[MBTI General] Thinking vs Feeling

[RDF]

T vs F is not a real dichotomy: having preference for logic doesn't make you thick-skinned and having a preference for values doesn't make you thin-skinned either so what is the real difference?

should we add another layer? so that way is 32 personality types instead of 16?

I don't really understand what thick skin and thin skin have to do with it. That's more about a comical stereotype: Histrionic Feelers vs. cynical Thinkers. Or whatever.

As for "the real difference," I think you have to look at a few examples of the different ways Feeler and Thinkers analyze things in order to get the drift. The following is how I look at these things:

Feeling concerns itself with empathy and Thinking concerns itself with equity. Some topics or issues in the world are going to be best addressed by looking at issues of empathy, in which case Feelers are going to gravitate toward those issues and be capable of doing in-depth analysis there. OTOH, other topics or issues are going to lend themselves to an equity analysis, and Thinkers are going to outperform on such issues.

Example of a Feeler-oriented issue:

Guy X is hosting a party at home, attended by X's best male friend and X's fiancee. The male friend tends to be cantankerous and loud, and at some point during the party the best friend and the fiancee get into a long, heated argument over some issue. X simply stays out of it and lets the two of them duke it out. Later, after the party has ended, the fiancee chews out X for not stepping in and supporting her. X comes to TypoC and asks what he should have done.

Feelers are probably going to have a field day with this one. They'll be trying to harmonize the interests of the three parties, with reference to the obligations of partnership/marriage vs. friendship and pulling in side issues like codependency and whether the fiancee might be trying to isolate X from his friends, and so on. Thinkers, on the other hand, probably won't relate much to the situation and will probably do only a cursory equity analysis: X has substantial ties to both parties; both parties have equal claim to support from X; so the fairest thing is for X to stay out of the dispute, exactly as he did. End of story.

Okay now an example of a Thinker-oriented issue:

Any purely legal issue will do here, for example, capital punishment. Especially if you debate such an issue in it's most purely philosophical/legal form, i.e., as an abstract concept. In that form, most Feelers will probably have an opinion, but it will be fairly cursory: Well, the murderer took the life of someone else, so he has forfeited the right to his own life. If the state really wants to kill him, then why not? End of story. Meanwhile, Thinkers will probably want to do a much more detailed analysis: Prevalence of capital punishment in other countries, methods of capital punishment used by different states, cost of life imprisonment vs. capital punishment, etc.

You get the picture.

Now, you can flip-flop the examples: Turn the story about Guy X into a legal/philosophical debate (friendship obligations vs. marital obligations), and you can get Thinkers to take more of an interest while losing the interest of many Feelers. Then turn the capital punishment debate into a debate about one specific murderer and the specific victims he killed and the feelings and demands of the families of those victims; and at this point the Thinkers will take less of an interest and the Feelers will take more interest.

These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.

You tend to see this when INFPs and INTPs debate. INFPs will often relate some first-hand or second-hand personal experience to make a point; but INTPs will claim that such stories are anecdotal at best and not admissible as argument. Then INTPs will spell out a legal/philosophical principle; but INFPs will claim that such principles are dry and empty without application to some real-life example. And so on.

Anyway, that's how I look at it. Thinking and Feeling aren't necessarily opposites, just as empathy and equity aren't necessarily opposites. Given any specific issue, they can both lead to the same final conclusion (albeit by different routes). OTOH, they are a dichotomy: There seems to be a fairly clear dividing line there in how Thinkers and Feelers deal with issues:

--Feelers are about empathy and tend to prefer specific, real-life issues: All the better to latch onto the "human-interest" angle in the interests of harmony.

--Thinkers are about equity and tend to prefer abstract, legal/philosophical issues: All the better to parse the equitable division of rights and responsibilities of the parties.

Just brainstorming here. YMMV, of course.

 

[RDF]

[...] Anyway, that's how I look at it. Thinking and Feeling aren't necessarily opposites, just as empathy and equity aren't necessarily opposites. Given any specific issue, they can both lead to the same final conclusion (albeit by different routes). OTOH, they are a dichotomy: There seems to be a fairly clear dividing line there in how Thinkers and Feelers deal with issues:

--Feelers are about empathy and tend to prefer specific, real-life issues: All the better to latch onto the "human-interest" angle in the interests of harmony.

