[MBTI General] Wanting to be both T and F, what made u decide which?

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I think it's a shame of having to choose between T and F. Does the T side handle the emotions adequately, and is it fun and ethical? Does the F side handle thinking adequately, and is it consistent and logical?

I have sometimes been unsure of my preference, thinking that I'm in the middle. Then seeing NT vs NF forums has been the deciding factor, as NF topics have seemed ok and lovely, they are not such topics that I think constantly about.

Also when going too deep in the NF terrain I feel sometimes coming across as ridiculous and hurt. NT feelinglessness is kind of dull emotionally and leaves much to be desired, but NT type intellectual goals are damned great to do, and they work better for me than NF things.

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the T/F scale and what made you decide which one you are?

 

[Athenian200]

Well, what clinched it for me was that I was comfortable acting on and expressing my emotions, and was usually aware of my personal feelings on a topic. I was a little unsure at first because of my interest in logical discussions and complex theories, but I've found that it's fairly common for NF's, particularly INFJ's, to take interest in such topics. NT's also seem to tend towards some NF topics, especially later in life, but they seem to express their F in a much more indirect fashion, and with slightly more facts surrounding them than an NF. You have to see it, it's hard to explain.

 

[Totenkindly]

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the N/F scale and what made you decide which one you are?

Many people have suspected me of being F, based on my online behavior (and I understand why). I very much enjoy NF people, especially because as I've gotten older I enjoy tying intellectual insights to psychological/spiritual development, and many younger NTs are much more impersonal in how they apply their perceptions of the world.

But, for example, NFs are consistently far too delicate in many situations; I have a T's ability to go anywhere and talk about anything and deal with anything, regardless of the personal aspects. Each NF is different, but there are consistently personal areas where they won't go openly with people, for whatever reason; and I do not have that.

So as general criteria, I look at many things:

• My first instincts in a situation
• Other people whose type I'm sure of, and how comfortable I feel with them (which people do I "identify with" more and what are the things that put me off, if anything?)
• Out of the T or F solution to / assessment of a situation, which one could I live with least happily if I had to commit to it?

The thing is that you are not required to be one or the other. It is just a "theory," with extremes so that things can be clearly defined, but in reality people are much more gray. And the strongest people can use both functions, when the situation is appropriate to a particular style.

So based on your self-description and your writing style, you come across as more T but still have a respect (and use) for F-style thinking when appropriate. Even if it's not your strongest trait, you can recognize it and appreciate it when appropriate.

 

[booyalab]

I've been thinking about making a thread about the following point..this will do for now.

I have a theory that those who are undecided on the T/F dichotemy are much more likely to be Feelers than Thinkers. Feelers have more opportunities and personal incentive to develop their thinking side growing up through education, emotional sensitivity, and making hard decisions. Whereas thinkers can coast for awhile without so much as acknowledging other people, until they start wondering what it would be like to have friends or relationships based on more than work or sex.
If you think you're on the border between T and F, you're an F. Because if you're a T with a developed feeling side, you're probably older and you can probably even pinpoint when you started trying to develop your F.

 

[htb]

Haven't there been discussions, here and elsewhere, raising theoretical points about the T/F divide having much less to do with emotions than the terms would suggest?

If you think you're on the border between T and F, you're an F.

No. No! No-o-o-o-o! [/draws knife across chest, leaps out window]

 

[Totenkindly]

Haven't there been discussions, here and elsewhere, raising theoretical points about the T/F divide having much less to do with emotions than the terms would suggest?

Mmmm hmmm. It's values that define an F, not necessarily emotions.

No. No! No-o-o-o-o! [/draws knife across chest, leaps out window]

<looks out dryly> You can get up now. We were only on the first floor.

 

[heart]

When I was posting on boards that were predominantly F, it made me think that I was maybe not a feeler but then reading at INTPc helped me to see that I really was a Feeler. When a Feeler gets into their middle years it becomes more complicated because of developing inferior functions. The cognitive functions test also helped me decide.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I very closely fit both the descriptions of ENFP and ENTP. (Actually INTP describes me fairly well too.) The way I see it the NT way is more efficient, but the NF way produces better life objectives. So I behave like an NT when making most decisions, but behave like an NF when making important decisions.

