"Feeling" & "Thinking"

[Seanan]

BTW, I didn't add because its really just a personal opinion and not OT (well with a stretch.. maybe) its never going to stop no matter what the labels. The ones here who know the MB definitions will just quit discussing as its pointless and others will use bits and pieces ... buzz words... from MB to fight the same battles. Just seems people always need to think of someone as being better or less than in some way. Of course, there are egalitarians out there but I haven't seen many here.

 

[Athenian200]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

What say you??

Extreme versions of those types would indeed be that way. But I do think there are inaccuracies in the proposed name changes.

Subjective decision making could apply to any Introverted type, as Introversion is all about the subjective factor... whether it's in relation to thinking or feeling. And Extroversion is always about the objective factor, again whether it's in relation to feeling or thinking. The associations of the terms you perceived do not exist in a psychological context. They're semantic.

I personally prefer the Socionic conventions of "Ethical" and "Logical" types. Except that those dichotomies don't cover exactly what the MBTI ones do.

I think the best course is to read official documentation/descriptions of the terms, and not rely on common definitions. None are sufficient.

 

[Seanan]

I think the best course is to read official documentation/descriptions of the terms, and not rely on common definitions. None are sufficient.

 

[Butterfly]

This is good. Detailed analysis. But its more in depth and detailed than I had thought....and my brain cant process it at the moment...so maybe i will post later, not sure.

But good stuff.

 

["?"]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

What say you??

Jung used a number of words that are counter to connotations used and understood. The biggest is extraversion and introversion, which gives no consideration to anything, but how you prefer to energize yourself and has no credence on being gregarious or sociable.

To respond to your inquiry, I always find it amusing that the first thing people want to do is change the system when they have failed to understand it as is. There is nothing wrong with the system, it's the readers. Basic principle of the system: all functions are cognitive and does not take emotions into consideration. T/F are both rational functions and S/N are irrational functions. Understand that, then you will find no reason to need to change it.
SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"
What say you??

As Kiddo alluded to, even your proposed changes are erroneous since Jung says that introverts are subjective and extraverts are objective, regardless of the function being used. Ergo Fe is objective and rational, and Ni subjective and irrational. Fe is as equally rational as Ti, however the attitude (E/I) makes it objective and Ti subjective.

 

[Mondo]

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

Butterfly, I would agree with this.
I haven't been into MBTI that long but at first I thought I was a T because I could make decisions logically and had no problem with doing so.

However, I realized that when making decisions I naturally think about how my decision will affect other people and try to work all of that in, because I always have others on my mind and that makes me an F.

I am personally a bigger fan of Keirsey's theories than Meyers'. I think Meyers got a good start but Keirsey perfected MBTI by tying it with other personality theories of the past.

 

["?"]

I think there is a misunderstanding of use of the words subjective/objective as they pertain to the system. Keep in mind that objective simply means that decisions being made or information taken in is based on objectivity (outside of the self) as opposed to subjectivity (from within and from an introverted point of view). Myers-Briggs takes this into account in stating that introverts are egocentric, not in a negative way, but because they are always concerned how outside forces will affect their decisions, whereas extraverts are always concerned how their decisions will affect others.

What you describe Mondo, is clearly the preference to feeling than thinking, however preferring Ne is what makes you objective in taking something outside of of yourself into consideration. In the end introverts are subjective and extraverts objective. Jung goes on to say that the those preferring Ti believe themselves to be objective, however Ti usually manipulates information to fit into the subjects on way of seeing things and not for it's own sake.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I have a problem with the words "FEELING" and "THINKING" being used in the MBTI or other systems.

These words have the undertone that:
- someone with a FEELING (F) preference is all warm, fuzzy and emotional with NO intellect or logic.
- someone with a THINKING (T) preference is all about logic and no emotion or feelings, making them out to be cold, harsh, robotic etc.

SO I propose a change of wordings from:

"Feeling" to "Subjective Decision Making"
"Thinking" to "Objective Decision Making"

What say you??

I dont get it. Does saying someone has a Thinking preferrence mean that Thinking is the only function they have?

If we say Objective decision making, by that token we'd also have to imply that they are all about objective decision making.

Why not instead say that a Thinking preferrence implies simply putting more weight on Thinking than on Feeling, yet not all on one and none on the other.

