Letter #3: T or F - are you a Thinker or a Feeler?

[Mal12345]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

according to this, I'm a fairly strong T lol

[MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION]

this. I'm an ENFP, but I don't care for 95% of people and tend to be rational, level headed and not very emotional. descriptions make Feelers all sound like EFJ 2s and 4s (yuck!)

But what it boils down to is this: if I met you IRL, I would see you as a Thinking type.

Also, I'm not a big Te user but I identify with most of the Thinking traits listed. What you don't get is that it is possible to describe T and F without reference to the two attitudinal relationships, that is, just Thinking and Feeling. But if you're used to seeing this only in Jungian terms, it becomes difficult to separate from that. I've seen a lot of that around here. It is nothing more than reductionistic.

I will agree that the statements in my own list, such as "You're hardhearted!", seem like they describe a Te, such as my ESTJ boss. But I've been described as unemotional and even criticized for it.

 

[bluestripes]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

not sure how to respond:

critical, then supportive vs. supportive, then critical - i can be both, depending on the circumstances. there are situations, especially with some close friends, where to in order to help one has to be critical. i suppose that could be defined as being slightly more in favor of the second option.

decides with head vs. decides with heart - can't answer this one. ideally, i would like to be able to decide with my heart more, but in reality i often do not. my heart may well be silent when i need it least or come up with something that will make me wonder just what it is and what do i do with it. in cases like those, i use logic to decide. i suppose i might be considered somewhat more in favor of the second option. after all, i do want to make more decisions based on my feelings. at least that.

good at being critical vs. good at being appreciative - i can be both, depending on the context.

at ease with the personal vs. at ease with the impersonal - i am both. i'm perfectly fine with the impersonal, if theories are to be seen as that. but then i have to be emotionally invested in a theory for it to be attractive - does that make it more "personal"? again, possibly more in favor of the second option, but not so sure.

sees conflict as natural vs. sees conflict as personal - i perceive conflicts much less personally than i used to until my early twenties, and yes, i largely see them as natural. though random odd overreactions do happen once in a while and i am never sure what is going to trigger them or when.

based on this i am F, but with some question marks.

(i think i am most probably INFP, but been wondering about INTP too)

 

[Mal12345]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

not sure how to respond:

critical, then supportive vs. supportive, then critical - i can be both, depending on the circumstances. there are situations, especially with some close friends, where to in order to help one has to be critical. i suppose that could be defined as being slightly more in favor of the second option.

decides with head vs. decides with heart - can't answer this one. ideally, i would like to be able to decide with my heart more, but in reality i often do not. my heart may well be silent when i need it least or come up with something that will make me wonder just what it is and what do i do with it. in cases like those, i use logic to decide. i suppose i might be considered somewhat more in favor of the second option. after all, i do want to make more decisions based on my feelings. at least that.

good at being critical vs. good at being appreciative - i can be both, depending on the context.

at ease with the personal vs. at ease with the impersonal - i am both. i'm perfectly fine with the impersonal, if theories are to be seen as that. but then i have to be emotionally invested in a theory for it to be attractive - does that make it more "personal"? again, possibly more in favor of the second option, but not so sure.

sees conflict as natural vs. sees conflict as personal - i perceive conflicts much less personally than i used to until my early twenties, and yes, i largely see them as natural. though random odd overreactions do happen once in a while and i am never sure what is going to trigger them or when.

based on this i am F, but with some question marks.

(i think i am most probably INFP, but been wondering about INTP too)

Thinkers are often described as those who like to dot their i's and cross their t's. But that's only for handwriting. In typing, perhaps the fact that you neglected to capitalize any sentences is a sign that you're a Feeler.

 

[Southern Kross]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

Bold = strongly identify
Red = could go either way (depending on situation)
Blue = like/skilled at both equally

This was difficult. I identify at least to a degree with half of the Thinking list except those that relate to being harsh, critical, and at ease with conflict; these are very alienating to me. But then my ISTP dad doesn't like conflict either (probably because he's a 9w8) . I'm not sure whether I decide with head or heart but I'm inclined to say I probably use my head more often.

 

[Owfin]

Also, I'm not a big Te user but I identify with most of the Thinking traits listed. What you don't get is that it is possible to describe T and F without reference to the two attitudinal relationships, that is, just Thinking and Feeling. But if you're used to seeing this only in Jungian terms, it becomes difficult to separate from that. I've seen a lot of that around here. It is nothing more than reductionistic.

