Dumb Typology Stereotypes

[Tamske]

Three remarks...

1) Most of the stereotypes listed here are amended by putting "most" or "rather" in it. If Sensors aren't more practical and concrete than iNtuitors, why would you make the S-N distinction? People are different. It's the differences that make life interesting. If we go for an "everybody is the same" route in order to not offend anybody, we take all meaning out of typology. And if you're offended, please read #3.

2) Feeling is not about emotion - what is it about, then?
There are people who would rather decide on emotions, values and people and other, different people who would rather decide on logic, efficiency and goals. If this is NOT the F-T distinction, I'm throwing F-T out of my favorite typology and use this one as replacement. I want to type my fiction characters as emotional or cold or something in between.

3) The main issue is, according to me, that some of the stereotypes or characteristics are seen as intrinsically better. Is objectivity intrinsically better? I don't think so. But as long as the nuance of "better" is attached to it, people will be offended if you say they are not "objective", and rightly so.

 

[Hopelandic]

Ni is the holy grail of cognition.

Feeling is routed in emotions (this is laudable to a neuroscience major, i'm sorry).

There are such things as "thinkers", "feelers" addressing types etc. When thinking or feeling, for example isn't even their dom. function.

Separating people into their first and second cognitive functions, and ignoring the others = dumb and leads to 'stereotypes' that don't have any basis in reality. Because people are wholes.

sjs = stupidest, judgmental people on the planet.

 

[Thalassa]

ISFJs are prim and proper and no fun and are totally different from me.

All SPs are good at sports.

If you like literature or philosophy, you must be an N.

SJs can't have really cool taste in music and film.

SJs only believe in defined relationship roles.

All NTs are smart.

 

[skylights]

• a Feeler with Fi > Fe will always go against the crowd
• a Feeler with Fe > Fi will always go along with the crowd

Feeling is not about emotion - what is it about, then?

i also think what's got some Feelers frustrated is that emotion doesn't always play a leading role in our Feeling decisions. for example, what i wear in the morning - usually decided by a few T parameters (it's cold out, need to wear something warm; i have a meeting, need to wear something relatively nice), coupled with Fi preferences (what do i feel like this morning? well, i've been thinking about the ocean a lot lately. i feel... ocean-y. maybe i'll wear a blue shirt.) the decision didn't really have anything to do with emotion... just a feeling...

 

[InvisibleJim]

2) Feeling is not about emotion - what is it about, then?

Feeling = Favouring Choice via Instinctual Gauge
Thinking = Favouring Choice via Critical Analysis

 

[Noon]

If Sensors aren't more practical and concrete than iNtuitors, why would you make the S-N distinction? People are different. It's the differences that make life interesting. If we go for an "everybody is the same" route in order to not offend anybody, we take all meaning out of typology. And if you're offended, please read #3.

Maybe I should clarify, then. My issue is probably almost entirely semantic, and it's a personal annoyance rather than misplaced PCness or an attempt at holding hands and running through flowery fields with the iNtuitives. I am not bothered at all by sensors being called concrete because that's a pretty static word, and one that is pretty much always congruent with the definition of Sensing. "Practical" seems much more context dependent, but most profiles seem to restrict it to meaning "immediately apt for physical use", which is not bad but kind of simultaneously disregards this definition:

mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure.

I take it to mean that sensors also tend to think more about the fruits of an action they may take, whether or not those fruits are physical or concrete, and it's something that I see NJs do very often as well, hence the eye-rolling at the notion that Ns need Ss to show them how to be more "practical". There's also the weird implication of N being only whimsical and thus less capable of successfully functioning in the real world. That is just...not true.

In that vein, I don't see how things like philosophy or cosmology can automatically take on the full-blown label of impractical without knowing the context. I think they can be more practical than football and partying, which some profiles seem to limit sensors to (though not directly), especially depending on the goals of the person studying them. Sure, we can certainly deduce that sensors are less likely to partake in them because they are abstract, but it's the stereotype of all sensors shaking their heads or sticking their noses up at them because they're not "practical", or even chiding Ns for some of their interests for the same reason, that I think is strange.