 

[Athenian200]

Why not instead say that a Thinking preference implies simply putting more weight on Thinking than on Feeling, yet not all on one and none on the other.

That works if you're able to see the functions as a spectrum from one extreme to the other, infer from the descriptions of the extremes what the parts closer to the center are like, and then manage to find where you are on that spectrum. But that takes a lot of work, and doesn't yield a precise or easily describable answer.

Also, the words "thinking" and "feeling" have definitions that have nothing to do with the cognitive processes they are related to. These definitions confuse people because their minds usually aren't capable of creating good boundaries between different contexts and applying a particular meaning to words locally rather than globally.

 

[heart]

That works if you're able to see the functions as a spectrum from one extreme to the other, infer from the descriptions of the extremes what the parts closer to the center are like, and then manage to find where you are on that spectrum. But that takes a lot of work, and doesn't yield a precise or easily describable answer.

"Too complex?"

Also, the words "thinking" and "feeling" have definitions that have nothing to do with the cognitive processes they are related to. These definitions confuse people because their minds usually aren't capable of creating good boundaries between different contexts and applying a particular meaning to words locally rather than globally.

There is probably no way to get the message through to people like that.

 

[alcea rosea]

I would say rather that
F = people oriented
T = object oriented

 

[INTJMom]

I don't get it. ....

You're not seeing it simply enough.
Since you are so educated in this subject,
you don't realize the simplicity with which some people are approaching this subject.
When people are first introduced to MBTT, they hear "thinking" and "feeling" in their colloquial terms.
They jump to the wrong conclusion that Thinkers don't have feelings, and that Feelers are not logical.
The point of the OP is to try to avoid those misunderstandings by changing the vocabulary.
But I think that no matter what the vocabulary, it will have to be explained.

 

[erm]

Why use words that already have a meaning outside of MBTI?

T= Tysharine
F= Futaka

That way you have to read the definitions in detail to understand what they're about!

The words subjective and objective are very dodgey too.

Subjective is that which applies only to the one person (singular group of beings), objective that which applies to everything. In this sense F's would focus on the feelings which only apply to one or more people, whereas T's would focus on that which applies to everyone.

Then again twist objective/subjective to I's and E's. I's focus on their own subjective selves more, E's focus more on the shared objective world around them.

The second one is closer to the military's use (at least on TV) of the words. The first closer to how everyone uses them.

I'd also suggest:
T= Principle-ing
F= Value-ing

Since that would involve looking up their meanings for most people, I imagine. Whilst still having some root in the areas outside of MBTI (making it seem less like made up cr*p).

 

[Seanan]

To respond to your inquiry, I always find it amusing that the first thing people want to do is change the system when they have failed to understand it as is. There is nothing wrong with the system, it's the readers.

Yup... would be interesting to see which types do that the most.

 

[Thursday]

I would say rather that
F = people oriented
T = object oriented

case closed
good one

 

[Seanan]

I would say rather that
F = people oriented
T = object oriented

Nope... consider situation in which "people" must be assigned certain tasks... a team. "F" will consider the individuals based on their own value system and how it will affect those individuals. "T" will consider the goal of the team and take into account the personalities involved for ultimate success. Both involve regard for people.

 

["?"]

Furthermore all extraverts focus on the object (objective) and to some extent are people oriented more than introverts who focus on themselves (subjective). Those terms are currently considered in Jung's work.

 

[Valiant]

Is that you John Wayne?
Is this me?

 

["?"]

Another try.
According to Linda V Berens. Dynamics of personality type, p.15

Under the heading:
Jung's Cognitive Processes

"Judgement
We have to adandon the usual meanings we give to te names in this category. Thinking as a cognitive process is not the same as tought, analysis, or intelligence. Here, it specifically means coming to decisions using objective criterial. Likewise, the Feeling process is not about emotion or feeling but about evaluating events and circumstances according to improtance and values."

T = decision using objective criteria
F = evaluating events and circumstances accroding to importance and values

I agree on this. Very much.

Did you raise a theory then second it? How funny. I do agree and those are some good connotations.

 

[ygolo]

I dig it!

I think of it as:
F: need for harmony
T: need for consistency

This is the closest to the way I think of it.

Not really at odds, but can be at times.

Here is my attempt:

F: need for "goodness"
T: need for honesty