Guy has theory for why feelers are actually meaner than thinkers. Do you agree?

[brown bear]

This guy makes some very relevant points on why feelers can be quite insensitive or "mean" for lack of a better word despite much literature pointing to them being nice and thinkers being more cold or mean. I must say that I have observed some of these same negative behaviors in the feeling-typed people that I know. Here is a ink to the video:
MBTI Myth: Thinkers are Mean Feelers are Nice - YouTube

So what do you guys think, do you agree or disagree with this guy? Why or why not, please explain your reasoning. Also, if you do agree with him, do you think it's fair that thinkers are commonly viewed as being mean while feelers take all the credit for being nice? PS: please don't post a response until you've watched/listened to the video. Thanks all!

 

[Pionart]

I thought the stereotype was that Feelers are nice to people they like and mean to people they don't*, whereas Thinkers more just keep to themselves and interact in a fairly business-like manner even with friends?

* or, nice when in a good mood and mean when in a bad mood, depending on if they are Fi or Fe

(I should point out that my brain does not understand the concept of stereotypes)

 

[Yama]

I don't think either dichotomy is "meaner" than the other by nature. I think it's completely dependent on the individual. They are nice feelers and mean feelers. There are nice thinkers and mean thinkers.

Nice and mean aren't even static. Niceness and meanness can exist in the same person. The same person can exhibit qualities that are considered nice one day and then turn around and do something mean the next. This doesn't make them a nice person or a mean person because they can be both at different times.

tl;dr I don't really think it matters.

 

[magpie]

Here is an example of a mean feeler.

 

[brown bear]

I don't think either dichotomy is "meaner" than the other by nature. I think it's completely dependent on the individual. They are nice feelers and mean feelers. There are nice thinkers and mean thinkers.

Nice and mean aren't even static. Niceness and meanness can exist in the same person. The same person can exhibit qualities that are considered nice one day and then turn around and do something mean the next. This doesn't make them a nice person or a mean person because they can be both at different times.

tl;dr I don't really think it matters.

Yes but surely you must admit that the actions of an individual can be either mean or nice, depending on which actions they choose, and that the personality type does give some indication as to how a given individual is likely to act in a given situation, be it "mean" or "nice". And thus, you must admit that the result they got on this test does at least in some way provide evidence as to whether an individual will act "mean" or "nice" or any other adjective describing their behavior. The test asks you questions about what you do/how you'd react to various conditions and the results are based on these. Thus, the personality type of the individual is likely to give some indications of how the individual will act. And if they act mean or nice, that is attributable to it as well.

 

[Yama]

Yes but surely you must admit that the actions of an individual can be either mean or nice, depending on which actions they choose, and that the personality type does give some indication as to how a given individual is likely to act in a given situation, be it "mean" or "nice". And thus, you must admit that the result they got on this test does at least in some way provide evidence as to whether an individual will act "mean" or "nice" or any other adjective describing their behavior. The test asks you questions about what you do/how you'd react to various conditions and the results are based on these. Thus, the personality type of the individual is likely to give some indications of how the individual will act. And if they act mean or nice, that is attributable to it as well.

I still don't think so. There are only 16 personality types and a very wide variety of how people of those types act. I can think of more than 16 different kinds of people, and yet there are only 16 types. If there is any correlation between type and the subjective qualities and meanness and niceness, it must be so marginal that it would hardly make any difference; I don't think there could possibly be a correlation significant enough to matter. There is also the issue of "mean" and "nice" being completely subjective. What one person perceives as mean, another person may perceive as a neutral or harmless act. Who decides this? How can this be measured?

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Emotional intelligence /is/ very much a weapon.... especially against those with lesser emotional intelligence.

 

[Pionart]

-me reading this thread

 

[brown bear]

I still don't think so. There are only 16 personality types and a very wide variety of how people of those types act. I can think of more than 16 different kinds of people, and yet there are only 16 types. If there is any correlation between type and the subjective qualities and meanness and niceness, it must be so marginal that it would hardly make any difference; I don't think there could possibly be a correlation significant enough to matter. There is also the issue of "mean" and "nice" being completely subjective. What one person perceives as mean, another person may perceive as a neutral or harmless act. Who decides this? How can this be measured?

The guy in the video said it best. When somebody accidentally says something that happens to hurt you and you retaliate aggressively, saying even meaner things than they said, when they didn't even realize they were doing anything that was going to offend anyone that is pretty much universally seen as mean. Sure it's ultimately subjective, but I'm sure there are certain behaviors that almost anyone would see as mean and same with behaviors that almost anyone would see as nice. It doesn't mean that they are universally "mean" or "nice" actions, but we tend to refer to them as such for the sake of simplicity.

 

[brown bear]

-me reading this thread

You had sex while reading this?

 

[Pionart]

You had sex while reading this?

nigga i AM sex

 

[Yama]

The guy in the video said it best. When somebody accidentally says something that happens to hurt you and you retaliate aggressively, saying even meaner things than they said, when they didn't even realize they were doing anything that was going to offend anyone that is pretty much universally seen as mean. Sure it's ultimately subjective, but I'm sure there are certain behaviors that almost anyone would see as mean and same with behaviors that almost anyone would see as nice. It doesn't mean that they are universally "mean" or "nice" actions, but we tend to refer to them as such for the sake of simplicity.

