• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NF] Why Immature F-ers give me the creeps?

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I agreed with most of what you said, but I see a problem with this statement, namely that thinking is not done in a vacuum and has consequences. It may not be directly concerned with people, but it will still indirectly affect people.

Now, having pointed that out, I have only ever met one person in my whole life who really seemed close to being a pure thinker, and she was one of the coolest people I have ever known. Because ironically, she had so much acceptance of other people, that she was a good influence on them!

Thinking will consider people as variables and their feelings as even more variables. They know that their decisions can affect them but they still go about deciding in an impersonal manner. Like one of those rulers in front of roller coasters, you can't exactly declare the ruler malevolent if it declares you too short to ride the roller coaster.
 

celesul

New member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
190
MBTI Type
ENTP
As I understand it, both Thinking and Feeling are attempts to adhere to a framework, but Thinkers call it logic, and Feelers call it morals. Really, Thinkers try to maintain objectivity, while a healthy Feeler would try to be sympathetic as well. Which makes Thinkers sound like better judges, but also keep in mind that one needs to create a framework.

Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind. Both judges may well declare her guilty or maybe only the Thinker does. Perhaps the Feeler decides to try to remedy the causes of this situation after feeling so conflicted, and they create a charity. Both are very very necessary functions, as consistency is needed in a society, it's what the law is about, but sympathy is as well, or it becomes very oppressive. So, society needs both, and most people have both in them.

However, if you meet anyone who is only a Thinker or only a Feeler, then run away very very fast ~.^
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
Thinking will consider people as variables and their feelings as even more variables. They know that their decisions can affect them but they still go about deciding in an impersonal manner. Like one of those rulers in front of roller coasters, you can't exactly declare the ruler malevolent if it declares you too short to ride the roller coaster.

Well that's an example in which thinking is obviously the appropriate way to make the decision. Other kinds of examples are more problematic. Somebody experimenting with how to split atoms may be high on solving an exciting problem and not actually want to kill people. But we still had Hiroshima.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Well that's an example in which thinking is obviously the appropriate way to make the decision. Other kinds of examples are more problematic. Somebody experimenting with how to split atoms may be high on solving an exciting problem and not actually want to kill people. But we still had Hiroshima.

True.

What was the question again? Sorry, I have a headache...
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind.

But why is consistency necessary? Because it maintains the social order? Why care about that? Because you care about people?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
"not recognizing the implicit needs of humanity? No biggy." .

It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.









Analysis based on what imperatives? I agree that a purely Thinking/aFeeling society would not be uncooperative, but that does not satisfy me, since such a society would hardly be anything at all. No Feeling means no drive.

If you refer to a society that has enough Feeling to posess personal desire, but lacks ethical code or sentimental sensitivty, then you essentially have a society of socipaths. Such a society would not work because sociopaths are cooperative in a parasitic manner. Society could not hold itself together without conduct respectful of emotions and morals..


There is always enough feeling to have a drive, even in the most hard core of thinkers. Radical T society members would not act like sociopaths. They would accord sympathy on rational grounds. For example, if I see someone who appears as a drama queen, I do not immediately feel sympathy. I would first want to hear out her story. If I discover that it is true that she was profoundly wronged by others, then I will feel sympathetic. Whether I would act on that sympathy or not depends on what would be the most rational way to go about the problem.

Preponderance of Thinking over Feeling does not mean no sympathy at all, but controlled sympathy. Feelings are not to be the deciding factor in our judgment, but part of the bigger picture. Feelings should be honored or dishonored based on how much they conduce to the welfare of the individual and society.



What act of cooperation would qualify as whimsical?.

Random acts of sympathy described above.



First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking.?.

Definitions.

Thinking: Utilization of logic for decision making.

Feeling: Conscious scrutiny of ideas based on what is favored and disfavored.

Rational: Plausible, reasonable.

rational - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Thinking is in a closer affinity with rationality because logical reasoning allows us to see what is most reasonable. Whilst what is favored or disfavored does not. At best, it only tells us about our preferrences and not about the most rational way to go about the situation.




