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

[Ribonuke]

I keep coming across this general opinion across this forum, across Tumblr, across various social media that Thinkers are no more logical or rational than Feelers; notably, I have only seen Feelers make this argument, not Thinkers.

While I can understand Thinkers aren't perfect logical thinking robots (we're humans too) and can make errors in judgment just like anyone else (again, we're humans too), I can't fully understand how someone can arrive at this conclusion. I also understand that Feelers are CAPABLE of using logic/rationality, yet oftentimes it is underdeveloped--especially in younger people--because they've spent more effort developing their feeling preference. Isn't the Thinker relying on logic over feeling (and therefore using it to a greater degree than Feelers) what ultimately MAKES them a Thinker? It should be noted that just as Feelers use their Thinking, Thinkers also use their Feeling, though their preference for Thinking often causes them to function less well socially when growing up because of how outright abrasive Thinking can be to a social setting.

Am I the only one who thinks this argument is a bit ridiculous, or am I mistaken? (Usually if I find something ridiculous, it's because I'm missing a critical perspective or piece of information, so I'm perfectly prepared to be proven wrong.)

 

[Poki]

I think the word 'logic' has been twisted and misused a bit in the type community. Everyone uses logic in some form or another.

My mother is an IFJ but she is one of the most logical people I know in terms of making decisions and analyzing situations. She just happens to be heavy on the feels.

I'm not sure thinking necessarily equals logic.

It's not equal. Logic overlaps thinking.

 

[Qlip]

Logic is a skill. Thinkers generally have more reward in developing it because of their values, it's a lot more effective to employ as a discipline when dealing with discrete and/or isolatable concerns.

Being logical may be a different thing that has overlap, it implies a sort of objective approach to life. Both Feelers and Thinkers will always have some sort of most effective rational path to their end goals, if they do have end goals, both of them seem to have somewhat equal distribution of people who approach their life with this view.

 

[Poki]

Most people have learned to use logic, doesn't mean they understand logic itself. Logic is a complicated beast when you get to the big picture. Men are white is true while men are not white is true. Change to All men and it becomes false. If you disagree, let me point to a group of men that are white and say men are white. It's true. Let me point to a group that are black and say men are not white and it's true. The one who disagree will say that BECAUSE not all men are it's not true. The thing is, you just added data to my logic equation. Therefore it's not the same equation. Arguing either side is futile because both equations are true, but the logical equations are not equal to each other. Now what gets interesting is when we combine other things with logic that directs thought. Directing thought is interesting. Pointing at a group of Blackman and saying "men are white", you will thoroughly confuse people because again, people added to the equation due to pointing. They are men, men are white. Both statements are true, but "those" men are black. Pointing was meant to be "men", not "those".

Application of logic is why F types are saying they are more logical. This is to narrow a vision or internal vision applied to a reality that doesn't match.

Most people don't see the complexity that is logic and only see small subsets of it and therefore the other logic is not logical. Way to many people get stuck with "added" data that should not be "added". Or lack of added data that should be added. For example Fs may see the fact that Ts logic does not apply and the T can't see it therefore the T is not logical. But the same thing happens the other way around. In reality, it usually comes down to an opinion that has been confused with fact.

Thinking is an action, logic is not an action. Logic is the outcome of the action. Also...just because you can apply logic after the fact does not mean you are a logical person. It's the application beforehand that makes you a logical person. To many people spout shit after the fact using hindsight to logically support them, but that did not come into play beforehand.

It's complicated. I would say on average F is not any less logical then T. Logical is more dependent on knowledge and data then F vs T. BOUNCED around due to complexity of topic and lack of desire to write a novel touching on all aspect.

 

[Amargith]

Isn't this the old 'emotions=/= Feeling thing?

Basically, the common definition of 'logic' in the laymen's world overlaps greatly with Jung's definition of the rational system Thinkers use. However, Feelers use their own rational system. While emotions are often part of that system as raw informational material, it doesn't mean it's not in fact a rational and quite logical system that processes them. Meanwhile, Thinkers process the information they value using their processing tools. Using the wrong tool for the job at hand (and often taking in the wrong information, or missing the right information, as Poki pointed out), such as using Thinking to analyze a situation that may in fact be better suited to values and empathy is where things go wrong.

And hard as it may to believe, that information does get logically processed by F. Hence, Feelers are logical too.

Either T or F, though, very much benefits from being aware of whether a situation requires their preferred logical processing system or the one they may still be developing as well as the ability to recognise your own limitations and the willingness to outsource to someone who prefers the other system and whose judgement you trust.

 

[Petals]

There is a lot of terminology that gets tossed about in various typology systems that don't necessarily mean the same as to what the word means without the context of typology at its behest.

For example, you have "judging" and "perceiving" for the J/P dichotomy. And yet that doesn't tell the whole picture. Ni-doms are like black holes of perceiving, whereas IXXPs are secret Supreme Court Justices.

Both "Thinkers" and "Feelers" use logic because logic is both inside and outside those definitions. "Thinkers" may make their decisions based on the logic of numbers and facts, but that does not mean then that "Feelers" cannot make their decisions based on the logic of interpersonal relationships.

