[MBTI General] Why do some thinkers demonize feelers?

[SquirrelTao]

There's a very big difference between people being obnoxious and having an argument in which one party is an idiot.

The problem I have with this is that so many people IRL seem to be idiots but yet they are well-meaning. (And many times they are also related to me!)

I have an aunt who forwards me a lot of emails. I love this aunt. She would always send generous gifts of clothes every year when I was a child. She would have me over every year for waterskiing and take me to Marriot's Great America and let me ride her horse and other assorted fun things. But her emails are often dumb. The dumbest email claimed that an oil well that is pumped will never run dry provided the pumping continues. Kind of like a breast. I couldn't believe it. My husband wanted me to tell her what an idiot she is, but I just kept my opinion to myself, because I want to keep the lines of communication open with her.

 

[entropie]

You always need to make clear to yourself what you want. Do you like communicating to dumb people or would you rather cut them off. Or do you like having them talking to you even if they are dumb.

I have come to the point where I do not size people anymore. They are just there and I am glad they are, because I have grown short on friends.

My grandma always says "what shall we do, we cant change live" and that is one of the things that mostly antagonizes me. But I dont care, every birthday I get a box of cigarettes and every time I accomplish something great, I get a bottle Glenfiddich Solera 16 years single malt.

That woman knows what I want xD

 

[alcea rosea]

Why do some thinkers demonize feelers?

Because "feelers" are more empathic than "thinkers"
so
- thinkers can judge feelers because they do not feel sympathy/empathy for them
- feelers don't do it as much because they can sympathize/empahtize


....haha what a generalization!
but maybe true
on some level
?

 

[Ilah]

I read the whole thread, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. I thought it was going to be full of bashing and hating.

So what can I say that hasn't been said....

Thinkers have feelings too. Saying thinkers aren't emotional is like saying feelers don't think. Some thinkers are less emotional. Some are very emotional, but you wouldn't know it because they don't show it. Some thinkers are trouble controling emotions and may actually seem more emotional than feelers. Or some combination. I often have hidden mood swings because my emotions were too strong (inappropriate or over reacting) and I was embaressed by them.

Generally I try to start out with a positive, or at least a neutral opinion toward people. If I react poorly, it is generally a reaction to the way they have treated me.

I identify to a large degree with how some thinkers may have been harassed by a feeler which they over generalize into a general dislike of all feelers. With me it wasn't just one "bad feeler" but a many, many feelers who have given me a hard time, so the tendancy to generalize seems a bit more reasonable. I don't know if there are lots of bad feelers out there or if I just got really unlucky to run into so many. Still I try not to hold it against feelers in general.

I was verbally bullied in school quite a bit and it was pretty traumatic. I suppose not all of this is F v. T, being introverted and N probably didn't help. Not having good social skills is generally attributed to T (or more correctly low F) and that was probably the biggest factor.

I have had issues with people whose have strong values I don't agree with. I will not react hostilely to someone because their values are different than mine, but I have ran into many feelers who will harass you, reject you as a friend or look down on you because you don't share their values. I lost a friend, some one who I invited over to my house many times, becuase she felt my D&D character was behaving unethically.

There is the F with status quo values, who reacts badly because my values are not the same as the statue quo, popular culture, etc. A common variation of that is the "what would people think" feeler. Often this is in reaction to some trivial transgression like wearing the wrong color shoes. Then there is the idealist, such as the vegan who says "people who eat meat are evil" [not saying all vegans do this] or the fundamentalist who says "people who don't follow my God are going to hell."

Also, I rarely display my emotions and it really bothers me when people try to pressure me to or look down on me because of it. It gets to me when people act like I am a heartless because I don't when they tell me their dog died or their kid is in the hospital. I am really bad at expressing sympathy but that doesn't mean I don't have care.

 

[Eric B]

I've often reflected on the fact that no perfectly, or universally satisfying words can be found for the functions. Someone will always complain that they sound wrong in one way or another, and those who rely on connotation are especially difficult to satisfy.

