[MBTI General] F mystery debunked

[cn1234567890]

That's silly. I don't see anything bad with being T or F they both have their pros and cons but I'm sure if someone made a "T's and what is wrong with them" thread, T's would rationally explain why it was false and how T was useful. It's the same thing as the F's arguing about why we have merits too, but we do it perhaps more passionately and abstractly because we are F's. Fs are sensitive, and by knowing that we are sensitive and choosing post this anyways, you are being a "cold" T. Everyone is just playing out their role, there's no reason to be disrespectful or make generalizations about every F or every T though.

As for values and being consistent with them, which you were talking about at the beginning, everyone makes mistakes. I have seen F's and T's do crappy things to one another. I have seen T's go back on their word, thinking they know exactly what they wanted, only to realize they made a mistake but in the mean time have hurt everyone around them. I've seen T's leave people in the shittiest of situations because they didn't have the empathy to help them out and "couldn't deal with it". I have also seen F's leave people because in their "flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh" they didn't know what to do with the person.

In the moosh, as you call it, there is some value and backbone that should be acknowledged. If you put an F in a situation where they "feel" they should help and be there for a person, they will do it every time and they will see it through until their F tells them okay. This is what you T's might call loyalty. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes and treat others or react to them in a way that does not offend them. This is what T's could call respect. We may not have it in our heads every time, especially when we are young, but over time it grows and matures...

I didn't expect to write that much but there it is... I hope it's impersonal enough for you..

 

[SillySapienne]

That's silly. I don't see anything bad with being T or F they both have their pros and cons but I'm sure if someone made a "T's and what is wrong with them" thread, T's would rationally explain why it was false and how T was useful. It's the same thing as the F's arguing about why we have merits too, but we do it perhaps more passionately and abstractly because we are F's. Fs are sensitive, and by knowing that we are sensitive and choosing post this anyways, you are being a "cold" T. Everyone is just playing out their role, there's no reason to be disrespectful or make generalizations about every F or every T though.

As for values and being consistent with them, which you were talking about at the beginning, everyone makes mistakes. I have seen F's and T's do crappy things to one another. I have seen T's go back on their word, thinking they know exactly what they wanted, only to realize they made a mistake but in the mean time have hurt everyone around them. I've seen T's leave people in the shittiest of situations because they didn't have the empathy to help them out and "couldn't deal with it". I have also seen F's leave people because in their "flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh" they didn't know what to do with the person.

In the moosh, as you call it, there is some value and backbone that should be acknowledged. If you put an F in a situation where they "feel" they should help and be there for a person, they will do it every time and they will see it through until their F tells them okay. This is what you T's might call loyalty. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes and treat others or react to them in a way that does not offend them. This is what T's could call respect. We may not have it in our heads every time, especially when we are young, but over time it grows and matures...

I didn't expect to write that much but there it is... I hope it's impersonal enough for you..

QFT

Way to represent!!



:enfphighfive:

 

[Sunshine]

That's silly. I don't see anything bad with being T or F they both have their pros and cons but I'm sure if someone made a "T's and what is wrong with them" thread, T's would rationally explain why it was false and how T was useful. It's the same thing as the F's arguing about why we have merits too, but we do it perhaps more passionately and abstractly because we are F's. Fs are sensitive, and by knowing that we are sensitive and choosing post this anyways, you are being a "cold" T. Everyone is just playing out their role, there's no reason to be disrespectful or make generalizations about every F or every T though.

As for values and being consistent with them, which you were talking about at the beginning, everyone makes mistakes. I have seen F's and T's do crappy things to one another. I have seen T's go back on their word, thinking they know exactly what they wanted, only to realize they made a mistake but in the mean time have hurt everyone around them. I've seen T's leave people in the shittiest of situations because they didn't have the empathy to help them out and "couldn't deal with it". I have also seen F's leave people because in their "flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh" they didn't know what to do with the person.

In the moosh, as you call it, there is some value and backbone that should be acknowledged. If you put an F in a situation where they "feel" they should help and be there for a person, they will do it every time and they will see it through until their F tells them okay. This is what you T's might call loyalty. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes and treat others or react to them in a way that does not offend them. This is what T's could call respect. We may not have it in our heads every time, especially when we are young, but over time it grows and matures...