If we looked at a Venn diagram you would have two slightly overlapping circles representing "T" and "F" respectively, and these circles would be placed in the box of logic.

At least this is how I visualize it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would dare to say that there is a F version of logic and that there is a T version of logic.
Therefore what every side sees as logic is something fairly different than what the other side sees as logic.




Therefore if we reduce the the issue to black and white ....


When it comes to real life the differences between the two can be quite observable. I am much more likely to push the issue directly since current situation just does not make any sense and it is unlikely to provide desirable results (especially since my thinking is clearly extroverted). On the other hand feeler is much more likely to indirectly or softly push the issue into the group. Therefore feeler is probably more likely to convince larger number of people but untill they do that it can often be too late to have a nice solution since the problem has already errupted. What leads to conclusion that F logic solves social and interpersonal problems while T logic solves problems that are in relation between human group and environment. (food/water supplies, predators/danger, tools/technology, weather, etc.)



The extra problem in all of this is that the technology over the last 100 years has made this border muddy since technology has stabilized issues to such degree that most of problems that are on table and in debates are F logic problems. What made people to believe that absolutely anything can work if you try hard enough ... and that is perhaps the number one source of problems in the current world. You will not find many people that start observing problems in the world through: energy supply, lack of control over chemical impact on the inviroment, soil productivity, status of infrastructure, quality of available ore and computer viruses. Even if those are actually the concrete foundations of a working society. Therefore something that was pretty clear bacame muddy in modern world and everbody developed their feeling side more than it was expected. Today we live in the world of advertising and PR where people live out of making people happy and therefore in general T logic has become just a version of F logic. (at least that is how it is threated since logic is just another opinion these days ) This can be easy to observe in modern paradigms such as "everyone has a right to believe what they want" or in election campaigns where almost no one even asks if the said is even doable, while taking apart of what was said is consider to be a personal attack. Therefore typical feeler believes he/she is logical just as thinker, while my subjective truth is that the world has simply became more F friendly.

 

[Paladin-X]

I think people are confusing logical with rational. Both Thinking and Feeling are rational in that they form conclusions based on reasons/criteria. But Thinking itself is oriented by the principle of logic. Feeling is oriented by what's agreeable/important/moral.

 

[magpie]

I think this conversation is useless unless we define what we mean by logic first. I mean, I see people invoking the mathematical version of logic which, strangely, I am good at, even as a Feeler.

 

[Qlip]

I think this conversation is useless unless we define what we mean by logic first. I mean, I see people invoking the mathematical version of logic which, strangely, I am good at, even as a Feeler.

It seems to me, in reading the replies, that people are actually doing a pretty good job at making distinctions between logic as a system and the quality of being logical.

 

[magpie]

It seems to me, in reading the replies, that people are actually doing a pretty good job at making distinctions between logic as a system and the quality of being logical.

Most are, yes. I suppose I should've replied directly to who I was talking to. But I suspect that my criticism is okay, as I doubt anyone will pay it much mind.

 

[Poki]

I think people are confusing logical with rational. Both Thinking and Feeling are rational in that they form conclusions based on reasons/criteria. But Thinking itself is oriented by the principle of logic. Feeling is oriented by what's agreeable/important/moral.

I disagree with important and moral. I am actually a sound board due to my ability to be able to prioritize, figure out what's important, and focus on what matters most in life. I am ALOT of people's voice of reason. Honestly, unless you can figure out what's important, matters, priority I don't think you can even properly figure out your own morals acurately. Instead you end up in a screwed up rationalization mess between morals and wants and self protection and denial.

I would go so far to say that it's more Ji that's figures that stuff out then Just Fi.

 

[Ribonuke]

I guess my definition of being "logical" or "rational" is a bit circular; I can't really tell the difference between someone who is more on the rational/logical side to me and a Thinker, because I inevitably see them as one in the same.

I guess the only way I tell between Thinkers and Feelers at all is, at the end of the day, whether or not they made their decisions primarily rooted in morality/values or whether or not they made their decisions primarily rooted in logicality/deductions. Again, I think Thinkers still are still capable of being empathetic (if they switch that on) and I think Feelers are capable of detaching and using deduction, but which one is their 'type' I think depends upon what ends up being their "Hero" at the end of the day.

 

[Poki]

I guess my definition of being "logical" or "rational" is a bit circular; I can't really tell the difference between someone who is more on the rational/logical side to me and a Thinker, because I inevitably see them as one in the same.

I guess the only way I tell between Thinkers and Feelers at all is, at the end of the day, whether or not they made their decisions primarily rooted in morality/values or whether or not they made their decisions primarily rooted in logicality/deductions. Again, I think Thinkers still are still capable of being empathetic (if they switch that on) and I think Feelers are capable of detaching and using deduction, but which one is their 'type' I think depends upon what ends up being their "Hero" at the end of the day.

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.

 

[andresimon]

I keep coming across this general opinion across this forum, across Tumblr, across various social media that Thinkers are no more logical or rational than Feelers; notably, I have only seen Feelers make this argument, not Thinkers.

