Something to consider - F vs T

[Orangey]

And these are very good definitions that should once and for all dismiss the notion that one has to do with cognition and the other emotions. They're both based on cognitive decision making, but thinkers want everyone to be treated the same under similar conditions whereas feelers believe that the circumstances should always be considered. It also reaffirmed that I am a thinking type.

What would that look like in practice?

 

[Gen]

Would an example be the following: Someone that was seriously emotionaly damaged during childhood commits murder. T wants him to get the death penalty, F wants him to live and be rehabilitated because it's sort of not his fault. ?

OR a T who doesn't believe in the death penalty thinks he should get prison time and an F who does that looks at how horrific the crime was.

Remember that just because you have people "thinking objectively" or "taking feelings/circumstances into consideration" doesn't mean that you'll come out with predictable outcomes. Different values and experiences mean that every aspect is weighted differently for everyone.

 

[Tallulah]

For murder, I'm not really interested in whether the murderer was abused as a kid. Abused as a kid doesn't equal taking an unrelated person's life. Perhaps if they killed their actual abuser as a way to escape, but growing up to murder your wife or boss, or some random person on the street, and using child abuse as a defense doesn't sit well with me. It baffles me when people want to defend the murderer and forget about the victim.

If we're not talking broad, across the board social-type issues, I generally do see the individual, and I try to look at the situation from his/her perspective, and try to understand why he or she would think or react that way.

I see people as individuals, but when they've done something really heinous, I also see that they had their free will to do that, and I don't have to continue to make excuses for them.

 

[Xander]

Hehehe...

And you think that you've found that simplistic principle?
T and F is as simple as that huh?

Oh wait... it all works except until you recognize that you have, in fact, postulated an implication, rather than a principle.

And the implications are complex, you're correct.

I'm not stating principles though. The principles are that people should generally conform to certain patterns based upon the observation of individuals. The implications of this are still filtering through. Heck the principle may be proven wrong!

A View to a Kill, where a black man in the deep south shoots the men who raped his little girl but were acquitted in the pre Civil Rights era. Was it wrong when there was no justice?

The Bond movie?

 

[booyalab]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

This is how I would sum up the difference between F and T bosses, at least.
So since the second approach relies on personal knowledge of the individual, the ones who whine the most basically get the most attention. Even though the T approach doesn't come from a desire to be "nice", it leads to less resentment. But in matters of intimacy or friendship the F method is probably better.

 

[Xander]

...the ones who whine the most basically get the most attention.

Okay that IS T vs F...

Let's get it on!!

 

[edcoaching]

The Bond movie?

Oops--the Grisham book was A Time to Kill.

I just think his setup in those books is meant to show that these issues aren't as cut and dried as anyone of us would like them to be...

 

[Delphyne]

I've often heard the fairness thing described as...

T's want everyone to have an equal chance
F's want people to have a chance they deserve.

If I had to pick one I would easily take the second sentence, whereas I would have a hard time deciding if it´s more important to treat people fairly or individually. People are different, they have different personalities, different skills and different preferences. Put in the same situation and given equal chances, one person may cope better with this situation than the other because it suits his preferences. That´s why I think that treating every one as an individual being is important, but it´s also something which I label as „fair“.
What do Thinkers see as treating someone fairly and individually?

A View to a Kill, where a black man in the deep south shoots the men who raped his little girl but were acquitted in the pre Civil Rights era. Was it wrong when there was no justice?

I'm not really sugesting we debate these, just that Grisham raises the issues in the stickiest situations imaginable to get us to see how difficult they are...

If I remember correctly the men weren´t acquitted, they were send to jail. That´s one of many differences between the novel and the movie. I could see you point of view if you were talking about the movie, but the novel was more about planned revenge, lying and undermining the legal system.

 

[Salomé]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

These aren't mutually exclusive. Find me an F who feels people should be treated unfairly...Find me a T who thinks people are not individuals....

It might be more accurate to say Ts don't really give as much thought to how individuals are treated as they might, and perhaps Fs give it too much thought.

 

[Salomé]

Okay, I'm taking back the death penalty as an option as I'm not sure how I feel about that but my idea of justice would be some form of punishment despite the persons background. The background shouldn't make a difference.

