• 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

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
I dunno, as a rule, most Feelers are more empathetic than most Thinkers, on average, although I do think that how calm and collected one is is pretty much independant of T verses F-- you'll run into some really non-reactive, collected feelers about as often similarly collected thinkers, in my experience. And Ts can be really strongly vitriolic, reactive, and emotional.

I do wish "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" were used instead of "Feeling" and "Thinking." Feelers can be very good at qualitative logic.

As for "S"s being less understanding, yeah, S vs N seems to be the biggest rift, at least for me, in terms of communication and general getting-along-ness. It does go both ways, though. I with a few exceptions (notably ISTPs), I probably badly fail to take many S styles of comunication seriously, just like they me.

It's not that they're not empathetic, it's that you're basically alien to many of them, esspecially if they have no exposure to the MBTI. Empathy without commonality, or at the very least a tool of understanding, can fall way short.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
As for "S"s being less understanding, yeah, S vs N seems to be the biggest rift, at least for me, in terms of communication and general getting-along-ness.

Exactly. Now, I expect that from time to time people will take my sarcasm seriously...since it isn't so blatant, but I don't think I have ever had an S person not take something I said at face value.
 

Lookin4theBestNU

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
801
MBTI Type
ENFj
Enneagram
2w3
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 term "Feeler" already has plenty of negative connotation. I think changing it to emotional would neither help/hurt it any more than where it's at presently.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
On another note, what's the basis for using the words Judging and Perceiving. It's possible that I just don't understand the differences enough, but it seems a little wrong.
 

Alienclock

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
118
MBTI Type
infp
The term "Feeler" already has plenty of negative connotation. I think changing it to emotional would neither help/hurt it any more than where it's at presently.

I think changing it to emotional would hurt. Feeler may have negative connotations, but it is more accurate. (I explain more below)

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.

A wise person once said:
Its said often enough that Feeling isn't about feelings, but its also true that Thinking isn't about thoughts. Thoughts in terms of abstract concepts are an aspect of iNtuition, and feeling as an emotional affect physically experienced is associated with Sensation.

Don't ask me what the above quote actually means, but it sounds smart and right. "feeler" I am a feeler. Viscerally I get a sensation that says yes, seems right, further investigate its integrity using logic... and feel out the logic... feeling for me does allow me to make jumps and connections that I then have to explain...

side note
Only a psychic or 6th sense type empath can actually "feel" someone else's emotions. Normally people, empathic or otherwise, react to their perceptions or how they imagine someone is feeling.

On another note, what's the basis for using the words Judging and Perceiving. It's possible that I just don't understand the differences enough, but it seems a little wrong.

Perhaps Judging relates to finality, and Perceiving relates to a dynamic sense of what is... Judging function often included deadlines, and rigidity in ideas... and Perceiving seems to me much more fluid, relating instead to the individuals emotional state or internal ideas compass etc...

? the above is just my thoughts, or feelings, or perception or whatever... What do you guys think?

edited to add.
The only generalization I'm comfortable with about J/P differences is that J's like to approach the world in the style of an orderly marching band -- with structure; they feel better following a plan; they like closure and want things completed. P's like to approach the world in the style of a jazz band -- spontaneous, flexible, preferring to keep their options open. And that's as specific about J/P as I'm willing to get!
This sounds extremely right to me in describing the j / p difference.
 

Eileen

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
2,179
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6?
F is more about ethics/values than emotions, from what I can tell.
 

Alienclock

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
118
MBTI Type
infp
F is more about ethics/values than emotions, from what I can tell.
What do you think F's share or have in common in terms of similarity of values/ethics?
OR
Do you think they make decisions using ethics/values more or less than other types?
 

Eileen

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
2,179
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6?
What do you think F's share or have in common in terms of similarity of values/ethics?
OR
Do you think they make decisions using ethics/values more or less than other types?

I don't think they necessarily have similar values, but I think they'd tend to use the subjective values that they do have to make decisions more than T types.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Judging and Perceiving come from the function theory of MBTI.

There are two types of functions-- Judging, that is, decision making, and Perceiving, or information gathering. The functions used to make decisions are any of the Feeling or Thinking functions. The ones used to observe and understand the world are Intuition and Sensing.

Now a person is defined in MBTI by their first pair of functions-- First, your primary function. As an INTJ, your first function is Introverted Intuition.

This is where INXX comes from.

Now, in MBTI, the first extraverted function defines whether you are a judger or a perceiver, because that is what people will see you doing in the world-- deciding or gathering information.

As an INTJ, your second function, and the first extraverted function, is Extraverted thinking. People will see you, when you do do things in the world, as primarily organizing and synthesizing information toward an end.

