• 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.

[MBTI General] F mystery debunked

Status
Not open for further replies.

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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. :)

I can agree with this :).
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
I can agree with this :).

oh, and to answer your question (which admittedly i halfway ignored in my response) im not making any correlations between MBTI type and behavior, for the sake of explanation i made a reference to "feelers", by which I mean people who at least appear to be controlled by rather than in control of their emotions

although MBTI type supposedly correlates to order of functions rather than the effectiveness of them (meaning an F-dominant type could easily have a more effective Tx than a T-dominant type despite not being a primary function) i can still think of advantages of "feelers" as well as disadvantages of "thinkers" in the grand scheme of things.

speaking from personal experience, Im fairly out of touch with my emotions, making them difficult to take into account when making decisions. sometimes there are two choices that are equally rational where personal value could tip the scale.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I assumed as much, which is why I could agree with you. Otherwise I would have had to argue that feeling by the MBTI definition is not to be simply equated with experiencing transient emotions :).
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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

No, what debunks his argument is all his logical fallacies, his untrue statements and false generalizations.

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.


When making conclusions, emotions and logic are certainly not on the same plain. True. But it doesn't matter because F is not pure emotion or using pure emotion to make a conclusion.

No one said that feelings make sense just because they're real. No one in this thread said that. However, some did say that they are a part of reality. Not a way to view reality, but a part of it.

In some instances pure logic is the best tool to use to make the best decision in other instances the opposite is true. He's saying nothing new and his hinting that F is inferior in decision making is flat out false. Others have simply responded by stating this. And human beings are emotional creatures; that's a fact that you and him will need to accept. You can't make a thread like he did about Fs and expect no emotional responses.


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.

This has no relevance to F. It's an example of pure logic being very useful but nothing more. F does not rely on emotions to get it's idea of reality. To do what you said in the example would be too look to emotions to try to get facts about the world. F doesn't do that though, and nobody I have ever met in my life does that. I mean not facts like that, not facts other then, "Oh I notice the fact that I am feeling happy." or "I was really sad when he left, I must care about him". F is not a way of viewing reality it's a way of responding to it.

The point him and you are making that logic is very useful and that you can't use your emotions to define reality is clear. And it's nothing new to probably all of us here. We know this. It's clear. But saying that, the opposite, saying that going off of pure emotion is what the F function does is false. There's a difference between acting out of emotion and ususing it as one thing to consider when making a decision. You and BlueWing seem to be getting the two confused.

If you want the correct definition of how F works here it is:
http://www.knowyourtype.com/feeling.html said:
Feeling (F)

People who have a preference for feeling judgment are concerned with whether decisions and actions are worthwhile. More personal in approach, feeling types believe they can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation.
Feeling types are concerned with personal values and with making decisions based on a ranking of greater to lesser importance—what is the best for the people involved. The feeling function places high value on relatedness between people, and feeling types are often concerned with establishing or maintaining harmony in their relationships. As they use and develop their feeling function, feeling types often come to appear caring, warm, and tactful. Remember, in type language, feeling does not mean being "emotional;" rather, it is a way of reasoning.

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

This has no relevance because that’s not what F is. F does not use only “emotions themselves to be in control of the decision making process.” See above definition of F.

Your point about using pure emotion to make decisions is clear. Yes. We know it. We’re aware of it. I don’t know of many people (other than kids) that don’t agree. However, to equate using pure emotion and nothing else to make decisions with the F function is false.

EDIT: It does have relevance if you're simply pointing it out as a fact seperate from F.
 

miked277

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
343
MBTI Type
INTP
heh sunshine, i was just thinking that this thread could use a good definitions post. words that in normal, everyday speech we treat as interchangable seem to confuse mbti relatd issues such as this. with regards to this thread (and site), emotion is not synonymous with Feeling and logic is no synonymous with Thinking. i could go on but, sunshine said most of what i would say.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
No, what debunks his argument is all his logical fallacies, his untrue statements and false generalizations.




When making conclusions, emotions and logic are certainly not on the same plain. True. But it doesn't matter because F is not pure emotion or using pure emotion to make a conclusion.

No one said that feelings make sense just because they're real. No one in this thread said that. However, some did say that they are a part of reality. Not a way to view reality, but a part of it.

In some instances pure logic is the best tool to use to make the best decision in other instances the opposite is true. He's saying nothing new and his hinting that F is inferior in decision making is flat out false. Others have simply responded by stating this. And human beings are emotional creatures; that's a fact that you and him will need to accept. You can't make a thread like he did about Fs and expect no emotional responses.




This has no relevance to F. It's an example of pure logic being very useful but nothing more. F does not rely on emotions to get it's idea of reality. To do what you said in the example would be too look to emotions to try to get facts about the world. F doesn't do that though, and nobody I have ever met in my life does that. I mean not facts like that, not facts other then, "Oh I notice the fact that I am feeling happy." or "I was really sad when he left, I must care about him". F is not a way of viewing reality it's a way of responding to it.

