[MBTI General] Thinking vs Feeling

[HBIC]

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. 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.

Edited out the examples because they weren't really good, but this extract is great.

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.

Yeah, his choice of terms...

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...

That is correct.

 

[Southern Kross]

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

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

I disagree with this dichotomy. Jung described the Judging Functions as being "Rational". Feeling may not be pragmatic or as driven by hard logic, but it is rational because it is based in reason. True, Feelers are more inclined to be idealistic or spiritual but this is not what defines it as a function.

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] help me out here. You're better at this.

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...)

This is interesting. I never thought about it that way. I would tend to agree.

 

[yeghor]

I disagree with this dichotomy. Jung described the Judging Functions as being "Rational". Feeling may not be pragmatic or as driven by hard logic, but it is rational because it is based in reason. True, Feelers are more inclined to be idealistic or spiritual but this is not what defines it as a function.

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] help me out here. You're better at this.

This is interesting. I never thought about it that way. I would tend to agree.

Yeah, if we consider romanticism true for F, then I was mistaken in using "rationalism" as its opposite... Perhaps "realism" instead of rationalism would fit more..?

Thanks

Edit: Oh and Jung may have been referring to T\F as rational functions in that they are tied to the ego and are wielded "consciously" whereas N\S (I personally believe) are tied to superego or id therefore lie outside the conscious control of ego, therefore they are irrational...

So perhaps rationality and irrationality in Jungian sense may actually be conscious and subconscious nature of the functions respectively...

 

[Hive]

I feel like a lot of misunderstandings and stereotypes could be prevented by rebranding the categories.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

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.

This is a very well-thought, insightful and nuanced description of the differences.

 

[Forever_Jung]

The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?

 

[Doomkid]

The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?

ok that is one difference between people, but what I'm saying is that there is another differece...man it's hard to explain just by typing

you'd have to see an argument between me and my mother to understand....oh look I'm almost at 100, well 97 is enough. Bye see you in a year or so

 

[infinite]

Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

Let's say Timmy is going to the prom. He has already agreed to go with Tommy, but at the last second he decided that he wants to take Tammy. If Timmy is using his Feeling function, he will reason that even though he WANTS to take Tammy, he is committed to Tommy. Think how Tommy will feel if Timmy takes Tammy! That just wouldn't be fair. Besides, I haven't promised anything to Tammy yet, so it's not like she'll be hurt if I don't ask her. So Timmy goes with Tommy. There, he just used personal/valued-based logic to make an ethical decision. I wouldn't call that illogical, would you?

Let's say Timmy doesn't use his Feeling function at all. He might go ahead and break Tommy's heart, by taking Tammy instead. That doesn't sound very rational at all, now does it?

I have a problem with this example. Specifically with the T part of it. Assume Timmy prefers T here. How does Timmy get to think of wanting to take Tammy originally? And when Timmy decides to take Tammy because he doesn't care about Tommy's feelings, what kind of decision is made exactly? Is it just "I don't care about Tommy"? That to me doesn't sound T. If that's not it, then what is it? What is his decision making process like?

 

[INTP]

The problem with Jung is that he used words that already had a certain meaning, then repurposed them to mean slightly different things.

Feeling, for example is not emotion. It is a function that uses personal/value-based criteria to make judgements/decisions. So it's not irrational per se, but it's not irrational in the sense we usually think.

In psychology even today the word feeling is not really used for emotion, instead emotion and affect are used. Feeling is mostly used for emotion just in common language(and this is not what typology terms are for).

 

[INTP]

Here is something that people should know about what feeling means(not jungian term, but the current definition) and how its different from emotion:

http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_D...ng/The_Difference_Between_Feeling_and_Emotion

 

[INTP]

http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_D...o_Damasio_How_Emotions_Help_Us_Make_Decisions

And here this guy talks about stuff relating to F and emotions. Even tho he doesent use jungian terms or functions, what he says reflects the reality in a way that can be seen in jungs idea of feeling and how emotions relate to it aswell.

ps. i often get stuck on similar analysis that he gives as an example in decision making of some of his patient ofc not for that long, but still..

 

[yeghor]

http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_D...o_Damasio_How_Emotions_Help_Us_Make_Decisions

And here this guy talks about stuff relating to F and emotions. Even tho he doesent use jungian terms or functions, what he says reflects the reality in a way that can be seen in jungs idea of feeling and how emotions relate to it aswell.

ps. i often get stuck on similar analysis that he gives as an example in decision making of some of his patient ofc not for that long, but still..

So based on Damasio's description that feeligs are action-oriented root packages of impulses (drivers), does that mean emotions = archetypes?

And feelings are what the conscious self perceives following the process initiated by a given emotion... So emotion originates from the primitive regions of the brain...?

 

[INTP]

So based on Damasio's description that feeligs are action-oriented root packages of impulses (drivers), does that mean emotions = archetypes?

And feelings are what the conscious self perceives following the process initiated by a given emotion... So emotion originates from the primitive regions of the brain...?

wtf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling

" In psychology, the word is usually reserved for the conscious subjective experience of emotion. [4] " This is what he said, just used different words for it.

Jungs definition of feeling is when you make decisions based on this. That guy in the video explained quite a bit how these feelings guide decision making and why this sort of decision making based on feeling is essential.

Archetype and archetypal are different things. Emotions are archetypal(which basically means genetic), but are not archetypes.