I do think it is possible to describe T and F without reference to the two attitudinal relationships. I just thought the descriptions here had aspects that were not pure T vs F.

 

[Xyk]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

I'm a thinker, but people are waaaay more interesting than things. I like to think I'm somewhat in touch with my feelings though. Also, I am extremely uncomfortable around conflict. It totally sucks.

 

[Such Irony]

Bolded = strongly fits
Italics = somewhat fits
Strikethrough = doesn't apply to me


T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

 

[Coriolis]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact (I try to balance this one; sometimes, silence is best)
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion (more seeks to keep it in its place)
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative (I am getting better at this)
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction (probably more driven by Ni-dom)


I am more likely to act like a Thinker and:

Have truth as my objective.
Decide more with my head.
Prefer on principle to question others' findings, believing their findings may be inaccurate.
See my encounters with people as having a purpose.
Notice ineffective reasoning.
Choose truthfulness over tactfulness.
Critique and point out the negatives, overlooking the positives.
Focus my attention on universal principles.
Deal with people firmly, as required.
Expect the world to run on logical principles. (but I've learned it often does not)


I am more likely to act like a Feeler and:

Have harmony as my objective.
Decide more with my heart.
Prefer to agree with others' findings, believing people are worth listening to.
See my encounters with people as friendly and important in themselves.
Notice when people need support. (at least material support or a helping hand)
Choose tactfulness over truthfulness.
Overlook people's negative points, stressing areas of agreement.
Focus my attention on personal motives. (but usually with suspicion)
Deal with people compassionately, as needed.
Expect the world to recognize individual differences. (diversity is good, and real)

 

[wolfy]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

Thinking wins by a mile.

 

[Stigmata]

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

It's kind to determine the answer to lots of these in terms of absolutes. Really, most of the answers are relative to whom I'm dealing with, and in some cases force a false dichotomy. I can be critical, yet still also be supportive of someone despite that, which again is dependent on the dynamic with said person. Also, despite being a T, I wouldn't say I run or ignore from emotion. If anything, I'm very aware of how I feel most of the time, yet the struggle is trying to understand from an objective standpoint why I feel what I feel and is that feeling correct given the circumstance.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

Socially I am considered an "F" from what I have gathered, but I have found the T/F pole to not contain mutually exclusive qualities and the two categories contain internally conflicting characteristics. In this online forum context it mostly comes down to a way of defining people's social behavior more than their thought processes, although the thought processes are assumed to go hand-in-hand with the social behavior. I make decisions focused on reason moreso than the average person, but socially I think it only makes sense to take consequences into account and use tact. Tact and empathy make socialization more efficient and it is entirely possible to make a logical case for prioritizing these qualities. My view is that intentionally dismissing any relevant information is not fully using reason.

Conflict (social) may be natural, but if you observe it in the political process, online debates, family arguments, or even academia, it so often sends people in a tailspin into the quagmire of absurdity and idiocy. I don't think conflict is that productive, but diplomacy is. Conflict is like doing surgery with a hammer and diplomacy is like a scalpel. However, I find that in a non-social context of idea space examining conflicting theories and data is necessary to progress to more accurate ideas. This does not involve specifically negative feelings, but is neutral and peaceful at least the way I experience it. I have sometimes found this idea of social conflict as a defining feature of T vs F to actually come down to comfort levels with the accepted masculine (anger, pride) vs. feminine (happy, sad) emotions.

Objectivity and empathy are more alike than opposite because they both require the ability to move outside of the singular perspective of ego, and instead focus on a big picture by taking in as much data as possible. The distinction between the two is that objectivity focuses on data that can be quantified, and empathy is experiential, subjective, and less tangible. Most contexts whether it be a specific situation or analyzing a system, involve a range of relevant factors that encompass the objective and subjective and everything inbetween. It is messy to try to create a hard boundary between these and a hard boundary can only be accomplished by viewing reality in a low resolution and then dismissing anything that doesn't fit your category.

When "T" or an "F" gets lost in a sense of ego investment in a singular perspective their thinking becomes more alike than polar opposite, and yet that is also the exact moment they feel most different and enter into conflict. The ironies of this pole are interesting because of this.