I don't see myself rigidly placed into the ENTP category, as much as I see the ENTP description being the closest description to what I am. But at the same time ENFP is almost as close too. I appear as a thinker most of the time, so I just say I am ENTP. To me it doesn't really matter if I can force myself neatly into one of 16 categories. MBTI is just a theory and like all theories it provides a good logical framework while still having a few difficulties when trying to explain the way things really are.

 

[Recluse]

I'm quite close to the borderline between Thinker and Feeler, sanity and insanity. Reading through the posts did help me to realize that, though close to the line, I'm at no risk of crossing over. I simply don't have the complex swirl of emotions that seems to be the hallmark of an NF. And yes, I mean emotions, not values, though perhaps those, too--but it was the intensity of the emotions that struck me. I'm a desert wasteland in comparison.

I originally came here to observe the interaction styles of the 16 types and to get a glimpse into the differing thought processes. I rarely feel a compulsion to elaborate on my own thoughts--or feelings, for that matter--to any great degree. My behavior seems to be more typical of an unsocialized INTP than an INFP, though better-developed INTPs can be formidably wordy. (I am aware that I'm an immature example of my type, lacking social skills and motivation.)

I like writing, which may be at least partially attributable to Feeler influence. But I write science fiction.

Incidentally, a recurring theme in many of my stories is the presence of a cyborg character, who, while never the protagonist, is always observing--and attempting to interpret--the behavior of the others. Excuse me while I experience a Freudian moment.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

When a Feeler gets into their middle years it becomes more complicated because of developing inferior functions.

I think I know what you mean.. developing in any new function can make you feel that you've found your "true self", which is natural, as development really opens up so many new doors.

After a decade of using F I've come to understand that it's not my most developed function, as much as it brought joy to my life when I was learning to live with it. I've become in good terms with that, even though I'd wish to be more proficient in it. I'm happy that I don't neglect emotions and feelings anymore.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I very closely fit both the descriptions of ENFP and ENTP. (Actually INTP describes me fairly well too.) The way I see it the NT way is more efficient, but the NF way produces better life objectives. So I behave like an NT when making most decisions, but behave like an NF when making important decisions.

I don't see myself rigidly placed into the ENTP category, as much as I see the ENTP description being the closest description to what I am. But at the same time ENFP is almost as close too. I appear as a thinker most of the time, so I just say I am ENTP. To me it doesn't really matter if I can force myself neatly into one of 16 categories. MBTI is just a theory and like all theories it provides a good logical framework while still having a few difficulties when trying to explain the way things really are.

Would be unproductive to try to pigeonhole oneself into a category. Especially if that would limit one's options.. Leeway is much better
I try to be realistic and recognize stubborness or rigid behaviour in myself, tho, in order to not make my strategies rely on such personal proficiencys that I dont have.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Well, what clinched it for me was that I was comfortable acting on and expressing my emotions, and was usually aware of my personal feelings on a topic. I was a little unsure at first because of my interest in logical discussions and complex theories, but I've found that it's fairly common for NF's, particularly INFJ's, to take interest in such topics. NT's also seem to tend towards some NF topics, especially later in life, but they seem to express their F in a much more indirect fashion, and with slightly more facts surrounding them than an NF. You have to see it, it's hard to explain.

Sounds like being bilingual, remembering that one of the languages you know is your native and the other a second language.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Many people have suspected me of being F, based on my online behavior (and I understand why). I very much enjoy NF people, especially because as I've gotten older I enjoy tying intellectual insights to psychological/spiritual development, and many younger NTs are much more impersonal in how they apply their perceptions of the world.

But, for example, NFs are consistently far too delicate in many situations; I have a T's ability to go anywhere and talk about anything and deal with anything, regardless of the personal aspects. Each NF is different, but there are consistently personal areas where they won't go openly with people, for whatever reason; and I do not have that.

