User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 84

  1. #61
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    This thread is amusing. I suggest everyone take a minute to look at a dictionary before commenting.

    I wonder what my response would be if I said that "Fs" pretend not to think...

    Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal recurrence View Post
    I was reading this thread of 'what do you like about feelers' and one complaint is that there is a tendency to not be logical in arguments, make emotional appeals, or base their decisions on their emotions.

    So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

    This line: "I am being more rational than you" - may be an illusion for your rationality is just a set of learned ways of interacting that appear to lack emotion, HOWEVER! are not all decisions/arguments ultimately moral and emotional ones?

    TO put it in a strong way: I think people are fooling themselves if they think in life they are making 'clean' decisions, 'unemotional' arguments, or undertaking entire 'rational' courses of action.
    I think the basis of your post is quite different from the conclusion you drew from it.

    Complaining that people make emotional appeals is not the same as stating that all arguments are (or aren't) ultimately moral. Moral is not synonymous with emotional.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    To emphasize the difference, Feelers may find their emotions and values at odds at times.
    I think this applies to everybody.

  2. #62
    Member eternal recurrence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.

    Complaining that people make emotional appeals is not the same as stating that all arguments are (or aren't) ultimately moral. Moral is not synonymous with emotional.
    What I'm saying is that some people convince themselves that they either think or feel at various stages in a discussion or argument - they argue as if they can separate the two and not do both at the same time.

    2) what I notice is not that people just complain about others making emotional appeals, but that they appear to believe that it is possible not to do so. That is, the assumption while saying this is that they assume arguments do not ultimately have an emotional/moral source. i was being sloppy and using moral and emotional as synonymous because i think it applies to both here, but we can scrap moral and stick to emotional.

    in any case, the 5th response in this thread seems to have settled the matter - with LuckyNoLimits stating that: "ive been trying to tell u ppl this for a long ass time. the same cognitive facility is used to dictate whether a feeling or a thought is right or wrong. there is no such thing as human rationality, but you can have an emotional sensitivity towards logical ends like math and science. some people are neurochemically tuned with structure while others are more in tune with fluid concepts like emotion and social dynamics."

  3. #63
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    I agree. But the 5th response, while valid, doesn't seem to address what you are laying out here.

    Some people prefer thinking and some prefer feeling. This is the basis of the T/F theory. You extrapolated that to state that people say that they can be devoid of one or the other. And now you are satisfied with the original statement that some prefer thinking (structure) and some prefer feeling (fluid).

    Very confusing. But whatevs.

  4. #64
    A passer by yvonne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    564

    Default

    ^ good points jenocyde... but to have morale requires taking emotions into account. i think the only difference between thinkers and feelers, really, is that thinkers have thicker skin and would prefer that all people did (?)... they don't usually care much about being conciderate while making a point, while feelers try to do that...

    i think ultimately we all want to pursue truth. i think thinkers can sometimes miss how feelings can affect people and feelers can get so caught up in their feelings that they lose sight of the pursuit of truth... i think both things will get you further from the truth...

    i think learning each other's languages (first mastering your own, maybe...) would help. thinkers could try to see the point behind the feelings, at least something to grab a hold of... and feelers could try to just see the point a thinker is trying to make and not get offended, because the thinker didn't tend to their feelings. i think we all come from the place of values and beliefs with our opinions...

    that has to be so, because none of us know the truth about things. for a feeler, they might feel that "this is right" and if science supports it, they make it a value/ belief... for a thinker they do it through science and then they adjust their beliefs and values accordingly. i think feelers feel strongly about the "this is right" feeling and thinkers feel strongly about science...

    i hope i made some sense here
    Enneagram 5w4.

  5. #65
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvonne View Post
    ^ good points jenocyde... but to have morale requires taking emotions into account. i think the only difference between thinkers and feelers, really, is that thinkers have thicker skin and would prefer that all people did (?)... they don't usually care much about being conciderate while making a point, while feelers try to do that...
    I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. I truly feel that I *am* being considerate by being direct with you. Would you rather have a doctor that shakes and lets you know that s/he freaks out at the sight of blood, or one that does the job efficiently and is a stable presence? Matching someone's emotional state or indulging in that one step too far in the wrong direction can have the opposite effect of what you had hoped for.