1) Most of the stereotypes listed here are amended by putting "most" or "rather" in it.

As well as "tend" and "more likely". But then they become something more along the lines of generalizations instead of stereotypes.

2) Feeling is not about emotion - what is it about, then?
There are people who would rather decide on emotions, values and people and other, different people who would rather decide on logic, efficiency and goals. If this is NOT the F-T distinction, I'm throwing F-T out of my favorite typology and use this one as replacement. I want to type my fiction characters as emotional or cold or something in between.

Interpersonal or intrapersonal needs and results, ethics, moral frameworks, belief systems that may or may not be validated through logic. Feeling judgments can be supported by logic, but the distinction is that they don't need to be, unlike Thinking judgments. But that still does not mean that they are always supported by emotion.

3) The main issue is, according to me, that some of the stereotypes or characteristics are seen as intrinsically better. Is objectivity intrinsically better? I don't think so. But as long as the nuance of "better" is attached to it, people will be offended if you say they are not "objective", and rightly so.

I feel the same way. But there are times when Feelers are bothered more by Thinkers acting as if it is better, despite knowing themselves that it isn't.

 

[miss fortune]

well... according to stereotypes I should be...

* LOUD
* stupid
*unable to grasp the abstract
* enjoy watching football (ok... I DID enjoy watching Jackass 3D, but that's not football!!! )
* inept at dealing with emotional situations
* I should easily offend others
* I should always be late
* I should be good at art


of course, according to stereotypes I should also be a dude

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

NT's need a computer chip too feel.

 

[kelric]

Not so much a stereotype of a particular type, but of type itself...

"People of all types are either caricatures of their type... or lying/too ignorant to know themselves."

 

[Oaky]

too bad these lower life forms(people who are not you) are incapable of understanding the intj jokes since they are simply that brilliant

Precisely!

 

[Robopop]

all INTPs are
nerds
slackers
lazy asses
losers
cynical
have a button in the back of their head to turn them on
manufactured by Intel, like we can't be manufactured by another company!!!
.....thing is, I fit most of them he he.

 

[miss fortune]

don't forget... you all wear glasses and never bathe either

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

AND sunlight burns are skin.

 

[INTP]

don't forget... you all wear glasses and never bathe either

but the truth is that we are all nearsighted, but too stubborn to wear glasses. or actually its not about being stubborn, i mean whats the point of carrying some annoying item in front of our eyes just so that we could see properly?

 

[skylights]

all INTPs are
nerds
slackers
lazy asses
losers
cynical

fixed

 

[OrangeAppled]

2) Feeling is not about emotion - what is it about, then?
There are people who would rather decide on emotions, values and people and other, different people who would rather decide on logic, efficiency and goals. If this is NOT the F-T distinction, I'm throwing F-T out of my favorite typology and use this one as replacement. I want to type my fiction characters as emotional or cold or something in between.

Emotion is not cognition (although they certainly can work "together").

Feeling is a rational cognitive function which reasons based on the premise of what is ideal, or valuable or significant, especially in relation to human needs and harmonious relations. This does not have to be at odds with what is logical, and logic can be used to support feelings, but logic is secondary or not even a factor in some value decisions. There are many issues in life which are matters of significance & morality, not matters of factual truth.

Logic is just one form of rational thinking. Thinking is rational when it is proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning (italics taken from dictionary). To be rational is to use the process of reasoning. Reasoning is to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. Logical thinking is using, according to, or deduced from the principles of logic. Logic is something the rational reasoning process can be based on. It's a premise. Ideals are the premise which Feelers use.