--Thinkers are about equity and tend to prefer abstract, legal/philosophical issues: All the better to parse the equitable division of rights and responsibilities of the parties.

Just brainstorming here. YMMV, of course.

Just to spell it out another way:

Consider the example of a child growing up in a chaotic environment with older, more powerful siblings and parents making lots of demands and operating according to the "squeaky wheel" philosophy in order to get things from each other. If the kid is quiet and retiring, it may be tough to get his needs met in such an environment. To stand his ground and get his needs met, the kid might learn to track and analyze exactly who has gotten what, and then make the argument that an equitable distribution of property should include the distribution of some goods and property to the kid himself. Such a kid is on the way to growing up to be a Thinker.

Now consider the example of a child growing up in a well-ordered but chilly environment where everything is distributed impersonally, automatically, and equitably according to schedules determined by powerful adults. When the kid has needs that aren't covered by the schedules, it may be tough to get those needs met. But in this case the kid learns that he can get around the schedules by being "the squeaky wheel" and pleading victimhood or a need for empathy due to special circumstances. In time, the kid gains a sensitivity for achieving harmony not by using equitable distribution according to automatic, impersonal schedules but rather by using empathy to track the specific needs of specific people. Such a kid is probably turning into a Feeler.

I'm not saying that this is how Thinker and Feelers develop in their childhood. It's more just a device for understanding the difference. YMMV.

 

[infinite]

Example of a Feeler-oriented issue:

Guy X is hosting a party at home, attended by X's best male friend and X's fiancee. The male friend tends to be cantankerous and loud, and at some point during the party the best friend and the fiancee get into a long, heated argument over some issue. X simply stays out of it and lets the two of them duke it out. Later, after the party has ended, the fiancee chews out X for not stepping in and supporting her. X comes to TypoC and asks what he should have done.

Feelers are probably going to have a field day with this one. They'll be trying to harmonize the interests of the three parties, with reference to the obligations of partnership/marriage vs. friendship and pulling in side issues like codependency and whether the fiancee might be trying to isolate X from his friends, and so on. Thinkers, on the other hand, probably won't relate much to the situation and will probably do only a cursory equity analysis: X has substantial ties to both parties; both parties have equal claim to support from X; so the fairest thing is for X to stay out of the dispute, exactly as he did. End of story.

What, why is a marriage the same relationship as a friendship even if the latter is with your best friend? It's not the same. You share your entire life with your SO, thus share a lot more than with the best friend. In this situation, if I had been X, and neither party was more right about the issue, I would have stood by my fiancée (well if I was a guy lol). Though it's possible that the best friend is right about whatever the argument was about, in this case, I would have pointed out this to SO. In either case, I would have tried to stay OK with my best friend too if possible.

Is that T or F?

Any purely legal issue will do here, for example, capital punishment. Especially if you debate such an issue in it's most purely philosophical/legal form, i.e., as an abstract concept. In that form, most Feelers will probably have an opinion, but it will be fairly cursory: Well, the murderer took the life of someone else, so he has forfeited the right to his own life. If the state really wants to kill him, then why not? End of story. Meanwhile, Thinkers will probably want to do a much more detailed analysis: Prevalence of capital punishment in other countries, methods of capital punishment used by different states, cost of life imprisonment vs. capital punishment, etc.

Capital punishment is an action that cannot be undone if you happen to be wrong. This "why not" argument is just so arbitrary. It's also arbitrary to declare that a murderer forfeited their own right to their life. If we are to argue about the right to life, my opinion is that it's better to define it as an absolute right that cannot be alienated. It makes everything simpler to define it that way.

Life imprisonment costs, yes, but I think a pretty good solution for that would be making the prisoners do some work. Btw I have never thought of analysing the methods of capital punishment, it seems irrelevant in answering the question of whether we want capital punishment or not. Why do you think the exact method is relevant?

