• 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.

Another Person Confused About Type

Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
It's a mistake to automatically presume that a Thinker is without impressive emotional range, consequent to his cognitive preferences. Compassion and justice are variable ideals; individually-resigned to shades of the same coin...

Conversely, some of the greatest strategists I've encountered were Fs. Lao Tzu is perhaps a historical example of a brilliant NF (INFP) tactician.

For my dime, the ideal framework is a balanced incorporation of both theatres to arrive at an assemblage free from the constrictions of generic Type convention. That is to say, I don't find much credibility with the implied if/then algorithim that commonly divides a T from an F.

Think of it like chemical covalence - protons and neutrons combining into subatomic particles. From these interactions, all matter is possible...(Hilbert space...!)

Neither is ultimately independent, as both unify towards advanced thought.

I feel the approach of a discussion on something similar to Hegelian logic... aufhebung and what not...
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I think we should start a thread to really flesh out these distinctions in MBTI typing.... I know they've been discussed, but there's more work to be done... there's always more work to be done... so much work.

Unfortunately I have yet to fully comprehend these distinctions myself. It would be the blind leading the blind...
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
I feel the approach of a discussion on something similar to Hegelian logic... aufhebung and what not...

You're a quick study.

Theory and practice; Onyx and midnight.


Perennial elocution is without form here; I don't think circle-speak really works, if you catch my drift.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I get the impression that you are still using the term "feeling" to mean "the experience of emotion". From what I have read of Jung, the "experience of emotion" is actually called "affect". And yes, I would agree that *everyone* experiences and are affected by emotions.

But this has nothing to do with feeling as a cognitive process, which is a judging function that may or may not have anything to do with momentary emotions (most likely not, from what I understand).
Please reread my concise description of what exactly it means/signifies to experience Fi.

:)

Have you ever come across the concept of emotional intelligence? Or mindfulness?

I believe that Fi doms are, or tend to be, at least, incredibly emotionally intelligent.

And for what it is worth, I'd bet the farm on the fact that you are an NT. :D

Aren't the intuitive functions (Ne/Ni) present in both NF's and NT's?
Yup.

Thank you for responding :).
No problem! I enjoy participating in threads like this! :)
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Also, the issue with using what Owl said about value judgments... it raises some questions... a "thinker" ultimately needs to have some sort of a value system... what is 'right'? What sort of thinking is correct? What axioms does one use? Thinkers have to deal with masses of unproven statements to base their arguments off of. Thinkers have to make gut-feel decisions, if only at the beginning, in order to continue... everyone needs a value system... even physicists must accept large numbers of empty concepts or circular arguments off of which to build more elaborate and fleshed-out systems (what exactly are mass and force? gravity?)

I agree. Everyone needs a value system. I'd say the "gut-feel" the pure thinker, (and I doubt there has ever been such a thing), pays most attention to is that thinking is capable of making distinctions--between A and non-A, between being and non-being. In the beginning, for the thinker, any system of logic that does neither of these things is not thinking: without these assumptions there is no logos, no ability to speak a meaningful word. Can this be proven? Not positively, but it can be negatively. For to even ask that this be proven requires the inquirer presuppose the normativity of these axioms to even raise the question.

Yes, this is what I thought. However, many definitions of thinking as a cognitive process associate it more or less absolutely with logical systems. The problem is- we haven't even been able to fully systematize the many ways that humans reason. So how can we reason from systems that are (or have yet to be fully) derived from the way we reason?

Any system we derive from reason is less basic than the reason that we use to derive that system. Is that basic reason somehow defunct? Can we not rely on it to inform us of anything? If it can't inform us of anything, then how can we rely on the systems we derive from it?

Is anything clear? What truths need be in place before we can even say that we reason in such a way that we can derive systems from that reason?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
*Resists the urge to succumb to my female vs. male, competitive instinct to debate and assert that Ne is a far more intellectually enlightening function/process than Ti is, or will ever be*

:)
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
*Resists the urge to succumb to my female vs. male, competitive instinct to debate and assert that Ne is a far more intellectually enlightening function/process than Ti is, or will ever be*

:)

Why resist?

I'd be curious to hear this baseline - flawed though it is...


;)
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Any system we derive from reason is less basic than the reason that we use to derive that system. Is that basic reason somehow defunct? Can we not rely on it to inform us of anything? If it can't inform us of anything, then how can we rely on the systems we derive from it?

I agree. I never said that basic reason is unreliable, or somehow less reliable than systematized reason (that would be an absurd statement). All I was saying is that to define Ti/Te as functions that rely on logical systems is not very precise because we only know what logic is because of logic. The "logical systems" are derived from a more basic kind of reasoning, so how can we principally use these systems when they do not even fully capture what it is to reason?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Why resist?

I'd be curious to hear this baseline - flawed though it is...


;)
Lol, since I am an in a particularly insomnimaniacal eNErgetic mood, I'll indulge you with my "flawed" baseline to my theory. ;)

Ne sees and processes a whole lot of everything in a whole lot of "things", so to speak.

Ne fosters insight whereas Ti fosters "proof" of Ne's insight.

And, honestly, I ever so humbly thank you, Ti dom guys, for we, (Ne doms), appreciate all the hard, excruciating, meticulous work that you do.

Keep up the good work guys!!

I see the universe in a zygote, the truth in a tree...

And you guys provide me with all the facts about mitochondria and leaves!!!

:smooch:
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Please reread my concise description of what exactly it means/signifies to experience Fi.

This is where I got the impression that when you said "feeling" you really meant "emotion".

Most people engage in both thinking and feeling experiential processes, on a daily basis, I'd confidently argue.

I agree with this statement.

And for what it is worth, I'd bet the farm on the fact that you are an NT.

