• 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.

F

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I was thinking about each of the letters in MBTI recently and I began to wonder why the term Feeling is used. It seems to me that Feeling is more of an intuitive thing, whereas Emotional describes emotions. I understand that there is already a letter E in MBTI, and I also understand that emotional has an inherent negative connotation, but for the sake of argument pretend that neither exists.

The way it is currently, you can be a Feeler, yet have absolutely no ability to "feel" people's emotions (S's). Whereas, an NT might be able to "feel" things.

Anyways, this could be a product of my being awake at a late hour and an attempt to push the envelope on procrastination concerning my test studying, but I'd like to hear some input.


I can understand how one can think that 'F' in typology is mis-labeled.

Yet, we should note that Jung used the word Feeling in a non-vernacular fashion. He wasnt talking about literally experiencing feelings, but actually something that is more along the lines of 'thinking about feeling'. Or reflecting on one's feelings concerning the scenario and then making decisions based on that.

Hence this is actually thinking about the personal aspects of our knowledge, as opposed to the impersonal as we get with (T). Hence both feelers and thinkers 'Think', in a vernacular sense of the word and this is why they are called the judging functions. Once again, the only difference is that one thinks about personal entities, and the other about impersonal.
 

Alienclock

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
118
MBTI Type
infp
I can understand how one can think that 'F' in typology is mis-labeled.

Yet, we should note that Jung used the word Feeling in a non-vernacular fashion. He wasnt talking about literally experiencing feelings, but actually something that is more along the lines of 'thinking about feeling'. Or reflecting on one's feelings concerning the scenario and then making decisions based on that.

Hence this is actually thinking about the personal aspects of our knowledge, as opposed to the impersonal as we get with (T). Hence both feelers and thinkers 'Think', in a vernacular sense of the word and this is why they are called the judging functions. Once again, the only difference is that one thinks about personal entities, and the other about impersonal.

This sounds right to me.

So both Ts (thinkers) and Fs (feelers) actively think and make judgments from their "thoughts"...

However "feelers or Fs", who have thought about a subject, will take how they feel about their thoughts into higher consideration - especially when finalizing a decision or judgment - than the typical thinker.

OR to put it another way...

"Thinkers or Ts" who have feelings about a subject will take what they think about a subject (while actually disregarding their emotional response) into higher consideration in finalizing a decision or judgment than the typical feeler.

In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people.

However,

* Thinkers tend to base their decision and the explanation of that decision on their thought process.
* Feelers may tend to base their decision on how they feel about what they thought, and they use their feelings as the basis of their explanations.


The real difference I have found in thinkers and feelers is not a matter of logic, reason, or emotion but instead language. We all think, have widely differing values, and emote... However, we do tend to communicate differently. I have to add, nothing is absolute.

Its not that feelers are illogical, or lack objectivity, its just that thinkers are missing a certain component.. Just kidding, I poke a stick at you.:harhar: nah nah, n nah nah...:tongue10:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This sounds right to me.

So both Ts (thinkers) and Fs (feelers) actively think and make judgments from their "thoughts"...

However "feelers or Fs", who have thought about a subject, will take how they feel about their thoughts into higher consideration - especially when finalizing a decision or judgment - than the typical thinker.

OR to put it another way...

"Thinkers or Ts" who have feelings about a subject will take what they think about a subject (while actually disregarding their emotional response) into higher consideration in finalizing a decision or judgment than the typical feeler.

In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people.

However,

* Thinkers tend to base their decision and the explanation of that decision on their thought process.
* Feelers may tend to base their decision on how they feel about what they thought, and they use their feelings as the basis of their explanations.


The real difference I have found in thinkers and feelers is not a matter of logic, reason, or emotion but instead language. We all think, have widely differing values, and emote... However, we do tend to communicate differently. I have to add, nothing is absolute.

Its not that feelers are illogical, or lack objectivity, its just that thinkers are missing a certain component.. Just kidding, I poke a stick at you.:harhar: nah nah, n nah nah...:tongue10:

And to all of this I want to add that it is a mistake to deem thinkers objective and feelers subjective. Objectivity should be thought of as seeing the world for what it is and subjectivity as not being able to seperate yourself from your biases.

Feelers tend to be objective about affairs that require personal reasoning and thinkers about those that require impersonal reasoning.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
And to all of this I want to add that it is a mistake to deem thinkers objective and feelers subjective. Objectivity should be thought of as seeing the world for what it is and subjectivity as not being able to seperate yourself from your biases.

Feelers tend to be objective about affairs that require personal reasoning and thinkers about those that require impersonal reasoning.
Gonna disagree here.