I didn't expect to write that much but there it is... I hope it's impersonal enough for you..

yuuuup.

oh
so
true

 

[cn1234567890]

thanks i hope BlueWing reads and finds some sense in it... i got quite annoyed when I read his first post...

 

[Sunshine]

thanks i hope BlueWing reads and finds some sense in it... i got quite annoyed when I read his first post...

Same here.

 

[alcea rosea]

It is incredibly frustrating how self-assured they may be and how on a heat of passion they may assert their opinions with great vehemence hardly paying attention to the fact that what they say has very little, if any basis in objective reality.

They pride themselves on sensitivity to other people, fear offending others, but strikingly fail to realize that many people (like me) are deeply offended when they do not take their thoughts seriously.

What is this more than your feelings based on your own subjective opinion? This is surely not not objective thinking.

 

[Didums]

Bluewing needs to cool down and compose himself. When a "T" writes that many logical fallacies he's not in a good state of mind, he might have been showing a little bit of a shadow side in that post I think..

 

[nemo]

This is quite possibly the best thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

 

[Ivy]

Fs...please dont respond...I dont want to know if its a sad day..I dont want to know if your other INTP friend appreciates F..I dont want to know about how it will feel good if I do X...I just want a simple, impersonal reply to the above statements.

I'm intrigued with your request for a simple, impersonal reply to a post that was neither simple nor impersonal.

 

[Angry Ayrab]

Angry Ayrab, is going to try and bury this horse before it gets beat any more.

Damn you people, I thought my impersonal response should have clarified everything, but nooo.... you people don't read and want to keep on arguing.

Gaaaoood am an ANGRY AYRAB.

 

[Ivy]

Are you suggesting we have a trial? Because I heard proteanmix likes those. But she also likes to offer the sentence first, verdict afterwards.

 

[miked277]

i just wanted to add my little 2c in here, having read most of this thread. i may write more later depending on if i still have more hot tea available but yeah, pretty much everything jennifer and a few others said i agree with. also, specific to jennifer and most of the older intps that post here and on intpc, i've found that their points of views, responses, and general outlooks are incredibly insightful and balanced. their attitudes are ones that i hope to emulate someday.

on to the OP:
with regards to functional attitudes and their combinations as described in the mbti system, i find that you view them much much too rigidly, much too "black and white." you seem to think that reality flows out from this personality framework. or another way to put it would be that, anything that goes outside of the lines is somehow faulty and not faithful to the system. i've seen it in your posts since i started frequenting this and other sites. i agree that a framework such as this one, modeled on something as complex as huamans, can and does provide many useful insights but when you view the system as more sacred than the objects it was designed to model you are only limiting the truth you can take away from it.

anyways, on to the quotes... this one was fun:

Feeling does not have any firm principles as it is this profoundly infused in the flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh.

how do you define a firm principle. what is a principle and what makes it firm or flimsy. let's take one of the most famous principles on how humans should best interact with each others: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. is that because we want them to like us? is that because we value our own safety? how firmly do different types of people adhere to this principle and for what reasons?

another idea i think could use tweaking is this:

When they express what seems to be an objective opinion, especially about people, this has nothing to do with objective reality, it is inevitably an expression of their feelings.

what metric are we using to measure people's opinions? are feelings real? if a feeling is real to someone, is that not reality? if that feeling is a "good" feeling and it can be produced in you by another person and if the goal you are after is to create that certain feeling then the person or people that can create such a feeling can be categorized as such, correct?

but ok, lets look at this another way. let's say that at one end of the reality spectrum you can only arrive at a correct answer by making an amorphous and feeling type choice without taking logic into account (my favorite color, my favorite food, people i like, people i love, etc). at the other end you have the answers to the absolutely logical questions at which one can only arrive through the cold calculating use of their thinking capacity. and of course, the rest of reality lies somewhere in the middle. taking this to be true, it would mean that using certain facilities to answer questions to which the opposite facility would better serve would in fact yield an incorrect or inaccurate answer. or more simply, wrong tool for the job. the point of this long thought is, just as much as pure thinking is useful, pure feeling is also useful. sometimes in the same area too but often in different areas. sometimes they can also be combined to form opinions or decisions. the trick here is the feedback mechanism, or in other words, assigning a cost for not choosing wisely (e.g. losing one's job, looking foolish, etc.)