Now if we're talking about WHAT is being evaluated verses HOW it is being evaluated, then yes, sometimes Feelers evaluate emotions to find meaning, and yes, this can mean feeling-judgments are colored by emotions. (Side tangent: I think because emotional signals are seen as so useful to Fs, we also use emotions to send signals to others. If you're not adept at using emotional signals, this can cause discomfort, or you can mistake the emotion as the argument when it's just a package designed to impart significance.) That does not mean the reasoning process itself is one of emotion, nor that the Feeler makes decisions based solely on emotion or always uses emotion as criteria. Just as hunger provides a signal of a need to eat, and then a person reasons on how to act on that signal and need, emotions signal that something is important. However, feeling itself reasons on that signal, it does not simply act on emotion; it can choose to discard an emotional response if it is not deemed useful.

I personally often make decisions in which I choose to go against my emotions because I recognize they are at odds with my values/ideals, and those are the #1 criteria for my evaluations.

Thinking or Feeling

This third preference pair describes how you like to make decisions. Do you like to put more weight on objective principles and impersonal facts (Thinking) or do you put more weight on personal concerns and the people involved (Feeling)?

Don’t confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make. Also do not confuse Thinking with intelligence.

Interesting comment on a Neuroscience blog regarding emotion + cognition:

In this view as I understand it, the function of emotion is to assign value and salience to stimuli and responses -- in essence, to guide cognition by incorporating goals and reward.

 

[Tamske]

Concerning the Thinking-Feeling issue...

Maybe there is also a misunderstanding from my part here. English is not my mother tongue. What nuances and implications does the word "emotional" have? Does it automatically get shades of "whiny" and "clingy" and "unreasonable"? Because the Dutch word "emotioneel" has two meanings... The first is a rather technical term, more or less the same as the MBTI's Feeling (if I understand Feeling correctly, that is - and which is not the same as the normal English "feeling") - it's about subjective decisions, taken from the heart, with concern for other people and/or true to your own values and everything.
The other is a more negative meaning which essentially means "not thinking".
Of course, I meant "emotional" in the first meaning... I know very well that emotions and logic can agree sometimes!Those decisions are the best, aren't they?
Taking a decision based on values does not automatically imply the decision is unreasonable or inefficient. It also works the other way around - taking a decision based on efficiency doesn't automatically mean it's evil.
I'm sure most people try to get their Thinking and Feeling sides to agree - with, of course, emphasis on the one or the other, depending on the person.

I guess you can translate the previous thing in function language, too. I'm a Ti and Fe user and sometimes I recognize both at work - at odds with each other, trying to find a compromise, or the one deciding between a few possibilities left by the other. Why not? Explaining an abstract concept and so helping someone to understand it! I love teaching

Another thing. Thinkers acting as if they are intrinsically better... okay, that's not nice. But it happens the other way around too. No friends, asocial loser, and of course unloving - because you are good at math. How many fiction heroes do you know who are good at math (or science) and are NOT lonely nerds or know-it-alls? How many of them are beautiful (which is an indicator for popularity and goodness)? No, the character with the brains is always the one the audience should feel pity for. Poor loner, who studies only because he's not wanted at the party!
I know one of them - Hermione Granger. A bossy know-it-all indeed, but then she becomes an activist wanting to free the house-elf slaves! Amoral? Forget it. Kudos to Rowling. And even then Rowling got lots of letters asking her to make Ron survive the last book and none about Hermione. Ron is a much more loveable character. And that's the sad reality for the Hermiones among us.

 

[Noon]

Concerning the Thinking-Feeling issue...

Maybe there is also a misunderstanding from my part here. English is not my mother tongue.

My apologies.

What nuances and implications does the word "emotional" have? Does it automatically get shades of "whiny" and "clingy" and "unreasonable"? Because the Dutch word "emotioneel" has two meanings... The first is a rather technical term, more or less the same as the MBTI's Feeling (if I understand Feeling correctly, that is - and which is not the same as the normal English "feeling") - it's about subjective decisions, taken from the heart, with concern for other people and/or true to your own values and everything.

In English, "emotional" implies that someone is sensitive and significantly affected by their emotional states: sadness, anger, etc. When used negatively, it implies that the person in question has a lower ability to think and reason clearly, consistently, reliably, and/or without bias. In communities like these, it very often carries the negative connotations. To be emotional is also to be very subjective because emotions are inherently very subjective, and we all know how subjectivity is so often villain-ized. I think that the problem is that the divide between common English and Jungian terminology often goes unacknowledged.