Feeling logic is subjective, thinking logic less so. Feeling logic is more appropriate at times, and feelers are often capable of being objective, some of them more than some thinkers, but no, feeling logic still, by definition, must start in the qualities perceived to exist by the observer.

As for whether one can see the world for what it is, I'll leave that one to the cognative scientists and philosophers. I have no clue if it's even possible.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
I don't think this is true. You may have perceived a bias around these T-oriented forums, but generally speaking, I see emotionality as something which is quite universally celebrated- I'm thinking of television/ film/ literature/ music/ art - drama and emotional expressiveness as essentialist-ly human experience.
Speaking as an extremely expressive person, no one trusts a "human" with their money. Emotionality'll getcha a hubby or make you a painting. Starving artist or housewife doesn't sound fun to me. I'd rather be called a robot any day.
I think my cogitations about the value of fun, play, pleasure are very interesting, and um, pleasurable- sometimes I form conceptual insights and connections about these kinds of things that get me all profoundly ecstatic- I value that.
Yeah, I tend to value the product of overthinking more than my original feely goal too.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Gonna disagree here.

Feeling logic is subjective, thinking logic less so. Feeling logic is more appropriate at times, and feelers are often capable of being objective, some of them more than some thinkers, but no, feeling logic still, by definition, must start in the qualities perceived to exist by the observer.

As for whether one can see the world for what it is, I'll leave that one to the cognative scientists and philosophers. I have no clue if it's even possible.


Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..

Some of the best character writers were NFs (like Shakespeare (INFP), Dostoevsky(INFJ).. Tolstoy (ENFP)... and so on...

NTs tended to struggle in that regard... The character writing skills of master novelists like Nietzsche (INTJ) and Voltaire (ENTP) seemed crude in comparison to their Feeling oriented counterparts..

Of course feelers wouldnt do well with questions like 'what is the world like'.. but that is because this requires impersonal reasoning... they'd do much better with what requires personal reasoning... After all... you as an NF probably trust your suppositions about people... this means that you deem for them to be objective.. or dont you.. you wouldnt really trust them if you thought that you were just caught up in your prejudices.. either way this is the case in point for the argument of how true definition of objectivity implies epistemic confidence in virtue of having extricated yourself from your biases... as you..as a Feeler trust your suppositions about people more than your insights about how the world is.. once again.. because you probably think that your suppositions about people are more likely to have you arrive at the truth than your suppositions about something that requires impersonal reasoning.

So... I am not sure if I really caught your drift... because I just found myself repeating what I said in the post that you've just responded to...(clarify please..?)
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..
I agree. But accuracy does not make the process by which one comes to a conclusion objective. The nature of the process makes the process objective or subjective.

Your language is muddy. I can name three or four thinkers who are a great deal better at reading people than the majority of feelers I know. It's not possible to make a good statement about what a thinker would or would not be good at, as any given thinker may have very good use of his feeling functions.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I agree. But accuracy does not make the process by which one comes to a conclusion objective. The nature of the process makes the process objective or subjective.

I've defined objectivity as the success of a proposition in inquiry and subjectivity... the lack of... so accuracy is exactly what I understood for objectivity to be... It appears that you understand for objectivity to be something other than this...

I have an idea of what you meant... though I am not certain... another way to think of it would be that subjectivity... almost by definition suggests the primacy of a subject over an object... so in this case the object is assessed in terms of how it relates to the subject (this is a classical attitude of Introversion)... and objectivity would be the other way around...(classical attitude of Extroversion)...

Though I am not sure if this has a lot to do with the Thinking/Feeling discrepancy that you seem to have in mind...

Seems to me that you're suggesting that personal is subjective and impersonal objective...regardless of where it all stands in relation to accuracy/inaccuracy..or even less regard for extroversion/introversion..

There are many ways to think of the objectivity/subjectivity problem...we should define it clearly for the sake of getting the best results possible...

Also it is clear that there would be thinkers who do a good job of reading people... but again... I'd say this would be in virtue of their good use of the Feeling faculty... as you've previously noted... the 'Thinking' faculty is less likely to make you meritorious in that regard than the 'Feeling'.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..

Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?

I'm not too hot on MBTI, so feel free to shoot me down on this...
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?

I'm not too hot on MBTI, so feel free to shoot me down on this...


I am suggesting that Fs would read people better because of their ability to empathize. Their ideas would be more likely to be accurate. Whereas Ts, being unable to empathize, simply wouldnt understand people and their suppositions about how they are left with a higher propensity to error.