But I did come up with one idea that I at least think is better than Thinking and Feeling, which are highly ambiguous. My idea was that it might be better to call them Logic and Ethic. Logical and Ethical. Of all the words I could think of, none seemed to more closely match the definitions of Thinking and Feeling than logic and ethic. It is what the two functions principally deal with.

I too was wondering if "ethical" might be a better alternative word for "feeling, like "logical" is for thinking. These, of course, are what Socionics use. But ethics sounds a bit too narrow, like it's only about morality, or something. Or is it, perhaps? The way the particular function attitudes of Fe and especially Fi are described, it's more about empathy or self-concern and such.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I too was wondering if "ethical" might be a better alternative word for "feeling, like "logical" is for thinking. These, of course, are what Socionics use. But ethics sounds a bit too narrow, like it's only about morality, or something. Or is it, perhaps? The way the particular function attitudes of Fe and especially Fi are described, it's more about empathy or self-concern and such.

Well, if you study philosophical ethics(which is interchangable with morality) you'll find that even hedonism technically counts as a moral philosophy. People forget that being "ethical" doesn't stricly mean being righteous, and it especially doesn't mean being righteous solely in the ways that this mainstream society defines righteousness. Ethics simply concerns what you believe to be good or bad in any sense.

So, in other words, empathy and self-concern are still just a part of someone's ethics or morals.

 

[SquirrelTao]

I identify to a large degree with how some thinkers may have been harassed by a feeler which they over generalize into a general dislike of all feelers. With me it wasn't just one "bad feeler" but a many, many feelers who have given me a hard time, so the tendancy to generalize seems a bit more reasonable. I don't know if there are lots of bad feelers out there or if I just got really unlucky to run into so many. Still I try not to hold it against feelers in general.

It really seems strange to me to categorize people as "feelers" outside of an MBTI forum. I don't go around categorizing people IRL as "feelers" or "thinkers" at all, still less having opinions about them as a monolithic group. In fact, I never thought about it too much at all until a few NTs here got on my nerves. Are there really a lot of NTs walking around who have such hard feelings about people they categorize as "feelers" IRL? As opposed to just debating online?

I was verbally bullied in school quite a bit and it was pretty traumatic. I suppose not all of this is F v. T, being introverted and N probably didn't help. Not having good social skills is generally attributed to T (or more correctly low F) and that was probably the biggest factor.

That's no fun. And I suppose "feelings gone bad" is at the heart of bullying. But I don't see bullying as an NF phenomenon.

I have had issues with people whose have strong values I don't agree with. I will not react hostilely to someone because their values are different than mine, but I have ran into many feelers who will harass you, reject you as a friend or look down on you because you don't share their values. I lost a friend, some one who I invited over to my house many times, becuase she felt my D&D character was behaving unethically.

Yes, I suppose we all have issues with people whose strong values we don't agree with. Politics comes to mind. I'm sorry you lost your friend over such a silly reason.

There is the F with status quo values, who reacts badly because my values are not the same as the statue quo, popular culture, etc. A common variation of that is the "what would people think" feeler. Often this is in reaction to some trivial transgression like wearing the wrong color shoes. Then there is the idealist, such as the vegan who says "people who eat meat are evil" [not saying all vegans do this] or the fundamentalist who says "people who don't follow my God are going to hell."

I don't see conformism or fundamentalism as NF things. A vegan seems more likely to be an NF.

Also, I rarely display my emotions and it really bothers me when people try to pressure me to or look down on me because of it. It gets to me when people act like I am a heartless because I don't when they tell me their dog died or their kid is in the hospital. I am really bad at expressing sympathy but that doesn't mean I don't have care.

I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, either. WRT sympathy, I hate saying trite things when I feel deeply. Often it seems as if words are just inadequate. Hugs, looks and touches are better IMO but not a,ways appropriate. Also, crying about something never made it better. I just don't like to force out words when something is more important than a social facade, and it seems to betray the depth and importance of it to concentrate on making a superficial impression.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It really seems strange to me to categorize people as "feelers" outside of an MBTI forum. I don't go around categorizing people IRL as "feelers" or "thinkers" at all, still less having opinions about them as a monolithic group. In fact, I never thought about it too much at all until a few NTs here got on my nerves. Are there really a lot of NTs walking around who have such hard feelings about people they categorize as "feelers" IRL? As opposed to just debating online?