 

[citizen cane]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head- depends. most of the time, i suppose.
Truth before tact -depends. frequently my version of tact is silence, which is why i have a sort of visceral Fi reaction of someone goads me into responding to something I do not wish to do so.
Sees conflict as natural- i hate conflict...but of course it's natural. why would war/ constant fighting for resources still be so prevalent if it was not?
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal- huh? examples would help. sensor here.
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people- somewhat
Often prefer non-fiction- much more when i was a child.

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

I'm a feeler- ISFP.

 

[entropie]

Lemme put two antagonists vs each other

Tact before truth for feelers and Fi

Something is rotten in Denmark ! xD

 

[freeeekyyy]

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction

F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction


Not much on the F side here. I guess that shouldn't be surprising...

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Feeler.

T / Thinking

Logic over sentiment
Critical, then supportive
Decides with head
Truth before tact (at times)
Sees conflict as natural
Good at being critical
At ease with the impersonal
Seeks to ignore emotion
Interested in things-then-people
Often prefer non-fiction


F / Feeling

Sentiment over logic
Supportive, then critical
Decides with heart
Tact before truth
Takes conflict personally
Good at being appreciative
At ease with the personal
Attach to emotion
Interested in people-then-things
Often prefer fiction

Some of the statements in the T list can apply to those with a strong J; I often notice that about T/F descriptions. E.g. Strong Judgers can be quite truthful and not very tactful because well, they're judgers and have opinions why they think are right and think you should know about. They're often critical as well -- FJs love criticizing and evaluating the actions and behavior of others, it's a favorite pastime. So an FJ with a stronger J than F may seem like a T because they're so seemingly insensitive and critical.

 

[Coriolis]

I make decisions focused on reason moreso than the average person, but socially I think it only makes sense to take consequences into account and use tact. Tact and empathy make socialization more efficient and it is entirely possible to make a logical case for prioritizing these qualities. My view is that intentionally dismissing any relevant information is not fully using reason.

I am an inveterate T, but (and?) agree completely, especially with the highlighted.

Conflict (social) may be natural, but if you observe it in the political process, online debates, family arguments, or even academia, it so often sends people in a tailspin into the quagmire of absurdity and idiocy. I don't think conflict is that productive, but diplomacy is.

Conflict is often necessary for growth. Conflict itself is not the problem, it is how conflict is handled. Conflict in politics and elsewhere is unproductive when people stop focusing on the issue and resort to name-calling, insults, and playing fast and loose with the facts. When people remain respectful of each other, stay focused on the issue, and rely on evidence and reasoning to support their positions, conflict is far less acrimonious and much more productive. This is the proverbial disagreement without being disagreeable. You might call this diplomacy, but I would say diplomacy goes even further than this.

Objectivity and empathy are more alike than opposite because they both require the ability to move outside of the singular perspective of ego, and instead focus on a big picture by taking in as much data as possible. The distinction between the two is that objectivity focuses on data that can be quantified, and empathy is experiential, subjective, and less tangible. Most contexts whether it be a specific situation or analyzing a system, involve a range of relevant factors that encompass the objective and subjective and everything inbetween. It is messy to try to create a hard boundary between these and a hard boundary can only be accomplished by viewing reality in a low resolution and then dismissing anything that doesn't fit your category.

An interesting observation.

 

[Mal12345]

Lemme put two antagonists vs each other

Tact before truth for feelers and Fi

Something is rotten in Denmark ! xD

Are you saying that Fi users aren't tactful? OMG. These are some extremely passive individuals. Yes, I realize they have the potential to be even very choleric. But just because they can be that doesn't mean they aren't tactful most of the time.

 

[entropie]

Are you saying that Fi users aren't tactful? OMG. These are some extremely passive individuals. Yes, I realize they have the potential to be even very choleric. But just because they can be that doesn't mean they aren't tactful most of the time.

some extremly passive creatures hahahaha you crack me up xD

 

[freeeekyyy]

some extremly passive creatures hahahaha you crack me up xD

The biggest, most accurate criticism you can level against the average INFP is that they're too passive. They don't speak up. They often have strongly held beliefs, but they don't make them known.

 

[Mal12345]

some extremly passive creatures hahahaha you crack me up xD

You called them 'creatures'? Wow. Just wow.