And, why do you see this example as something more objective than the first situation? I don't see it as objective, it's always going to involve a subjective moral system. I don't see this as a subject analysed by objective thinking as objectively as, for example, completely impersonal science stuff. I do try to avoid using as much of the subjectivity in analysing these sort of things, but there is no denying that the general act of valuing life (as in this example asking about what to do with a murderer) is a subjective valuation. Objective only in the sense that most people do value life.. I said "general act of valuing" because that's what the entire legal system is based on - a somewhat arbitrary way of dealing with the matter of how society should generally function. I hope I'm making sense here, it's hard to explain what I really mean. I can try clarifying if needed.

Now, you can flip-flop the examples: Turn the story about Guy X into a legal/philosophical debate (friendship obligations vs. marital obligations), and you can get Thinkers to take more of an interest while losing the interest of many Feelers. Then turn the capital punishment debate into a debate about one specific murderer and the specific victims he killed and the feelings and demands of the families of those victims; and at this point the Thinkers will take less of an interest and the Feelers will take more interest.

These obligation matters, I again don't see this one as objective. Actually this is less objective than the capital punishment question. I wouldn't bother too much with analysing this topic deeply. I did happen to give my answer above anyway, a marriage is deeper involvement than a friendship. But in general I'm not good at analysis of relationship obligations. No matter if general or specific situation.

The philosophical debate (of a legal or whatever issue) is interesting though, to find the simplest way to deal with the question. The real life specific situation (specific murderer) is interesting because oh... it's just interesting on its own as a real life thing. Not as a debate though, just simply hearing the story of what happened etc.

These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.

That equity thing, for me it's often about simplicity, but yes I get what you mean, I think. Though in that first example of yours (argument at the party), I would have focused on the harmony stuff too, beyond analysing who is right in the argument.

Do you think my answers are more F or more T?

Just to spell it out another way:

Consider the example of a child growing up in a chaotic environment with older, more powerful siblings and parents making lots of demands and operating according to the "squeaky wheel" philosophy in order to get things from each other. If the kid is quiet and retiring, it may be tough to get his needs met in such an environment. To stand his ground and get his needs met, the kid might learn to track and analyze exactly who has gotten what, and then make the argument that an equitable distribution of property should include the distribution of some goods and property to the kid himself. Such a kid is on the way to growing up to be a Thinker.

Now consider the example of a child growing up in a well-ordered environment where everything is distributed equitably, according to schedules determined by powerful adults. But in this case the kid learns that he can get a bit more than his fair share by being "the squeaky wheel" and pleading victimhood or a need for empathy due to special circumstances. In time, the kid gains a sensitivity for achieving harmony not by equitable distribution but rather by using empathy to track the specific needs of specific people. Such a kid is probably turning into a Feeler.

I'm not saying that this is how Thinker and Feelers develop in their childhood. It's more just a device for understanding the difference. YMMV.

Heh I had older siblings. I don't relate to either situation as described though. I mainly just had a temper and liked to get what I wanted.

 

[RDF]

[...]Do you think my answers are more F or more T?

Take your questions to the "What's my Type?" forum. I was illustrating a point, not looking for debates or hearing about your personal spin on the illustrations given. If you don't like the illustrations that I provided, then provide your own illustrations.

The main point of my posts was the use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations.

 

[infinite]

Take it to the "What's my type" forum. I was illustrating a point, not looking for debates or hearing about your personal spin on the illustrations given. If you don't like the illustrations that I provided, then provide your own illustrations.

The point was empathy vs. equity as an illustration of F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations.

Well if you took this personally, by saying "not looking for debates", then you're oversensitive. If you put out your opinion on something on a forum, be ready for someone challenging it.

My point was analysing your definitions and illustrations on a real life example: myself. If you are not ready to deal with an analysis of your ideas, that's not my problem.

Thus, yes, I asked your opinion on my T/F preference to see how you'd analyse what I said, in light of your opinion on the T/F dichotomy. Not because I would like to know my type.