This is a lot like Ts tend to understand logic with a relative ease, yet Fs tend not to and therefore be more likely to make errors.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
I've defined objectivity as the success of a proposition in inquiry and subjectivity the lack of.
And I reject your definition, on the basis of objectivity and accuracy (or appropriateness of action) being independent concepts with very little overlap.

Second, the statement "the jungian feeling processes are objective ones" says "the jungian feeling processes are [uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices]"

This is entirely inaccurate. I have no clue why you think it's a good idea to re-define "objective" in a way no one ever uses it.

It is better to describe the processes as they are, and then asses the results of those processes separately. An objective processes does not guarantee the most appropriate course of action.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
And I reject your definition, on the basis of objectivity and accuracy (or appropriateness of action) being independent concepts with very little overlap.

Second, the statement "the jungian feeling processes are objective ones" says "the jungian feeling processes are [uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices]"

This is entirely inaccurate. I have no clue why you think it's a good idea to re-define "objective" in a way no one ever uses it.

It is better to describe the processes as they are, and then asses the results of those processes separately. An objective processes does not guarantee the most appropriate course of action.


I dont think Jung talked much about objectivity/subjectivity. Nor do I think that there is a conventional definition of those two terms, so by those merits I see no problem with the definition I have suggested in relation to our typological inquiry.

Ok, so how do you think we should define objectivity and subjectivity, and the relationship they have to one another.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?
Feeling logic is usually better suited to social situations than thinking logic. Often, feelers have better utility of feeling logic than thinkers.

However, type is preference, not competence. As an analogy, saying someone is "the best" at reading on a standardized test doesn't mean they're any good at reading, it means relative to their other skills, that is their greatest competence. They may still be retarded.

You'll run into a great many feelers with the social grace of an angry walrus, and some pretty damn suave thinkers. Likewise, thinkers who can't think their way out of a paper bag, and feelers who are chess masters.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Ok, so how do you think we should define objectivity and subjectivity, and the relationship they have to one another.
Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.

Those being the commonly used definitions, and more commonly understood.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.

Those being the commonly used definitions, and more commonly understood.

Not sure if I could grant you this last clause
Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.....


seems to me that subjective people only tend to be unable to liberate themselves from their prejudices when dealing with impersonal reasoning... they seem to give accurate assessments of ideas that require personal reasoning... as for example...assessments of character pertaining to individuals..
 
R

RDF

Guest
[...]In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people. [...]

Here are just some personal impressions of my own on the difference between T and F. They don't necessarily relate to what's quoted above; my impressions are of a very general nature.

I tend to think of F as associative and augmentative, while I think of T as analytical and reductionist. IOW, Fs tend to generalize where as Ts tend to dissect.

On Fs:

When I (as an INFP) am given topic X to consider, my first question tends to be something along the line of "What else is similar to this topic?" So I cast a wide net in my memory and try to remember similar or related topics in order to provide context for topic X. The more context I can provide, the more meaning topic X seems to acquire and the more insight I gain into the workings of context X. Random associations are productive in that they provide new contexts; whimsicality is one means of encouraging and exploring new associations.

Associations are often intertwined with emotions, so emotions are welcomed and viewed as a productive means of pursuing associations. (That is, emotions are recognized and accepted by Fs as a tool for examining topic X the same way that logic is recognized and accepted by Ts as a tool for examining Topic X.)

The danger with this kind of associative thinking, of course, is that my view of topic X becomes so diffuse and global that topic X begins to mean everything and nothing at the same time. You see this on INFP message boards. Everyone has their own different whimsical interpretation of topic X, and everyone just talks past each other. When acting as a discussion group, INFPs can pull in unrelated material and expand a subject out to the point where there's no real insight or content left.

On Ts:

It seems to me that when Ts are given topic X to consider, they start pulling topic X apart to see how it works, and/or they start comparing their existing or favorite analytical tools to topic X.

Once analysis begins, there seems to be a process of paring down and refining topic X to its essence; Ts seem to remove complicating or unnecessary factors in order to best analyze topic X in isolation. This is where the human element seems to get excluded; Ts seem to find the human element too vague and changeable for consistent analysis; they seem to think that if they uniformly exclude it, the process of exclusion itself becomes some kind of analytical norm.

The danger with this kind of thinking, of course, is that topic X is sliced and diced to the point of losing its original meaning. You see this on INTP message boards. Topics get analyzed to the point that they've lost their original context. Interesting threads devolve into heated arguments about unproductive, trivial tangents. A discussion about religion turns into an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if only because the issue of the sizes of angels and pins is more quantifiable and debatable than the much vaguer issue of religion and its meaning to the individual human.