I probably am...I just really really like NF's, so I am in denial!
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
*Resists the urge to succumb to my female vs. male, competitive instinct to debate and assert that Ne is a far more intellectually enlightening function/process than Ti is, or will ever be*

What do you mean by female vs. male?
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Lol, since I am an in a particularly insomnimaniacal eNErgetic mood, I'll indulge you with my "flawed" baseline to my theory. ;)

Ne sees and processes a whole lot of everything in a whole lot of "things", so to speak.

Ne fosters insight whereas Ti fosters "proof" of Ne's insight.

And, honestly, I ever so humbly thank you, Ti dom guys, for we, (Ne doms), appreciate all the hard, excruciating, meticulous work that you do.

Keep up the good work guys!!

I see the universe in a zygote, the truth in a tree...

And you guys provide me with all the facts about mitochondria and leaves!!!

:smooch:

Mitochondria synthesize the photoreceptors that chemically adjust your eyescapes as to better utilize your Ne. ;)

Without this knowledge, we would be unable to offer complex optometry; an inextricable componential field to ocular Ne...!
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
This is where I got the impression that when you said "feeling" you really meant "emotion".
Huzzaholdup, wait a minute,

This statement of mine...

I know Fi, at least, requires a whole helluva a lot of contemplation and reflection, i.e. *thinking*.
Honestly led you to believe I was talking about "feeling" as an "emotion" and not as a partially cognitively-infused feeling-oriented process?!?!?

I probably am...I just really really like NF's, so I am in denial!
Lol, I can relate, I find myself envying/appreciating, hell, even to the point of my trying to emulate NT's because I like 'em so much.

:wub:
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Honestly led you to believe I was talking about "feeling" as an "emotion" and not as a partially cognitively-infused feeling-oriented process?!?!?

EVERYBODY FEELS!!! (except, perhaps, for sociopaths or those who suffer from alexithymia, though I'd even argue that they too feel, in the "human" sense, to some degree).

Thinkers, I think, have more difficulty coping with their "humanness" if you will because they, lol, *feel* uncomfortable with their feelings.

My feelings, my instincts, my intuitions, my compassion and empathy tend to steer me in the right direction, it is only when I over-think and analyze the world and people into meaningless pieces, that I, as a "feeler", begin to feel uncomfortable and ill at ease.

Well, these are what led me to think that as well. The feeling process can be analytical too, though in a different way (although don't ask me how, as this seems to be a very fuzzy distinction).
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I agree. Everyone needs a value system. I'd say the "gut-feel" the pure thinker, (and I doubt there has ever been such a thing), pays most attention to is that thinking is capable of making distinctions--between A and non-A, between being and non-being. In the beginning, for the thinker, any system of logic that does neither of these things is not thinking: without these assumptions there is no logos, no ability to speak a meaningful word. Can this be proven? Not positively, but it can be negatively. For to even ask that this be proven requires the inquirer presuppose the normativity of these axioms to even raise the question.

As it relates to MBTI theory, would you call this a "thinker's" process or cognition itself? Because if this is only specific to the thinking process (Ti/Te) then all feelers must also be thinkers. However, in no definition of thinking do I see any indication that a thinker must also be a feeler to some degree. Jung's definition of thinking explicitly precludes this.

Or am I misunderstanding what feeling (Fi/Fe) is (because that is highly possible)?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
What do you mean by female vs. male?
Nothing of public importance, I was just expressing my sexist urge to put men in their proper, i.e. inferior place.

Lol!

(joke)

Mitochondria synthesize the photoreceptors that chemically adjust your eyescapes as to better utilize your Ne. ;)

Without this knowledge, we would be unable to offer complex optometry; an inextricable componential field to ocular Ne...!
Once again, thanks guys!!!

But, it should be noted, that I just so happened to be born with perfect 20/20 vision, so... in both essence and practicality I needn't rely, depend on, or even be cognizant of such complex optometric things/technological advancements.

But, for Samuel De Mazarin as well as all other genetically, optically-challenged Ne dom individuals, I thank and appreciate your Ti-induced scientific optometric advancements! :)

Well, these are what led me to think that as well. The feeling process can be analytical too, though in a different way (although don't ask me how, as this seems to be a very fuzzy distinction).
Well, those would, but too bad I told you this...

Please reread my concise description of what exactly it means/signifies to experience Fi.

*I'm incorrigible, I know*
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
But, it should be noted, that I happened to be born with perfect 20/20 vision, so... in both essence and practicality I needn't rely, depend on, or even be cognizant of such complex optometric things/technological advancements.

And...who told you that you had 20/20 vision, I wonder...?

;)
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I agree. I never said that basic reason is unreliable, or somehow less reliable than systematized reason (that would be an absurd statement). All I was saying is that to define Ti/Te as functions that rely on logical systems is not very precise because we only know what logic is because of logic. The "logical systems" are derived from a more basic kind of reasoning, so how can we principally use these systems when they do not even fully capture what it is to reason?

Not precise is a charitable way to say it.

Make the more basic reason the principal, and think of the derived systems in light of that.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Make the more basic reason the principal, and think of the derived systems in light of that.

Easy enough I suppose...but what *is* the more basic reason? The whole concept seems to be impenetrable. And is this more basic reason fundamental to cognition? And if it is, then that would mean that the feeling function is subsumed by logic.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
And...who told you that you had 20/20 vision, I wonder...?

;)
Apparently I am *not* the only incorrigible one here. :rolleyes:

Lol, I don't even recall or care, for that matter, of whomever happened to tell me/inform me that I have 20/20 vision, in fact, it is quite possible that I've never even been "professionally" *told* of this "fact", why? Because I have never needed to seek out professional help/advice/confirmation or counsel on my eyesight because, well, it's never posed a problem for me.

So there...

:tongue10:
 
Top