In the case of an extravert-- let's say an ESFP, their first function is going to be an extraverted Perceiving function. Since they're a sensor, their first function is Extraverted Sensing. Their main goal is to gather Sensory information as much and as long as possible, and avoid taking action that'd cut that option off for them. Like a decision.

Not going to go into how the tertiary and shadow functions are determined at the moment, since it's actually off topic. I don't actually buy this is entirely how type or functions must always work, but it does help understand.

Keirsey basically agrees, without a function theory behind it. If you'd rather gather information, you're a P, if you'd rather make a quick decision, you're a J.

Socionics doesn't look at behavior, but instead personal experience. They look at the first function to determine J vs P, so it differs in both type description and on what type certain introverts are. Personally, I find socionics a leeetle kooky, but it's an important distinction to make.
 

Alienclock

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
118
MBTI Type
infp
I don't think they necessarily have similar values, but I think they'd tend to use the subjective values that they do have to make decisions more than T types.

I guess we can agree that all types have and use values, however I am unsure as to what an objective value vs a subjective value looks like. Could you give me an example?
 

rivercrow

shoshaku jushaku
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,555
MBTI Type
type
The Thinking and Feeling functions were named that way by Jung, who himself admitted these were not the best terms.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
I guess we can agree that all types have and use values, however I am unsure as to what an objective value vs a subjective value looks like. Could you give me an example?
Well, all use them. Some prefer to remove themseves far from them.

Feelers come from a position of arguing inherent qualities in a debate-- something is good, another less good (or another quality), and personal feeling, experience, and temperment contributes this notion.

Thinkers often must start there as well, but where possible, their language will be far removed from personal preference or experience. One action should be taken based on disembodied principals supported by checked and re-checked facts and a variety o sources. Any given Solitarywalker is a good example of this.

I really don't feel I've done justice to the utilitiy of Jungian Feeling-based logic, so I'll illustrate.

You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I do wish "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" were used instead of "Feeling" and "Thinking." Feelers can be very good at qualitative logic.
I agree those are less confusing poles. Well put.

Judging and Perceiving come from the function theory of MBTI...

Keirsey basically agrees, without a function theory behind it. If you'd rather gather information, you're a P, if you'd rather make a quick decision, you're a J.

Socionics doesn't look at behavior, but instead personal experience. They look at the first function to determine J vs P, so it differs in both type description and on what type certain introverts are. Personally, I find socionics a leeetle kooky, but it's an important distinction to make.
There is also the quality of collecting the most comprehensive information possible so that when a decision is made, it can in fact be final. A quick decision and no decision can share the same quality of needing continual revision. I find my Thinking is strongly P, but my Feeling and Sensing are J. It's an interesting dichotomy. I wonder how many other people experience something like this.

Well, all use them. Some prefer to remove themseves far from them.

Feelers come from a position of arguing inherent qualities in a debate-- something is good, another less good (or another quality), and personal feeling, experience, and temperment contributes this notion.

Thinkers often must start there as well, but where possible, their language will be far removed from personal preference or experience. One action should be taken based on disembodied principals supported by checked and re-checked facts and a variety o sources. Any given Solitarywalker is a good example of this.

I really don't feel I've done justice to the utilitiy of Jungian Feeling-based logic, so I'll illustrate.

You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
It would seem useful to have enough adaptability to use the style of analysis best suited for a given task. Discussing 'fun' reasonably requires a different process than discussing philosophy.

Perhaps that is one reason this forum is of value. When placed in various discussions that requires different types of processing one can increase their adaptability in their analysis.
*******************************************************

This is a related question I would be curious to hear input from others on. The more you have invested research and personal experience in a topic, do you find yourself personalizing it more or less than information you are most recently presented with? It would seem expected that the greater investment = greater personalizing of said topic, but for myself I find it quite the opposite. There are a handful of topics that I have basically invested my life in and for some reason, those are the easiest for me to remain personally distanced with during a discussion.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This is a related question I would be curious to hear input from others on. The more you have invested research and personal experience in a topic, do you find yourself personalizing it more or less than information you are most recently presented with? It would seem expected that the greater investment = greater personalizing of said topic, but for myself I find it quite the opposite. There are a handful of topics that I have basically invested my life in and for some reason, those are the easiest for me to remain personally distanced with during a discussion.

Maybe I'm just exhausted from surviving the week, but could you clarify what you mean here? I'm admittedly lost as to what exactly you're asking. Thanks, Toony!
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Maybe I'm just exhausted from surviving the week, but could you clarify what you mean here? I'm admittedly lost as to what exactly you're asking. Thanks, Toony!
Me too. :hi: That's probably why it needs clarifying. For specifics, the question of god and the role of compassion in human interaction have occupied my mind since childhood. Because of investing the time to view it from every possible angle, it is easier for me to discuss it at a distance, by removing myself from it, than it was to discuss issues in my profession when I first encountered them. I did get emotionally invested in online discussion regarding those, but now that I am a few years into my career, the distancing process is in place.