****

Naturally I've oversimplified my description of how these things work. But I've been curious why INFPs demonstrate whimsicality, use of hyperbole, interest in vague associations to unrelated subjects, and can end up with nonsensical views of certain subjects (especially related to science); whereas INTPs prefer rigor and exactness and sometimes get sidetracked into blind alleys or end up with very limited and blinkered view of certain subjects (especially those involving the human element).

It seems to me that I can explain much of the difference if I think of Fs as preferring an augmentative/associative mode of thought whereas Ts prefer an analytical/reductionist mode of thought.

I also like this description because it sidesteps the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I find that Fs and Ts can be equally objective or subjective depending on how they select and apply their favorite tools for purposes of examination of Topic X. IOW, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs are equally prone to arguing in favor of a personal agenda or prejudice without much regard to real objectivity. [Note: The issue of objectivity/subjectivity links back to the quote at the start of the message and actually serves as my starting point.]

This description of Ts and Fs also sidesteps the issue of empathy vs. lack of empathy. With their T and F being introverted, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs can be equally chilly and unempathetic or warm and empathetic in their end judgments and outward actions. That is, Ts and Fs express themselves differently, but their end decision or action may in fact be pretty much the same.

***

I don't know whether this difference in approach (generalizing vs. dissecting) would be the essence of the difference between Ts and Fs, merely intrinsic to it, or simply an interesting byproduct of it.

I think both Ts and Fs can understand and take interest in either process (augmentative vs. reductionist); Ts apply contextual tools as part of their analytical process and Fs apply analysis as part of finding context. But when Ts and Fs leap straight to the final result without demonstrating the process by which they achieved their result, then their counterpart on the other side of the T/F dichotomy probably isn't going to see much meaning in the result.

Disclaimer: Much of the previous discussion is based on comparisons of INFPs vs. INTPs. I would be curious whether INFJs and INTJs might see any application of the same rules to them as well.

(Just some random, java-fueled thoughts on a Saturday afternoon. This very post is a good example of the kind of generalizing, associative thinking that INFPs do.)

FL
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
seems to me that subjective people only tend to be unable to liberate themselves from their prejudices when dealing with impersonal reasoning...
"Prejudice" meaning "personal preferences and beliefs."

You seem to latch onto the connotative meanings of words. "Objective means good so everyone's objective!"

"Prejudice is a bad word!"
 

s0532

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
43
MBTI Type
INTP
Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.
agreed!

Feeling logic is usually better suited to social situations than thinking logic. Often, feelers have better utility of feeling logic than thinkers.

However, type is preference, not competence. As an analogy, saying someone is "the best" at reading on a standardized test doesn't mean they're any good at reading, it means relative to their other skills, that is their greatest competence. They may still be retarded.

You'll run into a great many feelers with the social grace of an angry walrus, and some pretty damn suave thinkers. Likewise, thinkers who can't think their way out of a paper bag, and feelers who are chess masters.

:nice:

I think this is a key point which most quickly gets lost in dialogues about mbti - and there's some temptation to compare competencies and declare some better than others. Which then gets people all in a tizzy about personal adequacies/ inadequacies.

Back to objective/ subjective- I don't think we're talking about the capacity for objective or subjective reasoning, more the tendency to exercise one over the other. Which I think is helpful to explore and know about insofar as different kinds of contexts call for exercising of the lesser developed function.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..

I disagree. I think N plays a big role on this. I may be a T but I can still read people fairly well when it comes to motivation and what people are getting at. There is a reason why many INTJs are more tactful to people than ISTJs are. I think what you mean is that Ts can't read people's emotional state well.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I think this is a key point which most quickly gets lost in dialogues about mbti - and there's some temptation to compare competencies and declare some better than others. Which then gets people all in a tizzy about personal adequacies/ inadequacies.

Back to objective/ subjective- I don't think we're talking about the capacity for objective or subjective reasoning, more the tendency to exercise one over the other. Which I think is helpful to explore and know about insofar as different kinds of contexts call for exercising of the lesser developed function.

In the context of INTPs and INFPs dealing with commonsense issues of real life, then F and T don't seem to be intrinsically objective or subjective. F and T just seem to be areas of competency, like good hearing vs. good sight. Objectivity/subjectivity comes into play to the exent that INTPs and INFPs have facility at using their non-dominant functions. For example, objectivity seems to be high when Fi and Ti are strongly tempered by Ne. Subjectivity seems to be high when Fi and Ti operate without input from Ne.

FL
 
Top