The definition that you mention is pretty similar to what Fi includes. Fe users are also similar, but also different. I incorporate the possible effects on others that my decisions may have, as well as what is most efficient for creating interpersonal balance. It's to make interactions smoother so that everyone can get the most out of them. Although I do have my own personal values, I often work with the values of the external as well and try to squeeze the best, most efficient product out in the end. Both Feeling functions judge worth, importance, and value (good/bad, right/wrong) more than truth.

The other is a more negative meaning which essentially means "not thinking".
Of course, I meant "emotional" in the first meaning... I know very well that emotions and logic can agree sometimes!Those decisions are the best, aren't they?

Interestingly, the bolded is a proper example of a Feeling judgment. I personally don't know that it's the best way, but I know that it's the way which I prefer.

Another thing. Thinkers acting as if they are intrinsically better... okay, that's not nice. But it happens the other way around too. No friends, asocial loser, and of course unloving - because you are good at math. How many fiction heroes do you know who are good at math (or science) and are NOT lonely nerds or know-it-alls? How many of them are beautiful (which is an indicator for popularity and goodness)? No, the character with the brains is always the one the audience should feel pity for. Poor loner, who studies only because he's not wanted at the party!
I know one of them - Hermione Granger. A bossy know-it-all indeed, but then she becomes an activist wanting to free the house-elf slaves! Amoral? Forget it. Kudos to Rowling.

That honestly sounds more like an I/E issue. Maybe also an issue of one culture over-valuing popularity and materialism. It's common. Feelers can also take the brunt of it. Many Feelers (like ENFPs) are gifted at math, so I don't think that it's a deciding factor for T or F.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Concerning the Thinking-Feeling issue...

Maybe there is also a misunderstanding from my part here. English is not my mother tongue.

Well, yes, that would explain a lot.

I'm glad this came up. I now wonder how much this language barrier comes into play with other posters regarding feeling & emotion...

What nuances and implications does the word "emotional" have? Does it automatically get shades of "whiny" and "clingy" and "unreasonable"? Because the Dutch word "emotioneel" has two meanings... The first is a rather technical term, more or less the same as the MBTI's Feeling (if I understand Feeling correctly, that is - and which is not the same as the normal English "feeling") - it's about subjective decisions, taken from the heart, with concern for other people and/or true to your own values and everything.

It sounds like the Dutch word distinguishes better between Feeling in MBTI or Jungian terms and the general use of the word feeling. In English, the word feeling is unfortunately associated with emotional reactions, which are what Noon mentioned (ie. anger, sadness, excitement, etc). What you describe here is pretty much what Feeling as a function is meant to be (a form of reason), but in English to call it emotion is incorrect. There's pretty much not a good word for Feeling in English, as far as the MBTI/Jungian meaning goes, but Feeling is the best we've got.

The other is a more negative meaning which essentially means "not thinking".
Of course, I meant "emotional" in the first meaning...

This second meaning is what emotions in English refers to - those irrational responses that arise & can cloud judgment if not dealt with properly. You can see why confusing the two annoys Feelers - it implies we don't use reason, but just act & decide based on emotional responses.

I know very well that emotions and logic can agree sometimes!Those decisions are the best, aren't they?
Taking a decision based on values does not automatically imply the decision is unreasonable or inefficient. It also works the other way around - taking a decision based on efficiency doesn't automatically mean it's evil.
I'm sure most people try to get their Thinking and Feeling sides to agree - with, of course, emphasis on the one or the other, depending on the person.

Agreed....and that is what MBTI suggests also.

 

[Salomé]

Thinkers
...
Regularly fap to Nietzsche

Yes. Absurd.
Schopenhauer is the only rational choice.


Typology is the pseudo-science of attempting to give stereotypes legitimacy. It's the art of being wrong about the complexity of human nature in not particularly creative ways.
How could it be anything other than dumb?