The point him and you are making that logic is very useful and that you can't use your emotions to define reality is clear. And it's nothing new to probably all of us here. We know this. It's clear. But saying that, the opposite, saying that going off of pure emotion is what the F function does is false. There's a difference between acting out of emotion and ususing it as one thing to consider when making a decision. You and BlueWing seem to be getting the two confused.

If you want the correct definition of how F works here it is:



This has no relevance because that's not what F is. F does not use only "emotions themselves to be in control of the decision making process." See above definition of F.

Your point about using pure emotion to make decisions is clear. Yes. We know it. We’re aware of it. I don’t know of many people (other than kids) that don’t agree. However, to equate using pure emotion and nothing else to make decisions with the F function is false.

In the typical F spirit, you use the 'logical fallacy' in an emotional context, not in the linguistically precise. Point one of them out.

Definitions.

Thinking: a faculty of reasoning which gravitates towards making decisions based on impersonal criteria. Practicing this exercise leads one to supress emotions in favor of remaining as impersonal as possible.

Feeling: a faculty of reasoning which is concerned with processing emotion.

Now, 'Feeling' and a 'Feeler' are two different things. No person is a pure Feeling type. When a Feeler makes a decision, he gives structure to his emotions with Thinking. In order to make sense of his relationships to other people he must analyze them first. For instance when he says, I like X, or I value D or B, he is showing that he has analyzed his emotions towards things.
Had he not done this, he would of had nothing but pure passion without aim.

We tend to have little access to our lower faculties, in this case Thinking (for Feelers). However, the fact that even the most radical of Feelers are often able to explain their values shows they have some kind of reliable access to Thinking. Yet, very often we let the lower faculties go out of touch, and this leads to the aforementioned irrational and seemingly structureless thinking on behalf of feelers. Blind passions, what I may call them.

MikeD, I never argued that all Feelers are like this. I was talking about 'Feeling', not 'Feeler'. My point was, when a Feeling type supresses Thinking to a great degree, the consequence of irrational and structureless thinking ensues. I have provided examples for how this manifests in reality of human behavior. Tangentially, the points I have made about 'Feeling' could be extended to Feelers, but to a limited degree indeed.

No, it is not the case that a Thinking person must necessarily be tough-minded and consistent. This would be the case if every Thinking person was a pure Thinking type. Yet there is a good reason to believe that the element of Thinking leads one towards tough-mindedness and consistency. As understanding logic makes us confident in things we know about the world irrespectively of how others may feel about this. That is the case because when we solve a logic problem, just like a mathematics problem, (Bertrand Russell and Guissepe Piano persuasively argue in favor of the identity of logic and mathematics, I could go on to show that mathematics is but a sophistication of logic. The former is analogous to the latter as 'man to boy' as Russell says in the last chapter of Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy) we see that the answer stands in its own right. It is simply an outcome of factors which preceeded it.

I guarantee you. If you learn to think logically, you will be well on your way to knowing what you think, and being able to explain to others in definite terms what you think. This is likely to make you a more consistent and tough-minded individual. This is what a good use of a Thinking function does for you. Not all Thinkers behave like this because being a Thinker only means having more natural aptitude for Thinking. It takes work to become a good logician, you're not born with those talents.
 
Last edited:

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Feeling: a faculty of reasoning which is concerned with processing emotion.

Now, 'Feeling' and a 'Feeler' are two different things. No person is a pure Feeling type. When a Feeler makes a decision, he gives structure to his emotions with Thinking. In order to make sense of his relationships to other people he must analyze them first. For instance when he says, I like X, or I value D or B, he is showing that he has analyzed his emotions towards things.
Had he not done this, he would of had nothing but pure passion without aim.

This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.

Yeah.

Both the Myers Briggs T and F fuctions require cognition. And the Myers Briggs T funtion is not synonymous with congnition.
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In the typical F spirit, you use the 'logical fallacy' in an emotional context, not in the linguistically precise. Point one of them out.

The false generalizations that Mike was talking about. Those were the logical fallacies I was talking about. Sorry. It was more of stating that you're wrong instead of proving you wrong. Bad word choice on my part.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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..

When a Feeler is criticized, he feels personally undermined. When a Thinker is criticized (should he really be good at thinking), he will step back and analyze the criticism to see if it is true. If it is true, he will make a mental note to work on it and fix it, if he finds it important. If it is false, he will simply dismiss it.

Hence, for a good Thinking type we have 3 reactions.

A)Analyze and acknowledge the criticism is true and points out a defect which needs to be fixed. Goes on to fix it.
B)Analyze and acknowledge that the criticism is true but does not contain a defect that needs to be fixed, therefore ignores it. (For example, such a defect is often a lack of social graces or sensitivity)
C)Analyze and acknowledge that the criticism is false, therefore dismiss.