I consider it natural to enjoy opposite functions but still to prefer the function that developed first. Being in discordance with oneself is breeding ground for change, but acceptance maintains stability. I consider NF sympathetically inferior too, but only as my personal choice, not for those who have a life-long experience with it.

The thing is that you are not required to be one or the other. It is just a "theory," with extremes so that things can be clearly defined, but in reality people are much more gray. And the strongest people can use both functions, when the situation is appropriate to a particular style.

Some theorists go as far as to represent all "personality" as a deviation from the ideal state, where a person is free to choose the most suitable behaviour. The most critical liken the study of personalities as a worship of flaws. I wouldn't go as far as that, but having access to all human possibilities - and not just some - would indeed be awesome.

So based on your self-description and your writing style, you come across as more T but still have a respect (and use) for F-style thinking when appropriate. Even if it's not your strongest trait, you can recognize it and appreciate it when appropriate.

I have come to that conclusion too in the recent days. Sometimes when I'm in doubt, I remember that my F developed recognizably later to my T.

 

[alexkreuz]

I've noticed that when I get fairly depressed, I sink towards F from T.

 

[Economica]

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the T/F scale

Nope. Despite the smileys () I'm as clear-cut a T as they come.

I have a theory that those who are undecided on the T/F dichotemy are much more likely to be Feelers than Thinkers.

FWIW, booyalab, this has become my rule of thumb also.

Related rule of thumb: If in doubt (as an observer) as to whether a woman is T or a man is F, then they probably are (and their preference seems unclear due to socialization).

 

[Sahara]

I don't think I had a choice in F or T, I am as F'ed up as you can get, and only just getting a handle on my Te.

 

[wildcat]

I think it's a shame of having to choose between T and F. Does the T side handle the emotions adequately, and is it fun and ethical? Does the F side handle thinking adequately, and is it consistent and logical?

I have sometimes been unsure of my preference, thinking that I'm in the middle. Then seeing NT vs NF forums has been the deciding factor, as NF topics have seemed ok and lovely, they are not such topics that I think constantly about.

Also when going too deep in the NF terrain I feel sometimes coming across as ridiculous and hurt. NT feelinglessness is kind of dull emotionally and leaves much to be desired, but NT type intellectual goals are damned great to do, and they work better for me than NF things.

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the N/F scale and what made you decide which one you are?

You do not need to choose. Nor do you choose.
You are chosen already. Be what you are.

A continuum has two poles.
Only one continuum.

 

[Totenkindly]

You do not need to choose. Nor do you choose.
You are chosen already. Be what you are.
A continuum has two poles.
Only one continuum.

There's something to be said for all this as well.

Sometimes I think we make things too difficult, in way of meeting expectations of other people or fitting within the parameters of some abstracted "theory." Isn't it possible that you're already "you" and not in need of a T/F definition?

 

[Athenian200]

There's something to be said for all this as well.

Sometimes I think we make things too difficult, in way of meeting expectations of other people or fitting within the parameters of some abstracted "theory." Isn't it possible that you're already "you" and not in need of a T/F definition?

Of course everyone is already themselves, that is (hopefully) the assumption going into personality theory. But if you don't have a meaningful way of describing yourself in any particular way, what good is it? If something isn't expressed or described in some way, it might as well not exist.

I think that a person should come up with as many choices or ideas as possible, and then see where they and other people fall within them. That will help you define yourself and others as best as possible in a way that you can understand.

Does that make sense?

 

[Totenkindly]

Of course everyone is already themselves, that is (hopefully) the assumption going into personality theory. But if you don't have a meaningful way of describing yourself in any particular way, what good is it? If something isn't expressed or described in some way, it might as well not exist.

Oh, it IS expressed or described in some way. But technically, does it have to be articulated or defined?

I place "living something out" as higher than "talking about living it out."

Analysis is always a step away from life, it's a step back. You are no longer living or Being, you are Talking About Living/Being.

That's the point here. Even if you cannot articular the differences, you don't necessarily need to be able to. Analysis is secondary to life.