IMO, this is more indicative of the J than the T.

 

[Salomé]

But nobody is motivated by the same things. Every individual is unpredictable, and you can't measure everybody by the same standards, not because it is fair or not, just because it's inexact, and you're not getting whole justice.
Maybe what is justice for me it isn't for another person, but still both 'justices' are... justice.

If it is impossible to measure everyone by a common standard, then no justice (of an executive kind) is possible. Punitive justice (which is what we are talking about) involves deciding a standard which the majority of society accept as reasonable, establishing that standard in law, and punishing those who violate it. Individual judgments usually take extenuating circumstances into account. T and F don't operate in a vacuum.

 

[Xander]

These aren't mutually exclusive. Find me an F who feels people should be treated unfairly...Find me a T who thinks people are not individuals....

It might be more accurate to say Ts don't really give as much thought to how individuals are treated as they might, and perhaps Fs give it too much thought.

Err... that's the point. It's preference. It's not supposed to be exclusive or black and white.

 

[Salomé]

Err... that's the point. It's preference. It's not supposed to be exclusive or black and white.

Then it's not very helpful, IMO. There are better definitions.

 

[Xander]

Then it's not very helpful, IMO. There are better definitions.

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~Walt Whitman

True of most people I know. There is no black and white, only shades of colour. Hence your reference points are many and few are so neat as to lie either side of a straight line.

I think that's the confusing thing that most people come up against. The MBTI doesn't make sense of people. Learning about the MBTI and trying to apply it as a learning process, that makes sense of people.

 

[Salomé]

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~Walt Whitman

True of most people I know. There is no black and white, only shades of colour. Hence your reference points are many and few are so neat as to lie either side of a straight line.

I think that's the confusing thing that most people come up against. The MBTI doesn't make sense of people. Learning about the MBTI and trying to apply it as a learning process, that makes sense of people.

MBTI/type theory is all about dichotomies. It is about classifying people according to preferred function(s). You have to start from a position of believing people *can* be typed in a fairly black and white way for it to be a useful or a meaningful tool. If you balk against neat lines and categories, MBTI isn't going to make much sense to you.

 

[Kora]

If it is impossible to measure everyone by a common standard, then no justice (of an executive kind) is possible. Punitive justice (which is what we are talking about) involves deciding a standard which the majority of society accept as reasonable, establishing that standard in law, and punishing those who violate it. Individual judgments usually take extenuating circumstances into account. T and F don't operate in a vacuum.

I know justice is a system. I'm not saying that justice shouldn't be measured under a common standart, just that if justice doesn't try to search under the surface, it's not exactly justice.
I mean: Punishing a criminal for his/her crime is justice. Trying to get to the root of criminality and what causes it is whole justice for me. Of course that's almost impossible so I stuck with the punitive system.

 

[Salomé]

Punishing a criminal for his/her crime is justice.

No, it's retribution. To non-punitive types like myself, it seems little more than vindictiveness. The only reason I can see for it is to act as a deterrent for those who lack (for whatever reason) internal mechanisms to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. And it isn't very effective at doing that.

 

[Kora]

No, it's retribution. To non-punitive types like myself, it seems little more than vindictiveness. The only reason I can see for it is to act as a deterrent for those who lack (for whatever reason) internal mechanisms to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. And it isn't very effective at doing that.

Well that's why I say that if you don't search for what's behind a crime you don't do anything more than punishing a criminal.

 

[wolfy]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

Everyone should be treated as an individual. That's fair.

If I murder someone the circumstances should be taken into account. All murder is not the same. It's not like treating people as individuals means being soft on them. It means taking into account the situation and taking appropriate action.
Treating someone individually is not the same as having bias.

 

[Salomé]

Well that's why I say that if you don't search for what's behind a crime you don't do anything more than punishing a criminal.

Not true. There are a lot of other things you can do. Rehabilitation is one. Ignoring it is another.

When you talk about searching for what's behind a crime you descend into a highly subjective area. We will perhaps never have a model which can perfectly compute cause and effect in human behaviour. We have to work with what we have and our decisions must be pragmatic and for the greater good.
This would tend towards a generalist approach, rather than an individualistic one.

But all this is a digression...