While I can understand Thinkers aren't perfect logical thinking robots (we're humans too) and can make errors in judgment just like anyone else (again, we're humans too), I can't fully understand how someone can arrive at this conclusion. I also understand that Feelers are CAPABLE of using logic/rationality, yet oftentimes it is underdeveloped--especially in younger people--because they've spent more effort developing their feeling preference. Isn't the Thinker relying on logic over feeling (and therefore using it to a greater degree than Feelers) what ultimately MAKES them a Thinker? It should be noted that just as Feelers use their Thinking, Thinkers also use their Feeling, though their preference for Thinking often causes them to function less well socially when growing up because of how outright abrasive Thinking can be to a social setting.

Am I the only one who thinks this argument is a bit ridiculous, or am I mistaken? (Usually if I find something ridiculous, it's because I'm missing a critical perspective or piece of information, so I'm perfectly prepared to be proven wrong.)

Both thinking and feeling are rationale functions. So by definition yes, one would not be more rationale than the other. Sensing and intuiting are irrational functions. Your argument is a perfect example of why a thinker would not be any more rationale and more logical than a feeler. And if you don't "think" that "thinkers" make this argument it probably has more to do with your own personal biases where you are seeking only the information that fits your narrative.

Most people don't bother to understand what it means to be a feeler and what it means to be a thinker. They assume they know what those words mean. Your arguments on ENFP's being evil and my counter arguments should be evidence enough that you are not logical. How often are you straining your brain in order to figure something out? Or are you generally operating on autopilot? Do you think rationalizing is the same as being rationale or are you just being a slave to your intuitions? Even scientists who use the scientific method in their respective domains, outside of their own domain of expertise are generally no more rationale or logical than the average person.

So much opinion and direction is baked into your question but maybe giving you a resource would be more helpful then anything I can say. Read "Thinking Fast & Slow". Clearly, you identify a certain way when it comes to this topic because this is a matter of identify for you, that much is clear, so how much effort you will make to hold back your biases is really up to you.

By YOUR definition of "thinkers" and "feelers" you are more of a feeler then you are a thinker because your first function is an irrational function, namely Sensing. FYI, people who don't know ANYTHING about MBTI generally come to your conclusions as well, mostly the "thinkers." For all the work you have put in forums, mbti, and understanding yourself as others, your base level biases have prevented you from learning much at all.

Oh and encase my argument isn't "logical" enough for you. Here is just a basic link from one google search. You may want to read the first paragraph. But be careful, I am evil, right? Be very cautious with the things I say...LMAO

Intuition Inside: Rational and Irrational Functions and Their Attitudes.

"In Carl Jung's theory that has been applied to MBTI, there are rational and irrational functions. The rational functions are the judging functions, feeling and thinking. The irrational functions are the perceiving functions, sensing and intuition."

Isn't it beautiful when someone walks into an argument like this and by definition, they are incorrect? Teeheeeee (Sorry feeling is just oozing out of me. I can't help be irrational and illogical.)

LADIDA!!!! WOWWW SUCH A FEELING THING TO SAY! *TEARS*

PLEASE DON'T BAN ME ADMIN GODS LIKE YOU DID FROM THE "ARE ENFP's EVIL THREAD."

Oh forgot to add. Just like the "ENFP's are Evil" thread - THREAD CLOSED. GOOD GAME, YOU LOSE!

Being angry and outraged in an outrageous environment is VERY logical .


I will add one more thing. T and F are not categories because their is no such thing as a "partial" human. Cognitive functions work together and the letter as well as the order of the letters means something.

 

[Paladin-X]

I disagree with important and moral. I am actually a sound board due to my ability to be able to prioritize, figure out what's important, and focus on what matters most in life. I am ALOT of people's voice of reason. Honestly, unless you can figure out what's important, matters, priority I don't think you can even properly figure out your own morals acurately. Instead you end up in a screwed up rationalization mess between morals and wants and self protection and denial.

I would go so far to say that it's more Ji that's figures that stuff out then Just Fi.

This is kind of just nitpicking. The point is that there is a difference between rational and logical.

But for what it's worth, and regardless if you agree with it or not, I got the idea from Jung:

thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation.

 

[andresimon]

I think people are confusing logical with rational. Both Thinking and Feeling are rational in that they form conclusions based on reasons/criteria. But Thinking itself is oriented by the principle of logic. Feeling is oriented by what's agreeable/important/moral.

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.

 

[Qlip]

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:

...

As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.

Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.

Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin.

...

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.

 

[andresimon]

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.

Your thinking is sound (ENFP of course) but you are missing a few distinctions. It depends on what level you are speaking. Sometimes on one layer something seems logical and rationale, but depending on what your goals and timelines are what appears to be logical and rationale on one layer ends up being HIGHLY irrational and illogical on another.

 

[Qlip]

Your thinking is sound (ENFP of course) but you are missing a few distinctions. It depends on what level you are speaking. Sometimes on one layer something seems logical and rationale, but depending on what your goals and timelines are what appears to be logical and rationale on one layer ends up being HIGHLY irrational and illogical on another.

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.