal with people in such an unemotional manner. As long as I've lived in here in Finland, there has been constant whining and criticism about our national mentality, up until perhaps 3-5 years ago.

I think it was kind of sadistic to pressure me to conform to unemotional expression style. I don't know whether that was due to type issues, true preferences, or some national social development that made people so grumpy and dull until. Well, I can use T, and that's what I've done. Good point with T is that people don't try to do emotional manipulation as much with confident T as they would do with confident F. Many things are more straightforward.

Perhaps I should see if the nations atmosphare and changed and whether it is now more conductive to display of emotions in public.

AH, on second thought, I won't. I expect to enter a career when such things are not yet so expected.. but just wait, they will be. I recommend to read Daniel Goleman's book, The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace (2001) to see why :)
 
R

RDF

Guest
Did you feel seeming as unauthentic when you used your T function? Using T is less showmanship and display than using F, in my opinion, so I wouldn't think of most people considering that an "act". Perhaps an immature or harsh T would expect flawless T-like behaviour from others, but I find such unreasonable. I understand if you didn't feel like yourself at first when using T.

Well, I'm in my fifties. When I was a kid, everyone pretty much just understood that guys were supposed to toughen up and be unemotional. So I just accepted that becoming more T-like was part of growing up. It didn't occur to me to question whether it was right or wrong.

It was okay to be a "sensitive guy," but it was understood that even sensitive guys had to toe the line, toughen up, and bite the bullet when it came to certain "male" things like sports, work, etc.

I accepted that being a "sensitive guy" was always going to be a part of me. But I also genuinely aspired to be able to hold my own in the "male" things. And changing into T mode for business negotiations was no different from putting on one's suit and tie before going to a business meeting.

AH, on second thought, I won't. I expect to enter a career when such things are not yet so expected.. but just wait, they will be. I recommend to read Daniel Goleman's book, The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace (2001) to see why :)

I agree. There is definitely pressure on Thinkers to be more "emotionally intelligent" in the workplace nowadays, especially in leadership positions. These days, leadership training in the corporate world includes training on sensitizing oneself to the emotional needs of workforce.

Being somewhat ambidextrous in that way, I always excel in workplace leadership classes. It's fun to see the hard-charging INTJs stumbling about and trying to puzzle out how they are supposed to handle some emotional/ethical nightmare problem. :D
 

Park

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
263
MBTI Type
INTP
I agree. There is definitely pressure on Thinkers to be more "emotionally intelligent" in the workplace nowadays, especially in leadership positions. These days, leadership training in the corporate world includes training on sensitizing oneself to the emotional needs of workforce.

Being somewhat ambidextrous in that way, I always excel in workplace leadership classes. It's fun to see the hard-charging INTJs stumbling about and trying to puzzle out how they are supposed to handle some emotional/ethical nightmare problem. :D

If a leader isn't in tune with the emotional state of his/her employees, he/she simply isn't in tune with an essential part of his/her company. Yet, I've spend time with more primitive leaders who've litteraly bragged about treating their employees unnessecarily harsh and inconsiderate. These kind of simple minded old school leaders will usually explain their behaviour with "running a business is only about making money" to which I can only reply "exactly!". To willingly be blind to the emotional state of the people you'r hired to lead is willingly being blind to people you've invested in i.e. dangerous and foolish.
 
R

RDF

Guest
If a leader isn't in tune with the emotional state of his/her employees, he/she simply isn't in tune with an essential part of his/her company. Yet, I've spend time with more primitive leaders who've litteraly bragged about treating their employees unnessecarily harsh and inconsiderate. These kind of simple minded old school leaders will usually explain their behaviour with "running a business is only about making money" to which I can only reply "exactly!". To willingly be blind to the emotional state of the people you'r hired to lead is willingly being blind to people you've invested in i.e. dangerous and foolish.

Absolutely. Worse yet, when they are working in a large corporate structure or in a bureaucracy, bad bosses put the corporation at risk. Bad bosses yell at subordinates, engage in discrimination, ignore harassment situations occurring in their department, deny their employees access to benefits promised to them, etc. Then the employees sue the corporation for millions of dollars.

Furthermore, the modern high-tech environment has created a whole new breed of "bad bosses" within the corporate ranks or bureaucracies.

In the old days, before the high-tech boom, managers traditionally came up through the administrative ranks and were educated and groomed to be good administrators and managers. But now that everything has gone high-tech, the departments are staffed with specialized technicians and so the bosses have to come from the same departments and be specialized technicians themselves. The modern bosses are trained to be good technicians, but they have no administrative experience and often have little or no leadership experience.

So when technicians gain some seniority and look like they're destined for a leadership position, the corporation or bureaucracy has to send them to leadership classes and try to educate them practically from the ground up about basic people-handling skills, leadership skills, and administrative skills.

Like I said in my last post, I've encountered those guys in my own leadership courses, and it's really quite hilarious. Those guys (and gals too) are young, intense, hard-working over-achievers. They have highly technical post-grad degrees and they have no problem working 16 hours a day for months at a time on a crucial technical issue involving hundreds of millions of dollars, and they fully intend to excel and end up in high positions in the corporation or bureaucracy. But they have never yet had a single employee reporting directly to them (never had to promote or demote, give performance reports, etc.). And when they deal with the front office secretary, they tend to get pissed at her and yell at her when she can't do their work right away. And when the overworked secretary breaks down and starts sobbing, they have no clue what's wrong. And then the boss yells at them and tells them that they can't use the secretary anymore and have to do all their own copying and mailing.