moving on:

We are supposed to budge into the unreasonable expectations they impose upon us as if what they said was a matter of fact, matter to be taken seriously.

this quote smacks of the use of an *individual* incident in building your argument. maybe not even one incident but a small handful of them. the point is that this is a gross generalization from your limited point of view (in scope and experience) that you're trying to pass off as fact.

moving on:

They hardly see a problem with changing their mind or maintaining the exact opposite of what they claimed earlier, as once more their claims are but expressions of sentiment, they bare no rational judgment, and their feelings may change like weather. As after all where could they get a backbone if not from solid, dispassionate judgment. A kind of judgment that treats ideas as true or false, matters of fact and not matters of mood-what we tend to associate with the Thinking function. This they sorely lack.

you really need to provide some examples of these situations. i'm not saying you are right or wrong here but i don't think any such generalizations can be made about anybody, regardless of type. also, backbone and steadiness of mind and feeling are not synonymous with thinking types. another gross generalization.

moving on:

They pride themselves on sensitivity to other people, fear offending others, but strikingly fail to realize that many people (like me) are deeply offended when they do not take their thoughts seriously.

more generalizations that only serve to underscore your own lack of experience. none of the qualities you listed here (sensitivity, inoffensiveness, or the willingness to treat others' thoughts seriously) are exclusive to any type or functional attitude. stop trying to attach negative aspects of the people you've encountered to such large swaths of people. if i had only ever read your posts regarding mbti and nothing else (and i weren't an intp myself) i would assume all intps were the snotty, condescending, myopic, close-minded and emotionally challenged types. stereotyping blows.

next:

Fail to honor the personal values of some people concerning consistency and clarity, simply do not understand that for some of us it is important for situations to make sense. Fail to honor the value of truth, as because some of us need for the situation to make sense it is more important to call it like it is as opposed to wallowing in heart-warming fantasy. As well as they fail to communicate clearly (again the value of the need to make sense) because they're too caught up in making it sound 'nice'.

another right tool for the job situation. your thoughts here assume both that all choices, opinions or decisions are better managed through the use of ones thinking capacity and as well that feeling types are incapable of developing beyond a certain very simplistic level. both are poor assumptions. i'll say it again but you are trying to present something as a universal truth but what you have here is really just a vague idea disguised as fact.

almost done:

I am sure others here share this frustration with Fs. Share thoughts to expound on the matter and ideas relevant to the above material.

i'm sure others do at times and, though on a much milder level, i do as well. but i don't think you'll find anyone here that would try and create a theory with the goal being the debunking of half of the human population.

lastly and my favorite:

Fs...please dont respond...I dont want to know if its a sad day..I dont want to know if your other INTP friend appreciates F..I dont want to know about how it will feel good if I do X...I just want a simple, impersonal reply to the above statements.

i don't know, either you were traumatized by some feeling type recently or you just have an incredibly low tolerance for feelings. either way... ahahaha.


and in closing:
judging by the large number of responses in the short amount of time to the OP we can see pretty well the general feeling regarding the debunking of the f mystery. i'm rarely have the time or energy to do much forum posting here besides the quick one or two paragraph response to this or that but what can i say, sw, you just know how to start a fire and keep the gasoline pouring. always entertaining if not always accurate. :hi:

 

[Didums]

i just wanted to add my little 2c in here

A penny for your thoughts but you put your 2 cents in.. somebodys making a penny...









I've wanted to do that for so long I'm so happy

 

[miked277]

A penny for your thoughts but you put your 2 cents in.. somebodys making a penny...









