[MBTI General] T's no more logical/rational than F's?

[Poki]

I had to figure out what Thinking is exactly, in Jungian terms, because honestly, it never really felt important until now. I found this on Extraverted Thinking.

Psychological Types, C. G. Jung:


So, the word of the day is OBJECTIVELY oriented, which is so much of a better word than rational or logical since both thinking and feeling are actually rational, and since logicality is mostly just a synonym for practicality, which is an attitude both present in any goal oriented endevour, objective or subjective.

That leaves us with the question as to whether Thinkers are better logicians than Feelers. And I think they would have better reason to develop those skill, because logic is essentially the manipulation of objects, which the thinkers domain. Buuuut, a Thinker cannot be essentially objective and still function, they still have a subjective (Feeling) function that they need to operate as a person. The same for Feelers. The difference between Thinkers and Feelers is entirely in emphasis and not in essence. We're the same-ish, at least enough to invoke a canny valley, which is why this thread exists.

When I think of EJ I usually think of logistics, when I usually think of IP I think of someone focused on understanding. The goal of one is the input of the other in a way. Je vs Ji

 

[Poki]

I wasn't presenting a bullet-proof thesis. I was trying to sum up and present some explanations I found. I feel like what you are referring to, being able to use the right tools in differing situations is general intelligence, the thing that IQ tries to quantify.

He is more talking about zooming in and out of picture. A solution up close may screw up something you can't see when zoomed outhe and same the other way. Also everything has lots of consequences, the prioritization of these consequences also affects things as well as the goal which is different based on personal wants not to mention strengths. Logical solutions change drastically which means what's logical right now may not be tomorrow.

 

[andresimon]

He is more talking about zooming in and out of picture. A solution up close may screw up something you can't see when zoomed outhe and same the other way. Also everything has lots of consequences, the prioritization of these consequences also affects things as well as the goal which is different based on personal wants not to mention strengths. Logical solutions change drastically which means what's logical right now may not be tomorrow.

Yes you got the essence. Although we are probably using a bad word, "logic." Because TRULY sound logic should stand on its own. However, how everyone has used logic in this thread, what I'm saying makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't presenting a bullet-proof thesis. I was trying to sum up and present some explanations I found. I feel like what you are referring to, being able to use the right tools in differing situations is general intelligence, the thing that IQ tries to quantify.

It would be intelligence but it would not be what IQ quantifies. IQ is a very narrow view of intelligence.

 

[Poki]

Yes you got the essence. Although we are probably using a bad word, "logic." Because TRULY sound logic should stand on its own. However, how everyone has used logic in this thread, what I'm saying makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -



It would be intelligence but it would not be what IQ quantifies. IQ is a very narrow view of intelligence.

Logic always has conditions or its so high level it's not useful for day to day situations to find solutions. At that point it just gives direction, not answers. Enter memes, which most aren't even good logic anyway, just half ass feel good stuff that falls on its face in practice.

 

[Bush]

Among other things ...

An INTP for example would be very accurate and logical when it comes to details but because they are the most "zoomed" in of all types, the big picture sometimes alludes them because they have a weak Fe. This goes contrary to what most people think about INTP's but it is never the less, accurate. Does that mean INTP's can get their...of course not.

.. INTPs are more zoomed-in than, say, ISTJs? How do you figure that?

 

[Poki]

First half is correct, second half is not. Thinkers focus on usefulness while feelers focus on meaning. F is a broader function, T is more detailed. F focuses on the broader picture of what does this mean...hence INFJ's are more big picture than INTJ's although INTJ's are also VERY big picture.

An INTP for example would be very accurate and logical when it comes to details but because they are the most "zoomed" in of all types, the big picture sometimes alludes them because they have a weak Fe. This goes contrary to what most people think about INTP's but it is never the less, accurate. Does that mean INTP's can get their...of course not.

More like us inferior Fe types don't have a desire to half ass logistically force ourself on the world. Does it work, sometimez, to a degree, not best solution. We get stuck finding the best solution then a quicker solution.

 

[Ribonuke]

I will give a real life example of logic based off of lack of morals vs morals. Couple years ago a hurricane hit houston, they evacuated and we had ano in rush of people. Out of fear and chaos people logically reasoned filling up tank due to insurgents of people. A dom Te went out and bought gas tanks and filled them up due to chaos. Sounds logical, except due to the thinking and fear gas stations ran out of gas because people at home were afraid they would get stuck at home because of shortage of gas. In the process stranded people who were trying to get away from the hurricane that had no home. Talk about selfish and fear creating the thing it feared while also happy with itself because it was safe and sound and avoided the chaos that pursued that it helped cause. They deemed people like them logical and smart. Gotta love rationalization and self protection mechanisms.

I on the other hand I was at home, I was good, had atleast a half tank of gas incase I needed to get anywhere, and I don't want to take away gas from those who actually needed it. If i ran out i could figure something out, or just stay at home. So I stayed home, chilled and avoided the entire mess while I was on the phone with someone who panicked and got stuck in a gas station that was so crowded no one could move, was frustrated, and bitching.