 

[yeghor]

wtf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling

" In psychology, the word is usually reserved for the conscious subjective experience of emotion. [4] " This is what he said, just used different words for it.

Jungs definition of feeling is when you make decisions based on this. That guy in the video explained quite a bit how these feelings guide decision making and why this sort of decision making based on feeling is essential.

Archetype and archetypal are different things. Emotions are archetypal(which basically means genetic), but are not archetypes.

Yeah he says emotions are the real drive behind our unconscious actions and feelings are a resultant affect experienced by the conscious self...

But also archetype:

an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual

So archetypes are kind of autopilot programs that are present with us at the time of our birth...They make us explore the environment and fight to stay alive and reproduce... So Damasio in the video clip talks of "emotions" in a similar way... That's why I wondered if they can be the same thing...

 

[INTP]

Yeah he says emotions are the real drive behind our unconscious actions and feelings are a resultant affect experienced by the conscious self...

But also archetype:



So archetypes are kind of autopilot programs that are present with us at the time of our birth...They make us explore the environment and fight to stay alive and reproduce... So Damasio in the video clip talks of "emotions" in a similar way... That's why I wondered if they can be the same thing...

He doesent talk them as same, even in the short quote you posted says so: "an inherited idea or mode of thought.." , emotions are not ideas nor modes of thought. And no he doesent talk of emotions in same way.

Btw, have you been diagnosed with some mental illness? i dont ask this to offend you, but the conclusions you make(not just here, but pretty much every time i/others try to explain something to you) seems similar to those with schizophrenia or some other form of psychosis.

 

[yeghor]

He doesent talk them as same, even in the short quote you posted says so: "an inherited idea or mode of thought.." , emotions are not ideas nor modes of thought. And no he doesent talk of emotions in same way.

Btw, have you been diagnosed with some mental illness? i dont ask this to offend you, but the conclusions you make(not just here, but pretty much every time i/others try to explain something to you) seems similar to those with schizophrenia or some other form of psychosis.

Oh come on, how did you conclude that? And this is funny coming from an INTP... I've seen a schizophreniac once... I am not (yet) like that...

Let's not get fixated on words but try to imagine what they mean rather than making a mot-a-mot comparison... perhaps what the prof. means as emotions are what Jung refers to as inherited ideas or modes of thought...They lived in different times but both are basically talking about the same thing perhaps... Primary codes inherently available in living beings at birth... Those are what makes us function without any knowledge of the external world... They allow us to gather data as infants, makes us learn, protects us basically...

They are like the (more advanced versions of) primitive codes of robots today...

 

[INTP]

Oh come on, how did you conclude that? And this is funny coming from an INTP... I've seen a schizophreniac once... I am not (yet) like that...

Let's not get fixated on words but try to imagine what they mean rather than making a mot-a-mot comparison... perhaps what the prof. means as emotions are what Jung refers to as inherited ideas or modes of thought...They lived in different times but both are basically talking about the same thing perhaps... Primary codes inherently available in living beings at birth... Those are what makes us function without any knowledge of the external world... They allow us to gather data as infants, makes us learn, protects us basically...

They are like the (more advanced versions of) primitive codes of robots today...

Its really frustrating to try to talk to you since you are unable to understand what the words mean that are said to you and draw some weird conclusions about them in similar fashion than someone with schizophrenia or some other psychosis does.

 

[yeghor]

Its really frustrating to try to talk to you since you are unable to understand what the words mean that are said to you and draw some weird conclusions about them in similar fashion than someone with schizophrenia or some other psychosis does.

No I haven't been diagnosed... I once thought I had avoidant personality disorder... If you really must know, I was once evaluated via some 600 questions inventory test by a psychiatrist... She didn't tell me if it yielded any PDs however, she told me that I had low self esteem as well as paranoid and schizoid (Ni-Ti?) inclinations...

OTOH, perhaps this is what INFJ is...

I draw parallels between similar patterns... And what he's talking as "emotions" sounded similar to what you mentioned about archetypes... I compare the concept first... I think Ti-doms compare the details first... It's a matter of preference...

Had I been acting in Ti-dom mode, I would've vomited my knowledge of schizophrenia and psychosis and then objected to your conclusion by pointing out how your definition did not match the official description...and pointed out how you are wrong... But it's counterproductive...

I am just tossing forward a probability, an idea... so that it can be discussed... Anyway, I hope that answers your question...

 

[yeghor]

Its really frustrating to try to talk to you since you are unable to understand what the words mean that are said to you and draw some weird conclusions about them in similar fashion than someone with schizophrenia or some other psychosis does.

Check this post:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26235&p=2229753&viewfull=1#post2229753

And this:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37846&p=2093164&viewfull=1#post2093164

 

[Doomkid]

The dichotomies of MBTI are intended to evidence dominant coping strategies (conscious mind). That's why if you wish to drill down into defense mechanisms (unconscious mind but if developed with maturation, can be brought out of the unconscious mind), it's best to shift over to JCF which layers all eight cognitive functions by priority of usage. The four most often used are called dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions which develop over maturation process. The auxiliary function is slave to the drives of the dominant function. The tertiary function is the relief function of the dominant and the inferior function, in conflict with the dominant function. Next come the four shadow functions or to use the apple analogy, the flip side of the apple in the same order as the four primary functions.

yeah, I got the jfc functions better now, my apologies for being annoying