I've wanted to do that for so long I'm so happy

heh, if i was able to facilitate the happiness of one person today then i'm happy

 

[Sunshine]

i just wanted to add my little 2c in here, having read most of this thread. i may write more later depending on if i still have more hot tea available but yeah, pretty much everything jennifer and a few others said i agree with. also, specific to jennifer and most of the older intps that post here and on intpc, i've found that their points of views, responses, and general outlooks are incredibly insightful and balanced. their attitudes are ones that i hope to emulate someday.

on to the OP:
with regards to functional attitudes and their combinations as described in the mbti system, i find that you view them much much too rigidly, much too "black and white." you seem to think that reality flows out from this personality framework. or another way to put it would be that, anything that goes outside of the lines is somehow faulty and not faithful to the system. i've seen it in your posts since i started frequenting this and other sites. i agree that a framework such as this one, modeled on something as complex as huamans, can and does provide many useful insights but when you view the system as more sacred than the objects it was designed to model you are only limiting the truth you can take away from it.

anyways, on to the quotes... this one was fun:

how do you define a firm principle. what is a principle and what makes it firm or flimsy. let's take one of the most famous principles on how humans should best interact with each others: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. is that because we want them to like us? is that because we value our own safety? how firmly do different types of people adhere to this principle and for what reasons?

another idea i think could use tweaking is this:

what metric are we using to measure people's opinions? are feelings real? if a feeling is real to someone, is that not reality? if that feeling is a "good" feeling and it can be produced in you by another person and if the goal you are after is to create that certain feeling then the person or people that can create such a feeling can be categorized as such, correct?

but ok, lets look at this another way. let's say that at one end of the reality spectrum you can only arrive at a correct answer by making an amorphous and feeling type choice without taking logic into account (my favorite color, my favorite food, people i like, people i love, etc). at the other end you have the answers to the absolutely logical questions at which one can only arrive through the cold calculating use of their thinking capacity. and of course, the rest of reality lies somewhere in the middle. taking this to be true, it would mean that using certain facilities to answer questions to which the opposite facility would better serve would in fact yield an incorrect or inaccurate answer. or more simply, wrong tool for the job. the point of this long thought is, just as much as pure thinking is useful, pure feeling is also useful. sometimes in the same area too but often in different areas. sometimes they can also be combined to form opinions or decisions. the trick here is the feedback mechanism, or in other words, assigning a cost for not choosing wisely (e.g. losing one's job, looking foolish, etc.)

moving on:

this quote smacks of the use of an *individual* incident in building your argument. maybe not even one incident but a small handful of them. the point is that this is a gross generalization from your limited point of view (in scope and experience) that you're trying to pass off as fact.

moving on:

you really need to provide some examples of these situations. i'm not saying you are right or wrong here but i don't think any such generalizations can be made about anybody, regardless of type. also, backbone and steadiness of mind and feeling are not synonymous with thinking types. another gross generalization.

moving on:

more generalizations that only serve to underscore your own lack of experience. none of the qualities you listed here (sensitivity, inoffensiveness, or the willingness to treat others' thoughts seriously) are exclusive to any type or functional attitude. stop trying to attach negative aspects of the people you've encountered to such large swaths of people. if i had only ever read your posts regarding mbti and nothing else (and i weren't an intp myself) i would assume all intps were the snotty, condescending, myopic, close-minded and emotionally challenged types. stereotyping blows.

next:

another right tool for the job situation. your thoughts here assume both that all choices, opinions or decisions are better managed through the use of ones thinking capacity and as well that feeling types are incapable of developing beyond a certain very simplistic level. both are poor assumptions. i'll say it again but you are trying to present something as a universal truth but what you have here is really just a vague idea disguised as fact.

almost done:

i'm sure others do at times and, though on a much milder level, i do as well. but i don't think you'll find anyone here that would try and create a theory with the goal being the debunking of half of the human population.

lastly and my favorite:

i don't know, either you were traumatized by some feeling type recently or you just have an incredibly low tolerance for feelings. either way... ahahaha.


and in closing:
judging by the large number of responses in the short amount of time to the OP we can see pretty well the general feeling regarding the debunking of the f mystery. i'm rarely have the time or energy to do much forum posting here besides the quick one or two paragraph response to this or that but what can i say, sw, you just know how to start a fire and keep the gasoline pouring. always entertaining if not always accurate. :hi:

WELL SAID.