Then one day, they're about to be put in charge of an overseas mission or be promoted to Deputy Division Chief and be responsible for lots of personnel. So suddenly they're sent to leadership courses where they're given hypothetical problems about how to address staff issues concerning touchy issues of ethics, emotions, and workloads. And they haven't a clue. They want to boil everything down to a simple rule or two and move people around like chess pieces. And when they sit down at a table with demoralized staff assistants complaining about work conditions, they freak out and start ordering everyone to quit bitching and just do their work.

To their credit, these intense, brilliant kids mean well. They fully intend to be excellent leaders, so they want to master the material. They attack the material with the same intensity that they attack everything else in life. If they aren't good public speakers, they sign up for Toastmasters. If they aren't good with people, they sign up for sensitivity training. They willingly study the materials and sign up for more leadership courses and after-hours discussion groups until they get it right. They're not slackers; it's just that it's new territory for them.

Sooner or later, they catch on. But it's funny to see them flailing about without a clue during those first leadership courses. A bunch of NT hi-tech whiz kids sit down together to hash out some hypothetical personnel problem as part of training, and they arrive at exactly the wrong answer. They get it completely backwards. Then some Feeler with a little bit of actual leadership experience at the next table stands up and gives the correct answer. And so they all stare at the Feeler dumbfounded, trying to follow the convoluted explanation about emotional entitlements and morale issues. It's a whole new world for them. :D
 

developer

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
117
MBTI Type
INTJ
The whole last post of FineLine was one of the smartest things I have read lately on leadership issues. I could not agree more. Actually, one should submit this as a letter to HBR....;)
 

Park

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
263
MBTI Type
INTP
Sooner or later, they catch on. But it's funny to see them flailing about without a clue during those first leadership courses. A bunch of NT hi-tech whiz kids sit down together to hash out some hypothetical personnel problem as part of training, and they arrive at exactly the wrong answer. They get it completely backwards. Then some Feeler with a little bit of actual leadership experience at the next table stands up and gives the correct answer. And so they all stare at the Feeler dumbfounded, trying to follow the convoluted explanation about emotional entitlements and morale issues. It's a whole new world for them. :D

:) many times, all it takes is for T leaders to realize that it's mostly profitable to take emotions into consideration. That's often where the motivation comes from and if the motivation is there, they will as you say, mostly do their best to improve.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
The whole last post of FineLine was one of the smartest things I have read lately on leadership issues. I could not agree more. Actually, one should submit this as a letter to HBR....;)

That was an excellent post.

I was going to say - I wish I was more of an F for similar reasons, but more at a personal level. Too many spousal inflicted costs with Ts (and I say this as both my fiance and I are Ts and utterly lack that emotional side.)
 

Park

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
263
MBTI Type
INTP
That was an excellent post.

I was going to say - I wish I was more of an F for similar reasons, but more at a personal level. Too many spousal inflicted costs with Ts (and I say this as both my fiance and I are Ts and utterly lack that emotional side.)

Hmm, I would have thought a great gap between F and T would be the source of bigger problems.

Sorry FL - forgot the wubbing - great post indeed.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Hmm, I would have thought a great gap between F and T would be the source of bigger problems.

Sorry FL - forgot the wubbing - great post indeed.

I don't know how well it correlates directly to MBTI, but in spousal costs (from memory, so grain of salt);

I / E - Very little to no bearing on relationship satisfaction (general, emotional, sexual)

N / S - Differential, in that open people and closed people don't tend to get along as well... but it seems like S:S and N:N tend to get along roughly equally (I think slightly worse for Ss, but... not terribly significant).

T / F - Absolute; the more T you are, the less satisfied your partner is.

J / P - Strangely enough, not statistically significant, except that male Js are more sexually satisfying to female partners. (The joke being - they get the job done). Or was it J female partners... hrmm... Well, one or the other.

And of course, a major other factor is "Neuroticism", which is among the most important (T/F being the next one), with being N+ being absolute as well.

Note that despite this, E means happier while I means less happy, so it's not a full picture thing.
 

alexkreuz

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
35
MBTI Type
INTP
I / E - Very little to no bearing on relationship satisfaction (general, emotional, sexual)

N / S - Differential, in that open people and closed people don't tend to get along as well... but it seems like S:S and N:N tend to get along roughly equally (I think slightly worse for Ss, but... not terribly significant).

T / F - Absolute; the more T you are, the less satisfied your partner is.

J / P - Strangely enough, not statistically significant, except that male Js are more sexually satisfying to female partners. (The joke being - they get the job done). Or was it J female partners... hrmm... Well, one or the other.

And of course, a major other factor is "Neuroticism", which is among the most important (T/F being the next one), with being N+ being absolute as well.

Note that despite this, E means happier while I means less happy, so it's not a full picture thing.

i don't see it.. i think its far more complex than that ..
 
Top