[MBTI General] Thinking vs Feeling...a false dichotomy?

[redacted]

repply for evan



Point taken - Though what I was trying to set apart was they in one view (1) types such as Ni/Ti/Fe do exist and MBTI function hierarchies do not do such types justice. this is what you are arguing. - in another view (2) MBTI function hierarchies really *do* nail everybody; presumed Ni/Ti/Fe-types, then, are in fact INFJs repressing Fe from its "natural" position. (and they inadvertibly give themselves away when doing so.). the second view implies that Ni/Ti/Fe types are abnormal or pathological to some extrent. the first view doesn't.

Yeah I hear ya. I just don't see a reason to believe that Ti can't naturally come before Fe. I could come up with reasons why a different function probably couldn't fit in 2nd position, but the tertiary/auxiliary switch seems not to contradict anything I can think of.

Personally, I lean towards (2) but of course people should be allowed to use the system in the way it makes the best sense to them
The reason I lean towards (2) is because I have repreatedly observed INFJs in my personal life who believe themselves to be INTs when they clearly qualify as feelers in my book. but i'm talking about my own experiences. - to challenge you, personally, I'd have to meet you in RL situations involving coffee

The thing is -- even if 1 was true, the Ni/Ti/Fe INFJ will still look more F than other NTs because Feeling is still the first extroverted function.

this is exactly why I presented the two views above:

if we go with view (1) then there is no reason Ni/Ti/Fe types should be more idealistic than the average NT. - Though my point was that such Ni/Ti-types often end up being very idealistisc so none the less, even though there is no good theoretical reason why they should be so. - Which speaks for the function hierarchies established by the MBTI, i.e. view (2).

Again, LOOKING idealistic and THINKING idealistically are different. An INFJ will most likely look more idealistic than NTs (although INTJs are sometimes pretty out there).

Regardless, though, I know plenty of NTs that I consider much more idealistic than I am. And they would agree. It's only the people that know MBTI and know I'm an F that call me idealistic. The people I know that don't know MBTI always talk about how logical I am, even so logical that they get weirded out. I've heard this from multiple NTs.

Plus, everyone I teach the system to immediately labels me as a T, and they start to doubt the system when I say I'm technically an F.

Right, I know my reasoning here isn't especially NT-esque, so take it for what it is - but psychologically, I have observed how NTs, especially NTJs seem distressed when someone, or they themselves, do not fit neatly into the system. Whereas the INFJs that I know seem to revel in the fact that they somehow do not fit into the boxes. But again, I'm telling you what my Ne has observed IRL. Not who you are

I actually like the idea of fitting into boxes. I like frameworks that work well. I have no problem with MBTI stripping me of individuality or something. It just doesn't make sense to think of the order as so fixed. The fact that I am updating it is actually due to my desire to have a framework that actually DOES separate people more cleanly.

 

[Kaveri]

Interesting thoughts. I find the T/F dichotomy very bizarre, too. Very biased in many ways.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I agree with the OP. The T/F poles are not mutually exclusive. The absence of one trait does not suggest the presence of the other trait. In some cases the presence of one trait can imply the presence of the other. There is a pole that ranges from Self/Ego to Objectivity and/or Empathy. This is how the T/F pole is not mutually exclusive. A lack of objectivity, if it results from a reliance on ego, is likely going to result in a lack of empathy as well. At least in MBTI application these distinctions are not articulated from what I can tell.

Every brain contains emotional hardware and is prone towards perceiving the world in a personally unique manner. Dismissing those elements is not by its nature rational or logical any more than dismissing the presence and impact of any other physical system in the body. Understanding the emotional impact upon self from the outside world and regulating both the internal response and the external stimuli is a process that requires reasoning. Also if an action or statement is going to have emotional repercussions within a group of people, then acknowledging that and factoring it into the equation is rational. Dismissing it is not. Acknowledging, understanding, and managing the entire range of cause and effects that occur externally and in the perception of individuals is necessary for reasoning and problem solving.

The best I have come to understand the differences between T and F involve Thinking preferring systems that have elements that can be definitively measured where A is A, and if A then B. Feeling systems are more approximate because they either resist definitive measurement by their natures, or the systems are complex to a degree that it is not possible to account for all the data and so outcomes can appear random. People who test as T can lean in the direction of dismissing any data that does not fit clearly into a specific system. This process of dismissal is not necessarily based on reason and can result in fragmented or incomplete data. People who test as F lean in the direction of being holistic and can include more data than is relevant to a particular system. If one is attempting to process the big picture, it is necessary to be able to incorporate these different sorts of systems and how they act upon each other and to manage the data accordingly.

Because of this I have had an inclination to think that T tends to be weakly equivalent to more compartmentalized thought processes while F tends towards more integrated processes, but that is not MBTI as far as I know, and the correlation is not necessarily consistent, but just a bit of observation on my part. Compartmentalized vs. Integrated processing is a significant pole that by its nature implies mutual exclusivity. It is one that should be addressed in a system that explores cognitive processing.