 

[Grayscale]

i may be, of course, mistaken, but i think what bluewing was saying is that "feelers" (ostensibly) do not hold the same respect for logic as he does... the frustration lies in the insistence that emotions are equally valid as logic when conclusions need to be made, as well as in the widespread misconception that what someone feels "makes sense" simply because they feel it.

now, many of you have responded, pointing out that there is emotion in his frustration or possibly his motives, but that doesnt debunk the argument. i could go so far as to suggest that your counter-argument is, in itself, an emotional response to bluewing's writing mannerisms, but it's equally irrelevant


it would seem to me that emotions, such as fear, are an inferior, watered-down form of logic.

example: if you were walking down the street late at night and a large, dangerous looking person was following you turn for turn, you would feel afraid, regardless of the fact that the person has done nothing wrong. it's fairly obvious why you feel afraid... whether it be instincts or something from your past, your brain is releasing chemicals that make you think you are in danger, but statistically, there's a good chance nothing will happen to you.

here we can see how the connection between objective reality and feelings are shaky at best. pure logic, on the other hand, provides consistent results. in order to achieve this, logic requires self-imposed standards and limitations where information is inadequate. feelings says "this man wants to hurt me", logic says "this person is most likely just out for a walk, but may be inclined to hurt me as much as any other person i see, the fact that it's late at night doesnt necessarily make them any more or less a danger to me". feelings, based on logic past--either yours or your ancestors--are much more simplistic, so saying something for sure is easier.


i will, however, say that we all have emotions, and ignoring them for the sake of being logical would probably make someone unhappy. the most important caveat here is that although i think emotions should be considered in making a decision, they should not themselves be in control of the decision making process

 

[Orangey]

i will, however, say that we all have emotions, and ignoring them for the sake of being logical would probably make someone unhappy. the most important caveat here is that although i think emotions should be considered in making a decision, they should not themselves be in control of the decision making process

Is the feeling function a decision making process that is controlled primarily by emotion? Even if it is, there must be some situations in which its particular brand of decision making would be more useful than thinking, right? If not, then we would have to characterize it as being a less valuable function because it is not as useful as thinking for making any type of decision. We would have to characterize thinking as being the more suitable process for making all types of decisions. Are you saying that the feeling function is the inferior function for making any type of decision?

 

[edcoaching]

Is the feeling function a decision making process that is controlled primarily by emotion? Even if it is, there must be some situations in which its particular brand of decision making would be more useful than thinking, right? If not, then we would have to characterize it as being a less valuable function because it is not as useful as thinking for making any type of decision. We would have to characterize thinking as being the more suitable process for making all types of decisions. Are you saying that the feeling function is the inferior function for making any type of decision?

Didn't we just solve this over on the other conversation thread?

 

[Orangey]

Didn't we just solve this over on the other conversation thread?

Yes, mostly I think . I just wanted to know what he thought more specifically, as he may not have had the chance to read our exchange in the other thread, and was therefore working on another definition of feeling altogether.

 

[Grayscale]

Is the feeling function a decision making process that is controlled primarily by emotion? Even if it is, there must be some situations in which its particular brand of decision making would be more useful than thinking, right? If not, then we would have to characterize it as being a less valuable function because it is not as useful as thinking for making any type of decision. We would have to characterize thinking as being the more suitable process for making all types of decisions. Are you saying that the feeling function is the inferior function for making any type of decision?

no, in that aspect i would say emotions and thinking aren't even comparable. emotions are the ingredients of life as we experience it, logic is a structure that we analyze when we think. so to say emotions are better than logic or visca versa is comparing apples and oranges.

when making a conclusion, however, it is possible to simply ignore logic, leaving only the inprecise feeling towards what the query consists of.

what i am saying is that if someone wants to enact something with any degree of certainty, then they need to ahere to empiricism, not emotion, although emotions can be a component, and in those cases should definately be considered.


an emotionally controlled decision would be to eat that eclair in your fridge because it's delicious and you're hungry, while a more logical approach would be to acknowledge that eating said eclair will not nourish you and may even make you feel remorseful, so eating a salad would actually be a more emotionally mindful decision despite being logic-based.

i say: live a life that cultivates positive emotions, acknowledge and control them for the greater good when necessary.