Also it was about a lot more than just saying my opinion on the capital punishment question. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity, etc.

PS: I was still editing my post above, not sure if you read the recent additions.

 

[RDF]

Well if you took this personally, by saying "not looking for debates", then you're oversensitive. If you put out your opinion on something on a forum, be ready for someone challenging it.

My point was analysing your definitions and illustrations on a real life example: myself. If you are not ready to deal with an analysis of your ideas, that's not my problem.

Thus, yes, I asked your opinion on my T/F preference to see how you'd analyse what I said, in light of your opinion on the T/F dichotomy. Not because I would like to know my type.

PS: I was still editing my post above, not sure if you read the recent additions.

In my original post, I said:

[...]These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. [...]

The examples were just shorthand illustrations of a larger analog. Try to address the point of the overall post as a whole. The main point of my posts was the use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. Agree or disagree with that, not with the specifics of the illustrations. If the analog doesn't work for you, just say that and be done with it.

 

[infinite]

They were just shorthand illustrations of a larger analog. Try to address the point of the overall post as a whole. If the analog doesn't work for you, just say that and be done with it.

You are not getting what I'm saying. It's not simply that the "analogy doesn't work for me". So I can't just "be done with it". I care more about refining of concepts.

Perhaps you didn't read my additions though. It was about a lot more than just saying my personal opinion on the example questions. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity. I mentioned that I think not all subjects are equal in terms of objectivity. I also implied my take on how simplicity and equity would be related.

Though yes, I didn't make a neat list of definitions of T and F. It's all embedded in whatever stuff I said. That's how I tend to work, my way of seeing things is all embedded like that. That does cause problems with people who do not try to analyse what I'm saying.

So anyway, if you can't be bothered with testing your ideas on datapoints that other people provide, to learn more and refine your concepts, or with analysing what others say when it's not all listed in neat points, then too bad.

 

[Doomkid]

These are all stereotypes of Thinkers and Feelers, of course. But you get the drift. Basically, Feelers tend to be attracted to the "human interest" angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs. Meantime, Thinkers tend to be attracted to the abstract, legal/philosophical angle of any issue because it highlights the facets that interest them the most: Issues involving equity between abstract concepts.

That's making a lot more sense now, thanks

 

[Doomkid]

You tend to see this when INFPs and INTPs debate. INFPs will often relate some first-hand or second-hand personal experience to make a point; but INTPs will claim that such stories are anecdotal at best and not admissible as argument. Then INTPs will spell out a legal/philosophical principle; but INFPs will claim that such principles are dry and empty without application to some real-life example. And so on.

yeah I imagined it would be something like that

 

[RDF]

You are not getting what I'm saying. It's not simply that the "analogy doesn't work for me". So I can't just "be done with it". I care more about refining of concepts.

Perhaps you didn't read my additions though. It was about a lot more than just saying my opinion on e.g. the capital punishment question. I generalized about subjectivity and objectivity. I mentioned that I think not all subjects are equal in terms of objectivity. I also implied my take on how simplicity and equity would be related.

Though yes, I didn't make a neat list of definitions of T and F. It's all embedded in whatever stuff I said. That's how I tend to "work", I my way of seeing things is all embedded like that. That does cause problems with people who do not try to analyse what I'm saying.

So anyway, if you can't be bothered with testing your ideas on datapoints that other people provide, to learn more and refine your concepts, or with analysing what others say when it's not all listed in neat points, then too bad.

I just see your points as nitpicking. I stated in my original post that the examples were just illustrating stereotypes of T-vs.-F thinking. As such, I agreed with the weakness of the examples, and you're just agreeing with me by pointing out how easily you can argue them.

Meanwhile, you ignore the main point of my post: The use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. That's really the point I would like you to acknowledge, not the weakness of the examples, which I admit. The examples only exist to illustrate the analog; they're disposable. If you wish, approve or disapprove the analog and then propose illustrations of your own, if the illustrations are so important to you.

 

[RDF]

That's making a lot more sense now, thanks

yeah I imagined it would be something like that

Thanks for your feedback. Glad to hear that I at least got through to my target audience.