Very often with politics, religion, etc. if a person has invested a great deal of thought into, they will 'tend' to be more passionate, feel a certain entitlement to being right, consider their personal experience and research 'makes' them right, etc. To a point it does increase credibility, but what I'm talking about isn't about credibility, it is about staying detached vs. becoming passionate about the topics that mean the most to you as a person. I'm not saying one is right or not, but I'm curious about the relationship of this to the whole F and T business.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Makes sense to me. A lot of times the more I learn the less I know.

I can still have my own views or feelings about things, but if I have a wide exposure to a subject, I have a wide exposure on the varying views of intelligent knowledgeable people on that subject and I can see how they came to the conclusions that they did. It makes me less likely to be emotionally invested in my own views to the exclusion of all others.

Is that something like what you're saying or do I have it all scrambled?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Very often with politics, religion, etc. if a person has invested a great deal of thought into, they will 'tend' to be more passionate, feel a certain entitlement to being right, consider their personal experience and research 'makes' them right, etc. To a point it does increase credibility, but what I'm talking about isn't about credibility, it is about staying detached vs. becoming passionate about the topics that mean the most to you as a person. I'm not saying one is right or not, but I'm curious about the relationship of this to the whole F and T business.

I... don't know, to be honest.

One thing that always frustrated me about myself with religion or other similar things was that other people who believed in it could fight for it very ardently. But it seemed like the more I studied it and tried to get a grasp on it, even while I have some strong and broad inner convictions, I am even less prone to "debating it" on the outside with others, at least in terms of "promoting my point of view." I see things from too many different angles. What I usually do in any discussion is fill in the missing gaps for people -- I explain whatever side I feel is not getting clearly examined. If I lead the conversation and promote a viewpoint and someone points out one of the other ways to looking at it, I tend to lose steam.

I don't know what this means at all. We've discussed Ni some (which really tends to the "detach from the preferred meaning of something, and examine it from all sides to see all potential meanings" function), and one of my anomalies for being INTP is that the function test portrayed me as having an atypically strong Ni along with my normal functions. I don't know whether this is Ni or what exactly.

If this missed what you were aiming for, feel free to clarify and we'll hone in on it somehow.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Fortunato and cafe hit the nail on the head. :) I've tended to fill in the missing gaps as well in a discussion. On hot-topic items I typically have a history of being raked over the coals by both sides. That actually amuses me a bit. My position is that if something is worth believing, it should be strong enough to hold its own. Even if the position is lost in a debate, whatever is really true, will still be. Whatever is true is bigger than my opinions of it. It's for me to continually search until my thoughts reflect what really 'is'. Its more of a process than a destination.

Back to the question of F. Emotions do influence everyone. We are measurably hardwired to process emotions and have a fair amount of grey matter devoted to it. It would seem worth exploring it more thoroughly than MBTI does. It might help account for all the variations within each type. I'm still hoping for a system that analyzes cognitive processes based on the physical components of the brain and on scans to test where activity is concentrated, etc. The less conjecture the better. Honestly though, I still have more to learn about the systems that are in place already like MBTI.
 

s0532

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
43
MBTI Type
INTP
I also understand that emotional has an inherent negative connotation,
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. Sometimes I think emotionality is used synonymously with (conflated with) "humanity." To be rational somehow recalls coldness, the mechanical, the inhuman.

I do wish "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" were used instead of "Feeling" and "Thinking." Feelers can be very good at qualitative logic.
No understand how this could apply at all. T's are not necessarily mathy. You once proposed V for Value instead of F, I think that speaks much better toward explicating the distinction.

Of course I'd say ultimately I think we're all fundamentally values-motivated. Maybe T's simply value, and aspire toward, objectivity over subjectivity.

You really will have a lot of trouble coming from an objective stance and figuring out a reason why, for exaple, anyone ought to have fun, ever, whereas a feeling argument, which recognizes the inherent qualities of fun ("Uh, because fun is pleasant, and usually harmless or benefical? Duh!"), and arrives at the answer a lot more efficently, and I daresay, more logically than trying to find some universal inherent value to personal experience.
I can see why you say more efficiently- I am still learning- like, when shopping, to just pick the color which pleases me best, because, well, it pleases me best, no need to overthink and brew. But I would say it's only more efficient if one's goal/ agenda at hand is direct emotional satisfaction vs understanding or something. 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.
 
Top