You claim that a Feeler will empathize with a hurt person and therefore be determined to help him, and this somehow shows he has a solid core. It is absolutely true that the Feeler will likely help the hurt person with seemingly fierce determination. But this does not show that he has a solid core for the following reasons.

He is inspired by emotion. Today he feels like helping him because he is in a good mood and because he may like the person. Tomorrow when he is in a bad mood and if his father hates that person, or that person did him harm, he may not.

Again, many say Feelers strive to live their life in accordance to their personal values very strictly. If that were the case the Feeler would say. I value helping people, this is a chance for me to do so, so I shall do so now.

Many Feelers do think like this, but that is because they have solidifed their values with Thinking. They have given themselves a solid core. I can think of many examples for this in the non-radical Feeling types, such as the EFP and the IFJ. Many INFJ philanthropists like Mother Theresa and Ghandi have gone out to the world to live out their values. This is not because of Feeling, or because they felt so strongly about, but because they have translated their values into something solid. They knew exactly what they thought and what they valued, and their mood swings or other emotional, or relational circumstances did not stop them. I commend this kind of 'Feeling'.

Another example is Bill Clinton (ENFP), who in his political practices knew exactly what to say to people in order to elicit this or that particular reaction. What to do to win the campaign. What to do to live out his values and make his vision come true. His strong tertiary Thinking faculty allowed him to provide structure for his values and visions.

This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.


No function is autonomous. In order for you to motivate your thinking, you need to Feel. For instance, when I get the right answer in a logic problem, I receive a feeling of affirmation.

Secondly, as David Hume famously argued that it is the passions that motivate us to act, not thoughts. You will not live out your intellectual ideas if they are not in any way relevant to you. For example, if it was only Thinking, or only an intellectual notion, all you'd see is 2 plus 2 is 4.(As a small step of a complex mathematical problem) But so what? Why would you continue solving this problem further if you, personally, did not have an interest in mathematics.

Secondly, Intuition requires Sensation. In order for you to dream, or use your imagination, you need to rely on concrete information you have collected. Yes, you may imagine elephants with 60 feet and 50 tails, and many things that do not exist. But it would not be possible for you to get started on such reveries if you have not seeing anything in the concrete world which could inspire your visions.


Can Sensation be autonomous without Intuition. No, if we were to just sense, smell, or see, we would not even develop an instinct which may lead us to further sense, see or smell. We unconsciously pick off data (as well as animals do) which is stored in our minds, or intuitions which is later enacted when evoked by a particular sensation. Consider the example of a dog salivating after hearing a bell. This is because the dog possesses intuition to some degree. The dog, in the back of his mind has a vague idea stored associating the noise of a bell with the sensation of food.

Can Judgment exist without perception? No, because if we did not perceive anything, it would not be possible for us to make any assessments, as we would simply be out of working material. Can perception exist without judgment? No, because consciously or unconsciously, wilfully or not, we make notes of our environment. Even on as rudimentary of a level as a dog being forced to connect the idea of a bell ringing with food. We all make judgments whether we like it or not. A phenomenon to exemplify this would be how a child who has hung around racists for a long time (who has not developed his judgment) inevitably ends up later making racist judgments.

The false generalizations that Mike was talking about. Those were the logical fallacies I was talking about. Sorry. It was more of stating that you're wrong instead of proving you wrong. Bad word choice on my part.

I was not making generalizations. As I said to Mike, I did not state that all Feelers are likely to commit the blunders I've cited. But there is potential for this when Feeling is not properly accomodated by thinking.

The interesting phenomenon to take note of here, which is often observed in very unhealthy dominant Feelers (IFP and EFJ), is that they lapse into pure emotion. Loosing all sense of structure and coherence in their thoughts.

However, a good Feeling faculty is able to use logic to make sense of their values.

What could a paralle to this be? We need passion in order to have any energy to act. Even to act in the least energy consuming endeavor possible, such as contemplation. A thinker who is divorced from feeling will simply stop functioning, will stall like a car with de-activated engine. He will be very rigid and frozen in his ways as he will not have the energy to continue thinking. Feeling will be enslaved to his faculty of thinking. It will not be used to provide energy to re-think matters which he may be wrong about, but will merely be used to provide the energy to affirm the doctrines which he has arrived at in the past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
No function is autonomous. In order for you to motivate your thinking, you need to Feel. For instance, when I get the right answer in a logic problem, I receive a feeling of affirmation.

Secondly, as David Hume famously argued that it is the passions that motivate us to act, not thoughts. You will not live out your intellectual ideas if they are not in any way relevant to you. For example, if it was only Thinking, or only an intellectual notion, all you'd see is 2 plus 2 is 4.(As a small step of a complex mathematical problem) But so what? Why would you continue solving this problem further if you, personally, did not have an interest in mathematics.