 

[infinite]

I just see your points as nitpicking. I stated in my original post that the examples were just illustrating stereotypes of T-vs.-F thinking. As such, I agreed with the weakness of the examples, and you're just agreeing with me by pointing out how easily you can argue them.

Meanwhile, you ignore the main point of my post: The use of the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. That's really the point I would like you to acknowledge, not the weakness of the examples, which I admit. The examples only exist to illustrate the analog; they're disposable. If you wish, approve or disapprove the analog and then propose illustrations of your own, if the illustrations are so important to you.

I still think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't give a shit about the concrete illustrations for their own sake. Those obviously cannot ever be perfect, that's fine. I'm not going to propose my own illustrations instead either. I'm more concerned about the T/F concepts here. If you feel refining of that is nitpicking, that's not my problem.

I did think of more points that I didn't yet have time to bring up but I can do that now;

You said F is about "Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs", this to me sounded like too much of the extraverted attitude is in it. The T one sounded a bit introverted on the other hand, "Issues involving equity between abstract concepts".

I also implied that I noticed how you were focusing on only the more subjective human related matters in your examples. Though it's not a bad idea to do the comparison of T and F on a subject that's often the topic of humanistic interest (typically F).

 

[infinite]

Btw where did you get the idea to use the expression "equity" for T? I still think that's not the best word to describe it. Though it's pretty good, but "impersonal objectivity" is more to the point, I think. I used the word "simplicity" but that's only part of it.

Whether "empathy" is all-encompassing enough to define F, I'm not quite sure about that, either.

 

[Doomkid]

Thanks for your feedback. Glad to hear that I at least got through to my target audience.

that infp vs intp example was good cause it's exactally how my brother(intp) would argue during a subject

 

[RDF]

I still think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't give a shit about the concrete illustrations for their own sake. Those obviously cannot ever be perfect, that's fine. I'm not going to propose my own illustrations instead either. I'm more concerned about the T/F concepts here. If you feel refining of that is nitpicking, that's not my problem.

I did think of more points that I didn't yet have time to bring up but I can do that now;

And you're still ignoring *my* point about addressing the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T.

But at least you were succinct and clear about the following two points, so I'll address those:

You said F is about "Issues involving achieving harmony between specific parties by empathizing with their needs", this to me sounded like too much the extraverted attitude is in it. The T one sounded a bit introverted on the other hand, "Issues involving equity between abstract concepts".

I'm just addressing T-vs.-F. As such, I'm conflating Te and Ti into "T as a whole" (and the same with F). To me, the extraverted and introverted versions of a given letter aren't that far apart and can be conflated in a pinch for purposes of spelling out some broad principles (such as the difference between F and T). See the following post on Fi vs. Fe for more on the subject: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68763&p=2265476&viewfull=1#post2265476

Anyway, this is just a tangent. Again, you're nitpicking. The debate was about T vs. F. Is it really that important on the scale of my overall point that my F example is kind of Fe and my T example is kind of Ti?

Again, my point was about addressing the empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T, and you're still ducking that in favor of nitpicking the illustrations.

I also implied that I noticed how you were focusing on only the more subjective human related matters in your examples. Though it's not a bad idea to do the comparison of T and F on a subject that's often the topic of humanistic interest (typically F).

I'm guilty of that to some extent. I wanted to flip-flop the examples to show how either kind of issue could be attractive to Feelers under the right circumstances. So the examples both had to have some F application as well as T application.

 

[RDF]

Btw where did you get the idea to use the expression "equity" for T? I still think that's not the best word to describe it. Though it's pretty good, but "impersonal objectivity" is more to the point, I think. I used the word "simplicity" but that's only part of it.

Whether "empathy" is all-encompassing enough to define F, I'm not quite sure about that, either.

Okay, so you actually don't mind the overall empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. You just don't like the terminology? And/or the illustrations?

 

[RDF]

[MENTION=21198]infinity-[/MENTION]

I have to bail on the thread; it's bedtime.

