[MBTI General] F mystery debunked

[Didums]

Thanks guys

I'd also add that there's a lot of proof by assertion going on with his definitions. A weaker contradiction call might also be made on his use of Bin Laden, a known dogmatist, as an example of "F" style behavior after he just got done berating F's about their emotional flightiness and lack of true conviction.

Heh, I didn't see those but now I do, I'll be sure to keep an eye out in the future.

 

[Orangey]

Spot on Didums... Spot on... with the OP that is, I didn't read this new moderate bluewing thingy that orangey is referencing.

Hold on...I'll find the posts somewhere in here.

 

[Orangey]

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.

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.

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.

Here are three such instances where he qualifies some of what he is saying. He seems to be working on definitions that are different than what most readers of MBTI function information are familiar with. That is why I say that he is a little guilty of the fallacy of proof by assertion- at first he simply states his definitions without providing evidence or reasoning, but then comes back and adds to them a little more each time someone questions him. That is probably why his original post inspired a lot of outrage.

I will also say in his defense that although a lot of the OP was fallacious, so also were a lot of the comments it received. Argumentum ad Hominem, of both the abusive and tu quoque (especially this one) flavors, seemed to be a favorite among the majority of respondents (not all).

 

[Didums]

I'm okay with the 2nd quote, but :

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.

The 1st part is fine, it is observation, however it must be noted that those with the dominant Thinking function can let their lower faculties go out of touch and become cold, bitter people.

The 2nd part however does not check out, he may have had the Intention of it being directed towards "Feeling" but if that was so he would have used the word "It" in the OP, not "They, Them" which fits in describing "Feelers"

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.

It was not directly stated but it was infered through the word choice.

 

[Orangey]

The 1st part is fine, it is observation, however it must be noted that those with the dominant Thinking function can let their lower faculties go out of touch and become cold, bitter people.

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.

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..

Here are some where he does at least mention that there is a downside to neurotic thinking.

The 2nd part however does not check out, he may have had the Intention of it being directed towards "Feeling" but if that was so he would have used the word "It" in the OP, not "They, Them" which fits in describing "Feelers"

True enough. Though I don't know why he would have troubled himself to clarify that it was not his intention to direct it towards "feelers" if it really were his intention.

It was not directly stated but it was infered through the word choice.

Yes, and his conspicuous lack of critical threads about the downsides of "neurotic T's" would give people the overall impression that he is trying to devalue "F".

 

[Giggly]

He seems to be in particularly poor form as of late, though. Tisk, tisk.

Ahh, I see. I'm sure people (F's included) want to be his friend, if he weren't so insultive.

 

[Night]

Ahh, I see. I'm sure people (F's included) want to be his friend, if he weren't so insultive.

If you connect the pattern of his present behavior with that of his historical, I think you'll find that his efforts are geared towards discovery, rather than insult.

His approach is somewhat caustic, but shouldn't distort the candor of his intent.

 

[Giggly]

If you connect the pattern of his present behavior with that of his historical, I think you'll find that his efforts are geared towards discovery, rather than insult.

His approach is somewhat caustic, but shouldn't distort the candor of his intent.

So he's discovering how awesome he is? Alright. I still question why he's doing it publically.

 

[Totenkindly]

Here are three such instances where he qualifies some of what he is saying. He seems to be working on definitions that are different than what most readers of MBTI function information are familiar with. That is why I say that he is a little guilty of the fallacy of proof by assertion- at first he simply states his definitions without providing evidence or reasoning, but then comes back and adds to them a little more each time someone questions him. That is probably why his original post inspired a lot of outrage.

I will also say in his defense that although a lot of the OP was fallacious, so also were a lot of the comments it received. Argumentum ad Hominem, of both the abusive and tu quoque (especially this one) flavors, seemed to be a favorite among the majority of respondents (not all).

In general, granted.

However, I think the overall annoyance is that this is not at all an isolated issue. People have been addressing the inadequacies of BlueWing's approach ever since MBTIc opened (16 months now?), and for the 6-12 months before that where his primary posting was occurring on INTPc, aside from some lulls where the storms apparently got too much to weather and he went into self-imposed hibernation.

The fact that he persists in his particular method of communication without adjusting it in light of the extensive criticisms he's received would suggest that, logically, he sees no problems with his approach. So yes, at that point, I think it's perfectly fine to hold him responsible for the friction that said approach causes, and it's hard NOT to read it as a self-endorsement of his style and content rather than merely as a flaw in delivery; there's not much attempt to compromise.

That's the context I think in which many (including myself) approach this. (He has some great insights, but application and implementation leave a lot to be desired... along with the insinuated condescensions.) I don't think people can be expected to fully excuse that sort of willful and persistent behavior, regardless of the candor or insight. I'd be entirely supportive if I sensed a real desire to connect and woo rather than impose.

 

[Night]

So he's discovering how awesome he is? Alright. I still question why he's doing it publically.

How awesome he is? No.

He's trying to diagram patterns in human thought as a way to effectively communicate with others.

He doesn't understand how to appropriately intellectualize Feeling, as a cipher, and is looking for feedback towards this translation.

Again - his persona is somewhat crude, but shouldn't debase his ultimate aim.

 

[disregard]

He's trying to diagram patterns in human thought as a way to effectively communicate with others.

He doesn't understand how to appropriately intellectualize Feeling, as a cipher, and is looking for feedback towards this translation.

And how do you know this?

 

[Night]

My F.

Seriously, though - it seems fairly obvious.

How would you describe his actions, Dana?

 

[disregard]

That is not something I want to address. I was just curious how you knew that he authored this thread with the intent to further his communication skills.

 

[Totenkindly]

That is not something I want to address. I was just curious how you knew that he authored this thread with the intent to further his communication skills.

Hmmm. Well, he did just write a book... which he then strongly self-promoted to individuals on site.

 

[Night]

I was just curious how you knew that he authored this thread with the intent to further his communication skills.

Why does anyone create an academic thread, exploring an idea/perspective?

The apparent hostility of his philosophy aside, furthering one's falsifiable system of thought is typically an extension of one's desire to empirically appreciate - and communicate with - one's world.

 

[disregard]

What is the relevance, Jennifer?

Why does anyone create an academic thread, exploring an idea/perspective?

The apparent hostility of his philosophy aside, furthering one's falsifiable system of thought is typically an extension of one's desire to empirically appreciate - and communicate with - one's world.

But as we all saw, there were quite a few logical fallacies.

 

[Night]

But as we all saw, there were quite a few logical fallacies.

This I do not contest.

Inexperience is a brute.

 

[disregard]

Ah.. well then, if his inexperience is to blame, then I do agree with your initial statement.

 

[Night]

Ah.. well then, if his inexperience is to blame, then I do agree with your initial statement.

As I've said previously, inexperience is the soul of the matter.

You don't have to agree with me. My opinion is mine alone.

 

[Giggly]

How awesome he is? No.

He's trying to diagram patterns in human thought as a way to effectively communicate with others.

He doesn't understand how to appropriately intellectualize Feeling, as a cipher, and is looking for feedback towards this translation.

Again - his persona is somewhat crude, but shouldn't debase his ultimate aim.

Ahh, I see. Fair enough. There were a lot of NT's in this thread who didn't seem to agree with him. I would think that if he was seeking to learn how to communicate effectively with F's, he would listen to the NT's who do it successfully with F's.