What happened to me since I didn't fill up my tank? Nothing, I was perfectly happy and allowed others to do what they needed to do. In a couple days everything was back to normal, I filled up my tank and carried on with life. Both of us are T, morals does not come into the picture with F vs T IMO.

There are Ts with high morals and Fs with none as well as vice versa. Look at our armed forces, it's a very high moral group yet alot of T types. They may be rough around the edges, but doesn't mean hey have no morals. They have lots of them. What they lack is theasy desire to protect feeling, nothing to do with morals, they protect that with their life.

I understand this type of thinking very well; in fact, my ISTP s.o. and I have similar opinions on how panic, no matter what type, can cause a situation to spiral out of control, especially more likely with Te if it doesn't take in other factors.

 

[andresimon]

Among other things ...

.. INTPs are more zoomed-in than, say, ISTJs? How do you figure that?

INTP's are WAY more zoomed in than ISTJs. ISTJ's focus on universal linear principles first and INTP's focus on situational data and details first.

 

[Paladin-X]

First half is correct, second half is not. Thinkers focus on usefulness while feelers focus on meaning. F is a broader function, T is more detailed. F focuses on the broader picture of what does this mean...hence INFJ's are more big picture than INTJ's although INTJ's are also VERY big picture.

An INTP for example would be very accurate and logical when it comes to details but because they are the most "zoomed" in of all types, the big picture sometimes alludes them because they have a weak Fe. This goes contrary to what most people think about INTP's but it is never the less, accurate. Does that mean INTP's can get their...of course not.

Everyone is free to believe what they want, I suppose. This is contrary to anything proposed by Jung or MBTI. Do you happen to have any sources to support your assessment?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

This is similar to claiming F's are more empathetic or more compassionate than T's.

Typology isn't supposed to be about skill, but about inclination to use certain ways of thinking, which indirectly translates into skill when practiced correctly. One could reasonably say that T's are more logical on average, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are correct in their assumptions and conclusions.

Logic depends on accurate, concrete definition and facts: Logical thinking is helpful, clear, and accurate, but it requires specific definitions of the ideas it is working with, and not all information can be defined in a way that it can be used by logic. Also, people can be completely logical, but filled with incorrect assumptions and also get incorrect conclusions.

Correct use of logic requires the ability to learn new information: There is also the question of how much certitude a person has, how easily they can adapt to new information and learn. It is possible for a human to have an excellent internal logic machine, but be too hard-headed to learn new assumptions, and so they can be both logical and wrong about many things.

Logical thinking has a tendency to compartmentalize and reject data that doesn't fit with its system. There is a tendency with rigorous logic to have tunnel vision and to simply dismiss the messy, subjective data that is interacting with the larger system, but impossible to calculate.

 

[andresimon]

More like us inferior Fe types don't have a desire to half ass logistically force ourself on the world. Does it work, sometimez, to a degree, not best solution. We get stuck finding the best solution then a quicker solution.

"More like" means you disagree with something I said. From what I can tell, you half ass forced your inaccurate opinion on the world. When you have a hard time understanding the big picture focus on details. That would be my advise to you.

 

[andresimon]

Everyone is free to believe what they want, I suppose. This is contrary to anything proposed by Jung or MBTI. Do you happen to have any sources to support your assessment?

This is precisely what is purposed by Jung and MBTI. It is the logical conclusion to how INTP's process the world. IP's and EJ's focus on details first wtih IP's focusing on specific situational data. Again they are the most zoomed in type. They build from specifics to big picture not big picture to specifics (like INTJ's do).

 

[andresimon]

I understand this type of thinking very well; in fact, my ISTP s.o. and I have similar opinions on how panic, no matter what type, can cause a situation to spiral out of control, especially more likely with Te if it doesn't take in other factors.

When you talk about F's you say, F's CAN be LOGICAL. When you talk about T's you say. T's CAN be ILLOGICAL. Lol. Your bias is obvious. Stop talking please. Why do you not respond to my other post where BY DEFINITION this thread should be closed. Do you admit when you are wrong?

 

[andresimon]

This is similar to claiming F's are more empathetic or more compassionate than T's.

Typology isn't supposed to be about skill, but about inclination to use certain ways of thinking, which indirectly translates into skill when practiced correctly. One could reasonably say that T's are more logical on average, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are correct in their assumptions and conclusions.

Logic depends on accurate, concrete definition and facts: Logical thinking is helpful, clear, and accurate, but it requires specific definitions of the ideas it is working with, and not all information can be defined in a way that it can be used by logic. Also, people can be completely logical, but filled with incorrect assumptions and also get incorrect conclusions.

Correct use of logic requires the ability to learn new information: There is also the question of how much certitude a person has, how easily they can adapt to new information and learn. It is possible for a human to have an excellent internal logic machine, but be too hard-headed to learn new assumptions, and so they can be both logical and wrong about many things.