Secondly, Intuition requires Sensation. In order for you to dream, or use your imagination, you need to rely on concrete information you have collected. Yes, you may imagine elephants with 60 feet and 50 tails, and many things that do not exist. But it would not be possible for you to get started on such reveries if you have not seeing anything in the concrete world which could inspire your visions.


Can Sensation be autonomous without Intuition. No, if we were to just sense, smell, or see, we would not even develop an instinct which may lead us to further sense, see or smell. We unconsciously pick off data (as well as animals do) which is stored in our minds, or intuitions which is later enacted when evoked by a particular sensation. Consider the example of a dog salivating after hearing a bell. This is because the dog possesses intuition to some degree. The dog, in the back of his mind has a vague idea stored associating the noise of a bell with the sensation of food.

Can Judgment exist without perception? No, because if we did not perceive anything, it would not be possible for us to make any assessments, as we would simply be out of working material. Can perception exist without judgment? No, because consciously or unconsciously, wilfully or not, we make notes of our environment. Even on as rudimentary of a level as a dog being forced to connect the idea of a bell ringing with food. We all make judgments whether we like it or not. A phenomenon to exemplify this would be how a child who has hung around racists for a long time (who has not developed his judgment) inevitably ends up later making racist judgments.

Wouldn't this undermine MBTI, though, since we would not be able to isolate any function, either by observing our own thoughts or by observing our own behaviors (or the behaviors of others)? How can a theoretically pure feeler make a purely "feeling blunder" if the decisions made by that function cannot be understood by the subject without thinking? Or are you saying that it corrupts thinking?

Edit: If we are to be able to identify any of the functions, then there must be usable parts of them that are separate from any other function.

Edit II: Wait...or we could say that perhaps the functions are never truly autonomous, but that we can repress the other functions that temper an individual function to the point that we can identify each as a discrete entity. Function preference would therefore be an innate mechanism that drives us to repress certain functions in favor of others. And since having function preference works both to our advantage and disadvantage, there must be some *positive* uses of a given function when it is used in relative isolation from its tempering function(s). So it is possible that feeling, when distanced from thinking, can be used in way that is not necessarily detrimental.
 

alcea rosea

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,658
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
The interesting phenomenon to take note of here, which is often observed in very unhealthy dominant Feelers (IFP and EFJ), is that they lapse into pure emotion. Loosing all sense of structure and coherence in their thoughts.

It is equally as unhealthy when a ITP or ETP lapse into pure thinking mode and ignore people in their decision making. I have seen the destruction that it can do in a workplace when decisions that concern the whole organization have been done.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Wouldn't this undermine MBTI, though, since we would not be able to isolate any function, either by observing our own thoughts or by observing our own behaviors (or the behaviors of others)? How can a theoretically pure feeler make a purely "feeling blunder" if the decisions made by that function cannot be understood by the subject without thinking? Or are you saying that it corrupts thinking?

Edit: If we are to be able to identify any of the functions, then there must be usable parts of them that are separate from any other function.

Edit II: Wait...or we could say that perhaps the functions are never truly autonomous, but that we can repress the other functions that temper an individual function to the point that we can identify each as a discrete entity. Function preference would therefore be an innate mechanism that drives us to repress certain functions in favor of others. And since having function preference works both to our advantage and disadvantage, there must be some *positive* uses of a given function when it is used in relative isolation from its tempering function(s). So it is possible that feeling, when distanced from thinking, can be used in way that is not necessarily detrimental.

No pure feeler. A feeler blunder is a result of using too much feeling and too little thinking..Thinker blunder..vice versa..and so on..
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
No pure feeler. A feeler blunder is a result of using too much feeling and too little thinking..Thinker blunder..vice versa..and so on..

Like I said, though, what is function preference if not the impulse to suppress one set of functions in favor of another? If blunders occur because of the excess use of any one function, then the ideal person would possess a kind of function equilibrium, where all functions would be used to an equal and appropriate extent. This would make function preference something to be primarily fought against instead of embraced, and we would have no strengths as a result of having any given preference or type.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Like I said, though, what is function preference if not the impulse to suppress one set of functions in favor of another? If blunders occur because of the excess use of any one function, then the ideal person would possess a kind of function equilibrium, where all functions would be used to an equal and appropriate extent. This would make function preference something to be primarily fought against instead of embraced, and we would have no strengths as a result of having any given preference or type.

You can supress a function. Just not completely.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
You can supress a function. Just not completely.

I understand this. The problem with it is that if one prefers, say, thinking over feeling, he/she will naturally suppress feeling and take thinking closer to its isolated state (or will at least be strongly inclined to do so). This, according to you, can have no positive effects. But if it has no positive effects, then how can a thinking type have any strengths? How can any type for that matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top