But in the former case, invdividuals will be lacking in comprehension of good and bad acts. Such a disability would essentially turn society inert. Now, I suppose a subjective debate from here, as to whether society would be worse if it was filled with a bunch of do-nothings or a bunch of know-nothings.

No, they will not. Logical analysis of sentiments leads to such knowledge.
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
But in the former case, invdividuals will be lacking in comprehension of good and bad acts.

And there would be no meaning at all. Meaning works like this in the simplest form. If you're a deer, and there is a hunter coming at you, the objective fact is that a human is pointing a gun at you. The meaning is that you might die.
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.

So then, let's not give anesthesia to babies when we operate on them.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.

Yes, it's true that other people cannot mindread and we all need to speak up for what we need, but doesn't it take sympathy for others to allow us space to meet our needs? Without sympathy why not just the strong bulldoze over the weak? (Not the meek, the physically, economically or politically weak.)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Yes, it's true that other people cannot mindread and we all need to speak up for what we need, but doesn't it take sympathy for others to allow us space to meet our needs? Without sympathy why not just the strong bulldoze over the weak? (Not the meek, the physically, economically or politically weak.)

The week are to be preserved only to the extent that they make society a better place. If it makes sense to help them get back up to their feet, assistance ought to be provided. If not, then it ought not to be.

When we assist others, there should be a rational criteria behind it, not pure act of sympathy.

As I understand it, both Thinking and Feeling are attempts to adhere to a framework, but Thinkers call it logic, and Feelers call it morals. Really, Thinkers try to maintain objectivity, while a healthy Feeler would try to be sympathetic as well. Which makes Thinkers sound like better judges, but also keep in mind that one needs to create a framework.

Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind. Both judges may well declare her guilty or maybe only the Thinker does. Perhaps the Feeler decides to try to remedy the causes of this situation after feeling so conflicted, and they create a charity. Both are very very necessary functions, as consistency is needed in a society, it's what the law is about, but sympathy is as well, or it becomes very oppressive. So, society needs both, and most people have both in them.

However, if you meet anyone who is only a Thinker or only a Feeler, then run away very very fast ~.^


Morality is discovered through careful logical analysis of sentiments. This has little to do with Feeling, as feeling is a mere senseless dwelling on the sentiments. You need thinking to put it in something coherent.

Of course morality is grounded in sentiments, and this is why Feelers are more interested in it. But they are far less likely to put a system of ethics together because they cannot give their feelings a coherent structure.
 

Mondo

Welcome to Sunnyside
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,992
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
It bothers me when people make decisions based on feelings that harm others in some sort of way.
If a person doesn't have a reason for doing something, except if its out of spite and/or stupidity.
Otherwise, if someone wants to do something because 'they feel like it' go ahead- as long as you don't bring others along on the ride.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Let me just summarize most of my would-be response by saying that what BlueWing describes as a the nature of a preponderance of Thinking over Feeling almost always sounds to me more like a balance of Thinking and Feeling.


Definitions.
rational - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Thinking is in a closer affinity with rationality because logical reasoning allows us to see what is most reasonable. Whilst what is favored or disfavored does not. At best, it only tells us about our preferrences and not about the most rational way to go about the situation.

We've been over this before. Yes, rationale has to do with reason. It is not specified that rationale/rationality has exclusively to do with logical reasoning, it just has to do with some kind of reasoning.

That being said, here's the entry of reason that I quoted before:

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy.
a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.​

I once again point out that save a few field specific definitions, reason refers to any form of Judgement, not just Thinking,
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
It bothers me when people make decisions based on feelings that harm others in some sort of way.
If a person doesn't have a reason for doing something, except if its out of spite and/or stupidity.
Otherwise, if someone wants to do something because 'they feel like it' go ahead- as long as you don't bring others along on the ride.

that's the basis of common decency for me. If it doesn't harm anyone or anything then what's the problem?
 