Believe me when I say that this is exactly what I am doing all the time.

I am a person that is analyzing and planning all the time. Since I know for the mbti I am doing the categorization all the time.

MBTI gived me one powerfull tool on how to evaluate person and to do it in quite fast.
When I am in the doubt about somebody I usually say something strange to shake the other person. This tactic can give you quite an insight in the other person.



One question for Fs.

I can start an argument or debate with F person and usually it is something about F cares about. Since I have very strong Te I can usually be qute successful in making my point.
When I am done I can change my attitude in second because it is over and everything that needs to be done in done.
But F that was on the other side is still steaming and he/she has a huge problem with understanding that case is closed. He/she really needs a lot of time to calm down.

My question is: Why Fs have so much trouble with impersonal aproach?

 

[INA]

It really seems strange to me to categorize people as "feelers" outside of an MBTI forum. I don't go around categorizing people IRL as "feelers" or "thinkers" at all. It really seems strange to me to categorize people as "feelers" outside of an MBTI forum.

Not exactly, but somewhat. Among my friends and acquaintances, I do quasi-categorize them along lines that I now recognize qualify as F or T, but did this before knowing about MBTI.

I don't go around categorizing people IRL as "feelers" or "thinkers" at all, still less having opinions about them as a monolithic group. In fact, I never thought about it too much at all until a few NTs here got on my nerves. Are there really a lot of NTs walking around who have such hard feelings about people they categorize as "feelers" IRL? As opposed to just debating online?

I would not say I have hard feelings. Roughly half my friends are feelers. What happens is that I use it to evaluate what arguments or discussions to have with whom. There are some touchy things I will not discuss with those who have passionately held values and will get upset by a line of reasoning, even if it is just playing devil's advocate. Also, depending on the issue, I may take what is said by a T or F with a grain of salt of varying size. E.g. my best friend (an INFJ) will consider other, alogical yet relevant points than will not occur to one other best friend (ISTP), who tends to give more linear, logical input.

 

[substitute]

I don't think fearing empathy is always irrational. For a person who bases their life approach and most of their decisions as much as possible on logic rather than feeling, to have someone constantly reading your emotions and attributing your actions and words to them can be extremely stressful. It can feel like you're being violated sometimes, in a way, constantly having info you consider private and only wish to share with those you choose to, dug out, exposed and stuff. I don't think it's necessarily irrational or immature to dislike that situation and want to avoid being in it.

 

[Ilah]

At the time I didn't use the term feelers at all. I privately thought of them as and .

Being naturally introspective, as well as thinking of a possible way to deal with them, I would often wonder why. Why have I been choosen to as the target of this harassment? Why can't I get along with them? Because I was different seemed to be a primary reason, but I wasn't sure other than that. After studying MBTI and reading how certain types sometimes have problems getting along with others, I thought about whether that seemed to fit the specific situations I was in. It seemed like a good fit to me.

I don't think conformists are SF rather than NF, but we were talking about F in general and holding the value of conformity is very high esteme would seem to show a high F.

Fundamentalist are most likely SF rather than NF. Definately a very strong F though. Ns tend to get their own independant ideas about religion and probably wouldn't work very well in a faith that was very rigid.

It really seems strange to me to categorize people as "feelers" outside of an MBTI forum. I don't go around categorizing people IRL as "feelers" or "thinkers" at all, still less having opinions about them as a monolithic group. In fact, I never thought about it too much at all until a few NTs here got on my nerves. Are there really a lot of NTs walking around who have such hard feelings about people they categorize as "feelers" IRL? As opposed to just debating online?


I don't see conformism or fundamentalism as NF things. A vegan seems more likely to be an NF.

I am not sure about using ethics to describe F. Doesn't F also play a big role in determinings value judgments for things like movies, music, books, etc.