Going under the assumption that there is an objective different in the F/T dichotomy and the definition of meanness is universally agreed upon, what exactly are we supposed to do with this information? Does it have any sort of benefit/purpose, or is it kinda just like a fun fact?

I would also like to point out that thinkers are not exempt from the reaction you described.

 

[brown bear]

Going under the assumption that there is an objective different in the F/T dichotomy and the definition of meanness is universally agreed upon, what exactly are we supposed to do with this information? Does it have any sort of benefit/purpose, or is it kinda just like a fun fact?

I would also like to point out that thinkers are not exempt from the reaction you described.

We're supposed to allow it to challenge our preconceived notions about which types are which way. I think there is a stereotype out there that thinkers are these cold, heartless, empathy-less human beings and feelers are warm and fuzzy and nice and considerate. But this is not consistent with what I've noticed. And yeah I know thinkers aren't exempt from this sort of a reaction, but from what I've noticed, the thinkers in my life have been far less likely to have such a reaction, and when they do, they tend to exhibit a sense of remorse or awareness of their actions that I don't see in most feelers.

 

[Bush]

Assessments like these usually come down to personal experience, which is then shoved into the framework in a personal way to get a personal assessment out the back end. In the comments, the guy who made the video points out some bad experiences he's had with some F types.

It's a myth that Thinkers are necessarily mean and Feelers are necessarily nice. It doesn't follow that the exact opposite is true.

edit: he has some gold in the middle of that video, though

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I can see where people might assume thinkers to be meaner based on a less personal, more "just-the-facts" approach to social interaction that can at times appear cold or unpersonable. I think this is largely not type related though, as it depends on perception and how different people classify and measure what is "mean" and what is "nice."

In some sense, types with strong Fe may certainly be better at navigating social environments and therefore appearing nicer, but on the flip, they can probably be masters of the mean-as-polite (if they want to)...i.e. being able to mask their meanness in pleasantries and well-crafted back-handed compliments that might be more difficult to detect or prove.

 

[ceecee]

The main thing I got from the video is how much time is wasted fighting, one upping in fighting and the inability to forgive. This is another place where I think enneagram has a better explanation than MBTI since it deals with reactions. I believe thinkers are more likely to put more insignificant things aside than feelers to reach a goal or get people back on track or whatever is required at the time.

Of course there is this downside of insensitivity, coldness and lack of nurturing but isn't that perception more than actual fact? It's also more where the "meanness" comes into play. And getting to the nitty gritty of it - thinkers don't have the intense conflict, moral benchmarks to meet and torment that often tortures feelers. Thinkers aren't going to have nearly as much of that (if any), making them a little more capable of kindness and forgiveness. Let's face it - when you navigate with feelings instead of facts, reaction is going to be all about you, not other people or things that may be just as, if not more, important.

 

[prplchknz]

why thinkers are meaner: they value logic more than emotional reasoning so they can be insensitive

why feelers are meaner: they usually know how to emotionally manipulate

but both feelers and thinkers are capable of both these things, so conclusion: people are mean if you view them in this sense.

 

[brown bear]

why thinkers are meaner: they value logic more than emotional reasoning so they can be insensitive

why feelers are meaner: they usually know how to emotionally manipulate

but both feelers and thinkers are capable of both these things, so conclusion: people are mean if you view them in this sense.

your logic seems faulty at best.

 

[brown bear]

And getting to the nitty gritty of it - thinkers don't have the intense conflict, moral benchmarks to meet and torment that often tortures feelers. Thinkers aren't going to have nearly as much of that (if any), making them a little more capable of kindness and forgiveness. Let's face it - when you navigate with feelings instead of facts, reaction is going to be all about you, not other people or things that may be just as, if not more, important.

Well said. My question then is why we tend to see feelers as being "nicer" if it doesn't line up with the facts.

 

[CitizenErased]

I don't think either dichotomy is "meaner" than the other by nature. I think it's completely dependent on the individual. They are nice feelers and mean feelers. There are nice thinkers and mean thinkers.

Nice and mean aren't even static. Niceness and meanness can exist in the same person. The same person can exhibit qualities that are considered nice one day and then turn around and do something mean the next. This doesn't make them a nice person or a mean person because they can be both at different times.

tl;dr I don't really think it matters.

I agree.

Not expressing emotions as much as any Fe-dom would, for example, doesn't mean Thinkers don't feel at all, or that they're not capable or doing good things for others. There are infinite ways of feeling and reacting to things. One may catastrophize, cry, scream, hug a teddy bear; another may stay silent and think of a solution to the problem or feel pressure to come up with something useful. One may laugh, hug and kiss everybody, buy gifts; another may think that slightly smiling, staying silent and listen to what the other person has to say to give the best attention possible is the best gift possible. If I tell my ESFJ mother I don't want a gift from her because I don't want her to spend money on me and I'd rather she spent it on herself, I'm going to think I'm being good; she's going to think I'm rejecting her.

So, besides the fact that made-up labels aren't an excuse to sub-label those groups (e.g.: Thinkers -> Cold-blooded -> Psychopaths -> Mean), I believe it's a matter of how people perceive what are good and bad/acceptable and unacceptable reactions.