    While making a point, to state something plainly is about the highest service I can give someone. I feel patronized and treated as stupid when others try to coddle me so I don't do that to others. I give to people what I want in return - I think we all do that.

    Also, when I turn to a friend in a panic, I don't want sympathy - it offers me nothing and makes me feel like I have to now coddle you - what I want is results or assistance.

    i think ultimately we all want to pursue truth. i think thinkers can sometimes miss how feelings can affect people and feelers can get so caught up in their feelings that they lose sight of the pursuit of truth... i think both things will get you further from the truth...
    I don't know about that. My ENFP friend and I are always in conflict because I pursue the truth and she pursues peace. So she will concede points just to stop me from being upset with her, and that only upsets me more. She will sacrifice the truth in an eyeblink in order to maintain peace and harmony.

    Granted, it depends on the issue, but it happens more often than not.

    i think learning each other's languages (first mastering your own, maybe...) would help. thinkers could try to see the point behind the feelings, at least something to grab a hold of... and feelers could try to just see the point a thinker is trying to make and not get offended, because the thinker didn't tend to their feelings. i think we all come from the place of values and beliefs with our opinions...
    Agreed.

    that has to be so, because none of us know the truth about things. for a feeler, they might feel that "this is right" and if science supports it, they make it a value/ belief... for a thinker they do it through science and then they adjust their beliefs and values accordingly. i think feelers feel strongly about the "this is right" feeling and thinkers feel strongly about science...

    i hope i made some sense here
    I understand you. Maybe a more accurate statement is "this is right" vs "this is truthful"?

  6. #66
    Uniqueorn William K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.
    Agreed, but the way Jung uses the word Feel as a Judging function is different from the everyday use of the word. For example, if you put your hand in a fire you will feel pain, so you learn not to put your hand in the fire. This is something everyone does and I don't consider it as a Feeling-based Judgement. A feeling-based judgement would be something like "Should abortion be legal?" which as you mentioned is not necessarily a moral question.

    My main disagreement with the OP is the phrase "Feelers base their decisions on their emotions" which I think is not correct.
    4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

    appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

    I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

    The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

  7. #67
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William K View Post
    Agreed, but the way Jung uses the word Feel as a Judging function is different from the everyday use of the word. For example, if you put your hand in a fire you will feel pain, so you learn not to put your hand in the fire. This is something everyone does and I don't consider it as a Feeling-based Judgement. A feeling-based judgement would be something like "Should abortion be legal?" which as you mentioned is not necessarily a moral question.

    My main disagreement with the OP is the phrase "Feelers base their decisions on their emotions" which I think is not correct.
    Agreed. "F" is not the same as "feelings," though we'll often use the word "feelings" as shorthand for what F does.

    "F" is "how we process feelings." In the abortion question, for instance, Fi would perhaps identify with the baby, and judge that abortion is wrong, or identify with the mother, and judge that it's her body, her choice. Fe would make similar judgments (pro or con), in terms more objective (but still rather subjective) concepts such as "rights" and "fairness."

    Ti, on the other hand, might evaluate it terms of logical self-consistency: how is it reasonable that a mother can abort her own child, but it is potentially murder or manslaughter (or is it just simple assault) for someone else to kill that child? Te would evaluate it in terms of practical logistics: Te might argue that if a mother chooses to not have a child, that it simply conserving resources that might be better spent towards what the mother does want, or Te might argue that it was sloppy planning in the first place to engage in activities that resulted in pregnancy.

    [CAVEAT: I'm not personally arguing the abortion debate, and will not respond to posts that attempt to divert to that tangent. These are just examples of how each judging function might process the decision.]