Maabus1999

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
528
MBTI Type
INTJ
Well that's an example in which thinking is obviously the appropriate way to make the decision. Other kinds of examples are more problematic. Somebody experimenting with how to split atoms may be high on solving an exciting problem and not actually want to kill people. But we still had Hiroshima.

Yet from a thinking standpoint, it saved us from a ground war that would've cost more Japanese and American lives 10 fold then 2 bombs(and it also stopped the Japanese A-bomb project in Korea. Yes they actually had one.). It also exposed the horrors of atomic warfare so later on there was more restraint other then MAD.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
It bothers me when people make decisions based on feelings that harm others in some sort of way.
If a person doesn't have a reason for doing something, except if its out of spite and/or stupidity.
Otherwise, if someone wants to do something because 'they feel like it' go ahead- as long as you don't bring others along on the ride.

What about when people make decisions based on (faulty) thought that harms others in some sort of way?

Having a reason makes the perpetrator of a crime less culpable? Anyone can attempt to logically justify anything... even murder of innocents.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What about when people make decisions based on (faulty) thought that harms others in some sort of way?

Having a reason makes the perpetrator of a crime less culpable? Anyone can attempt to logically justify anything... even murder of innocents.

Well, to seriously nit-pick, I think someone would be very hard-pressed to logically justify concluding that 2 + 2 = 7. :tongue:

But yes, I think most of use get your actual point. It's extremely problematic when someone has complete faith in their own grasp on logic, truth, and objectivity. A small pretence of fallibilism is important for people to be consistently realistic or just. Without it, one cannot learn, and cannot be persuaded. It's rather dangerous for themselves and others.

One must be able to examine themselves for error, and correct it when they see it. BlueWing himself only seems to admit error with petty mistakes, or more specifically mistakes that do not relate to logic. When it comes to logic and rationale, however, he both acts as if, and has essentially stated that, he knows the universal and true language of reason. It's actually this aspect that has constituted someone of the most vacuous aspects of his arguments.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
What about when people make decisions based on (faulty) thought that harms others in some sort of way?

Having a reason makes the perpetrator of a crime less culpable? Anyone can attempt to logically justify anything... even murder of innocents.
You think too much, de Mazarin. It's as if you've lived on another planet and have just been exposed to humanity.

I'll let you in on a little secret you were sure to eventually discover anyway: People are generally stupid, impulsive, selfish, and short-sighted.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
You think too much, de Mazarin. It's as if you've lived on another planet and have just been exposed to humanity.

I'll let you in on a little secret you were sure to eventually discover anyway: People are generally stupid, impulsive, selfish, and short-sighted.

I am a bit of an Ivory Tower kind of dude... but this is how I've generally viewed most people... in fact, however, I'd amend your description thusly:

"lazy, impulsive, selfish, and short-sighted"

I can't remember who wrote or said this... I think it's from Dostoevsky's "Brother's Karamazov"... someone had an interesting soliloquy about how all the world's troubles stemmed not from overwrought passions or outright stupidity, but rather from laziness and inertia.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
all the world's troubles stemmed not from overwrought passions or outright stupidity, but rather from laziness and inertia.
I vehemently disagree. People who care about nothing offend me in no way; People who passionately strive for that with which I disagree earn my hatred.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
I vehemently disagree. People who care about nothing offend me in no way; People who passionately strive for that with which I disagree earn my hatred.

Well, there's a difference between being lazy and not caring about something... the way I read it is that someone might be passionate about something but so lazy as to simply choose the quickest, easiest-looking solution, and thereby make a mess of things by ill-advised action.

Those who are passionately wrong and industrious... they're obviously forces to be reckoned with...

But as for laziness being the root cause of all the world's problems, I'm not espousing that as a hard and fast rule and nor do I think was Dostoevsky (he was putting it in the mouth of one of his characters... Dmitri probably...)... but it is an under-appreciated flaw.
 
Top