My final word on the subject: Keep in mind that my initial 2 posts were directed at Doomkid and the questions that he/she raised. Doomkid seems satisfied with my explanation, so like Dubya I'll say, "Mission accomplished." But I'll take it from your responses that my explanation wouldn't be good enough for "purists" on the subject.

 

[infinite]

I'm just addressing T-vs.-F. As such, I'm conflating Te and Ti into "T as a whole" (and the same with F). To me, the extraverted and introverted versions of a given letter aren't that far apart and can be conflated in a pinch for purposes of spelling out some broad principles (such as the difference between F and T). See the following post on Fi vs. Fe for more on the subject: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68763&p=2265476&viewfull=1#post2265476

Anyway, this is just a tangent. Again, you're nitpicking. The debate was about T vs. F. Is it really that important on the scale of my overall point that my F example is kind of Fe and my T example is kind of Ti?

I don't see it as "nitpicking" myself but I already explained that. We won't agree on this then; my thinking is just like this, I like to have everything refined and unambiguous.

Where it sounded like Fe/Ti, wasn't just the illustrations but the more general statements that I quoted.

Okay, so you actually don't mind the overall empathy-vs.-equity model as an analog for F vs. T. You just don't like the terminology? And/or the illustrations?

The model itself, partially OK. (Ah, and terminology is about as okay.) My main problem there is this, I think empathy for F is a definition that's too narrow. Do you disagree on that and if so why? I usually read F is about some sort of value system. Actually in your illustrations it seemed to be about more too than just empathy and relationships; e.g. where there was a reasoning mentioned about how the right to life is lost - that way of reasoning really wasn't explained there though. But you're the definite F type of the two of us, so you'd be able to explain this better from experience than me. I'm still just trying to understand it. The nuances escape me; e.g. how exactly can Feelers, by having a distinct value system, analyse these F issues in such a really refined way? (Like, when you said in the first example that F types would have a real "field day" with the fiancée/best friend thingie.)

The T part of the model is mostly okay by me, though I could still elaborate on that a bit more, but I'm going to bed right now. Will check back tomorrow and perhaps then I'll have the time to add some of my thoughts on that one.

Btw the illustrations were no worse than any other kind of illustrations would have been, so as far as that, they were alright; I have this type of data crunching and analysing mind though, if you don't, then I guess I can't expect you to try analysing in that fashion. That's why you saw it as nitpicking, I think.

 

[infinite]

[MENTION=21198]infinity-[/MENTION]

I have to bail on the thread; it's bedtime.

My final word on the subject: Keep in mind that my initial 2 posts were directed at Doomkid and the questions that he/she raised. Doomkid seems satisfied with my explanation, so like Dubya I'll say, "Mission accomplished." But I'll take it from your responses that my explanation wouldn't be good enough for "purists" on the subject.

Haha I just said bedtime for me too

Guess I'm such a "purist" then... anyway if you want to continue tomorrow, let me know then. Good night!

 

[yeghor]

T is about materialism, pragmatism, rationalism, (all) objects' utility...

F is about spiritualism, idealism, romanticism, (living) objects' value...

As for the original question... I think T and F are both functions tied directly to an individual's ego whereas N/S are tied to superego and id...

So for someone to have a thick skin in relation to a function, he has to have that function in the introverted direction, that is to say Ti or Fi...

Someone with Fi cannot be (in my theory) hurt by Fe feedback for instance... A Fi function would imply that the individual has a disregard for Fe i.e. social structures and rules... So you cannot hurt someone with something he\she doesn't value... However, he\she would be vulnerable to criticism of whathever he\she holds dear in his\her Fi... (i.e. things of the F domain that he\she cherishes and defines his identity with...same goes for Ti but the things are of the T layer this time...)

The same goes for Ti and Te as well... So a function being externalized means we are susceptible to feedback from that layer... and it hurts if the function is tied to ego (i.e. F or T) and the feedback is negative...

I don't think someone with Se and Ne can get (emotionally\mentally) hurt by negative Se or Ne feedback... But may use such feedback for precautionary means...i.e. to check whether the owner of Se or Ne feedback could pose a threat to him\her...