    Notice that the judging function in these examples has nothing to do with the conclusions (pro or con w/r to abortion rights) one derives. Also notice that while Fe and Fi would make "moral" decisions (possibly based on some degree of emotion or feeling), Te and Ti are using nothing resembling morality or emotion. "T" has priorities and preferences, yes, and some of these are likely emotionally (or maybe even morally) based, but the actual processing isn't emotional or moral, but more about "does it make sense?" or "does it work?"

    Even if we limit the cases to just "F" style decisions, the decisions might even contradict how one personally feels. "F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy. A preference for "F" does not imply that one does what whatever one feels like, emotionally.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  8. #68
    A passer by yvonne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    While making a point, to state something plainly is about the highest service I can give someone. I feel patronized and treated as stupid when others try to coddle me so I don't do that to others. I give to people what I want in return - I think we all do that.

    Also, when I turn to a friend in a panic, I don't want sympathy - it offers me nothing and makes me feel like I have to now coddle you - what I want is results or assistance.
    i understand this. for me it's important that people don't coddle my feelings (and that i'm not taking them too far), but don't think i am being ridiculous for having them. that to me is conciderate. i want results and assistance, too, but only if i trust the person, and i don't trust people, who think that having feelings is ridiculous. = i am ridiculous.

    I don't know about that. My ENFP friend and I are always in conflict because I pursue the truth and she pursues peace. So she will concede points just to stop me from being upset with her, and that only upsets me more. She will sacrifice the truth in an eyeblink in order to maintain peace and harmony.

    Granted, it depends on the issue, but it happens more often than not.
    i won't go against what i perceive to be true just to make someone feel better, but i try to go to my feelings and find something there to relate to the other person, if i see them getting upset. that usually brings the conversation back on track...

    I understand you. Maybe a more accurate statement is "this is right" vs "this is truthful"?
    maybe "this is what i feel/ is felt to be true" vs "this is what is thought/ i think to be true"?

    i don't know. it's tricky... it really is.
    Enneagram 5w4.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    "F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy.
    Definitely a good hypothetical example. Your whole post was pretty good a description of F vs T.

  10. #70
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Agreed. "F" is not the same as "feelings," though we'll often use the word "feelings" as shorthand for what F does.

    "F" is "how we process feelings." In the abortion question, for instance, Fi would perhaps identify with the baby, and judge that abortion is wrong, or identify with the mother, and judge that it's her body, her choice. Fe would make similar judgments (pro or con), in terms more objective (but still rather subjective) concepts such as "rights" and "fairness."

    Ti, on the other hand, might evaluate it terms of logical self-consistency: how is it reasonable that a mother can abort her own child, but it is potentially murder or manslaughter (or is it just simple assault) for someone else to kill that child? Te would evaluate it in terms of practical logistics: Te might argue that if a mother chooses to not have a child, that it simply conserving resources that might be better spent towards what the mother does want, or Te might argue that it was sloppy planning in the first place to engage in activities that resulted in pregnancy.

    [CAVEAT: I'm not personally arguing the abortion debate, and will not respond to posts that attempt to divert to that tangent. These are just examples of how each judging function might process the decision.]

    Notice that the judging function in these examples has nothing to do with the conclusions (pro or con w/r to abortion rights) one derives. Also notice that while Fe and Fi would make "moral" decisions (possibly based on some degree of emotion or feeling), Te and Ti are using nothing resembling morality or emotion. "T" has priorities and preferences, yes, and some of these are likely emotionally (or maybe even morally) based, but the actual processing isn't emotional or moral, but more about "does it make sense?" or "does it work?"

    Even if we limit the cases to just "F" style decisions, the decisions might even contradict how one personally feels. "F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy. A preference for "F" does not imply that one does what whatever one feels like, emotionally.
    Good summarization of different approaches among the Tx and Fx functions.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. What is the difference between INTP and INTJ?
    By Triglav in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 03:25 PM
  2. What exactly is the difference between Ti and Ni, Si and Fi, and others?
    By Triglav in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 11:28 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-14-2009, 10:42 AM
  4. [ENFJ] What is the difference between ENTJ and ENFJ?
    By yenom in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 07:24 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 08:11 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