Logical thinking has a tendency to compartmentalize and reject data that doesn't fit with its system. There is a tendency with rigorous logic to have tunnel vision and to simply dismiss the messy, subjective data that is interacting with the larger system, but impossible to calculate.

On the right track for sure, I like your thinking. Specifically in regards to how you think about systems.

 

[Paladin-X]

This is precisely what is purposed by Jung and MBTI. It is the logical conclusion to how INTP's process the world. IP's and EJ's focus on details first wtih IP's focusing on specific situational data. Again they are the most zoomed in type. They build from specifics to big picture not big picture to specifics (like INTJ's do).

Please cite your source for MBTI and your source for Jung. What you are describing is MBTI S/N dichotomy.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Sensing or Intuition

Sensing:

• I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.
• I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
• I am pragmatic and look to the "bottom line."
• I start with facts and then form a big picture.
• I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.
• Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.

Intuition:

• I remember events by what I read "between the lines" about their meaning.
• I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
• I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
• I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
• I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
• Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.

 

[andresimon]

Please cite your source for MBTI and your source for Jung. What you are describing is MBTI S/N dichotomy.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Sensing or Intuition

Sensing:

• I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.
• I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
• I am pragmatic and look to the "bottom line."
• I start with facts and then form a big picture.
• I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.
• Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.

Intuition:

• I remember events by what I read "between the lines" about their meaning.
• I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
• I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
• I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
• I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
• Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.

You cannot take S or N out of context. The letters do not stand on their own just like their is no partial human. INTP's are the most zoomed in of all the types.

INTP ='s DATA via Ti, Conceptual Character Observations Via Ne, Linear Actions via Si, and Meaning of Principles via Fe.

 

[Paladin-X]

You cannot take S or N out of context. MBTI isn't about letters. It is about 16 types. The letters do not stand on their own just like their is no partial human.

lol you're an evasive one aren't you.

 

[Paladin-X]

I'm not evasive. I just don't do what I'm told . LOLLLL. Ohhh look you have a fan too. How cute. You are not looking for proof. You are looking for things to confirm your own reality. The arguments I'm stating stand on their own. If you can't see that, no amount of proof will make a difference.

IP's FOCUS ON DETAILS FIRST. SIMPLE DIMPLE.

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you want. I have no interest in arguing with the shadows in your mirror.

Until such a time that you can at least provide some evidence to support your claims, there is no point in continuing this discussion. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ribonuke]

When you talk about F's you say, F's CAN be LOGICAL. When you talk about T's you say. T's CAN be ILLOGICAL. Lol. Your bias is obvious. Stop talking please. Won't do you respond to my other post where BY DEFINITION this thread should be closed. Do you admit when you are wrong?

Funny, I was about to ask the same question out of you, considering that you've found some way of opposing virtually everyone else's opinion so far.

And for the record, I did admit that I could be wrong from the very beginning, by claiming "everyone is free to debate me on this". But by 'debate', I did NOT mean to give license for people to call all that oppose their opinion "morons". I do not, in all seriousness believe, and never HAVE in all seriousness believed, that ENFPs are the spawn of evil. I'm only saying that almost all of the ones I've ran into have actually displayed evil behavior because they didn't know how to handle a crisis. Again, I know that in theory not all ENFPs are incapable of handling a crisis, but my own experience suggests otherwise. People can tell me that I'm wrong with words and theories, but they ultimately can't contradict what I've seen with my own, first-hand experience.

With this being said, I'm not immature enough to tell you to stop talking, but could I instead, politely ask you to demonstrate a bit more maturity? You might actually gain more supporters that way.

Leaving all past baggage aside, why do you think this thread needs to be closed?

 

[Paladin-X]

I had to figure out what Thinking is exactly, in Jungian terms, because honestly, it never really felt important until now. I found this on Extraverted Thinking.

Psychological Types, C. G. Jung:


So, the word of the day is OBJECTIVELY oriented, which is so much of a better word than rational or logical since both thinking and feeling are actually rational, and since logicality is mostly just a synonym for practicality, which is an attitude both present in any goal oriented endevour, objective or subjective.

That leaves us with the question as to whether Thinkers are better logicians than Feelers. And I think they would have better reason to develop those skill, because logic is essentially the manipulation of objects, which the thinkers domain. Buuuut, a Thinker cannot be essentially objective and still function, they still have a subjective (Feeling) function that they need to operate as a person. The same for Feelers. The difference between Thinkers and Feelers is entirely in emphasis and not in essence. We're the same-ish, at least enough to invoke a canny valley, which is why this thread exists.

To be clear, 'Objectively' in this context is directly related to Extraverted Thinking and not Thinking in general. It is referring to things in the world (as opposed to the mind).

If you are interested, here is Jung's definition of Thinking:

Thinking

This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (v. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking[70]. Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as "phantasying" [71]. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking.

To my mind, a simple stringing together of representations, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking[72] is not thinking at all, but mere presentation. The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one's intention or not.

The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition. Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.

Thinking that is regulated by feeling, I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thought dependent upon feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle, but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favor of the aims of feeling.