 

[Eric B]

Well, if you study philosophical ethics(which is interchangable with morality) you'll find that even hedonism technically counts as a moral philosophy. People forget that being "ethical" doesn't stricly mean being righteous, and it especially doesn't mean being righteous solely in the ways that this mainstream society defines righteousness. Ethics simply concerns what you believe to be good or bad in any sense.

So, in other words, empathy and self-concern are still just a part of someone's ethics or morals.

I am not sure about using ethics to describe F. Doesn't F also play a big role in determinings value judgments for things like movies, music, books, etc.

This is the point I was trying tomake. I know "lack of ethics" (i.e. "hedonism") is itself a kind of ethics, but "Value/Feeling judgments" goes beyond just that "moral" category.

 

[Shadowrose]

This is the point I was trying tomake. I know "lack of ethics" (i.e. "hedonism") is itself a kind of ethics, but "Value/Feeling judgments" goes beyond just that "moral" category.

Oo. I cry foul. Hedonism is -not- having a lack of ethics. Hedonism is the belief that the most ethically correct course of action is that which generates the most pleasure. (As a random aside, you can accurately call most ascetic monks Hedonists. ^_^)

Anywho, Personally I actually do go around throwing people into either Feeler or Thinker territory. Usually with shades of gray.. ('Squishy'.. 'Hard'.. 'Soft'..) but it isn't because I have hard feelings, because it's an internal meter that I can use to know how much I have to pussyfoot around with them. I watch myself around the Squishies in my life. I say things to my "Hard" friends that would offend a lesser human being just by the sheer utterance. So it's more of a utilitarian view of people, not a judgmental one.

 

[Anja]

Well, yes, and I think honoring of the spirit which is within us all, it is an effective communication tool to meet someone where they are on the spectrum.

I think that's why I, as a feeler, don't care for the impersonal approach.

But out of that respect, I resist the game of attempting to ellict responses for my understanding. I much prefer the straightforward method of simply asking/observing. It takes the Machiavellian aspect of disagreement out of the equation.

As a intuiter I am aware when someone is trying to manipulate my thoughts or feelings to ellicit a response in order to draw conclusions about me. And I resist that. Hidden agenda? Too sideways and controlling for my taste.

It implies distrust of my honesty and feels like an insult to my sincerity. I prefer to meet others on level ground and go from there.

I offer that and if they respond with a conversational game I turn in my game pieces and find someone to talk to who will reward me with the same respect and autonomy as I offer them.

But I do concede that there are those who enjoy a good game of mental/emotional sparring and while not sanctioning that, I can feel free to let them have at it. To me conversational guessing games and ego-feeding are a waste of time.

 

[runvardh]

I'd like to understand why in some instances I prefer the personal approach while at other times almost need the impersonal...

 

[disregard]

You're human.

 

[Shadowrose]

I'd like to understand why in some instances I prefer the personal approach while at other times almost need the impersonal...

You're human.

Just to add to that.. the people you communicate with are human, as well. ^_^

 

[Domino]

I think Substitute makes a valid point. No one wants to be an emotional hostage.

No one.

 

[Anja]

I think, absolutely.

(Hah. Do you think I say, "I think" alot to impress upon present company that it is a fair posibility?)

Made myself laugh. .
But. I digress.

I was talking to an acquaintence just a few months ago about this very thing. That I work on fairness and non-judgementalism, and in spite of the self-awareness, I STILL find myself making judgements about people based on their actions and words.

She scolded me! Her response was to remind me that, of course, it was a basic human need for safety that drives us to assess our level of emotional security with other humans. Said not to think in terms of judgementalism but rather safety. And in no small way instructed me to stop beating myself up for evaluating people at this level.

What a relief. I forgot. . .

 

[Shadowrose]

How can you adequately understand a person without judging them, on some level? If my best friend calls me, I'm not going to ask her if she's OK, I'm going to ask what happened. I judge that she's not in the best of moods. The problem is judging people when you don't have enough criteria or observations to really fit the judgment. I don't know, it bothers people who say you shouldn't judge anyone. It's something we inherently do, because it assists us in understanding people. Now, I -do- agree that you shouldn't hold onto your judgments. If you're wrong about someone, take it with tact and grace, and reevaluate your opinions and thoughts.