It's one thing to feel nervous and uncomfortable around emotion and not know how to react well. However, I have noticed that sometimes NTs (and I'm not saying all of them) do take pleasure in saying/doing something that they know will provoke strong emotion in others, either to see what will happen or to make fun of the completely ridiculous way those people come across when they are upset. This seems to work at cross purposes to anything productive, unless it is a way of reinforcing their feeling that one thing they do have is the power to remain objective (in their view) while others become emotional.
I think what the original poster is asking (in a controversial and provocative way) is why some people would act proud of doing this or of not relating on an emotional level with someone when that's what they need. Is it because their own need to feel superior is stronger? Usually there is some kind of payoff a person gets from doing something, so what is theirs? Are there other factors, or is it something that other types are just not understanding? (which means we need more information! Please help us!)
Thank you for putting the question in a more nuanced way conducive to a calmer ( and more productive ) discussion. I notice "T" 's doing this exaggerated "T Pride" ( there was a thread titled this at INTPc a while back, critical of the same thing ) more on these forums than I do IRL.
The bolding in the quoted post is mine. When and if this behavior results in dysfunction in a team trying to achieve a business goal ( at work ) or some other important task, then it seems more relevant of a question.
Does strict neutrality only seem "cold" to Feelers ?
If you ( as an "F" oriented person ) were a new member of a team consisting of mostly "T"'s, would you not expect some voluntary "welcome" from these incumbents, or at least information helping to bring you up to speed on informal past actions and positions among the group ? I think it would be reasonable to expect that, unless you had already demonstrated a stubbornness to all these positions, come what may.
Strictly speaking, the "T"'s in this example could take the approach that it is your responsibility as a new member to ferret out data that you are lacking by asking them questions when it is convenient for them to answer, and that it is not "logical' that their silence, their lack of smiles/greetings, etc. should be seen as actively "hostile".
If the "T"'s have been around the block a few times, though, they should know how this behavior would be experienced, possibly even by other "T"'s, to say nothing of "F" 's. Especially if they are "friendly" with one another, and thus display the contrast to the new team member. ( I have to put the word "friendly" in quote marks because some "T"'s will perceive tacit obligations like an occasional smile or other rapport builders as being "artificial" and "phony" etc. )
Of course, in reality the situations are typically not so black and white as this hypothetical example. ( The T's in the work group may actually throw out a smile now and then to the "F", either genuinely, or as part of a strategy to keep the other party uncertain and off balance. Sometimes this leads to the "F" person trying harder, as time goes on, to win the approval or notice of this "in crowd", and attempting vainly to re-create whatever it was that led to this brief thaw. )
Another point on this subject is that a "T" ( or anyone ) can express hostility in an extremely polite way and it is still hostility. I'm not sure whether the "T" 's fool themselves on this point, or whether it is just another way that they attempt to make "F"'s "lose their cool" ( to what purpose ? )
Certainly it can work the other way, too, and an "F" can over-react to bluntness/frankness.
However, I've noticed that some "T"'s like to pretend that all hostility is just "tough love" and "frank talk" ( or a "misunderstanding" as their only concession ) so that they can claim the other party is "whining", when the inner reaction to this hostility was perfectly natural, even for another "T". ( The difference is that an "F" might completely explode on the spot whereas a "T" might say to themselves "I see your game, shithead, and I'm going to get
even with you, not angry, when a situation presents itself convenient to such ends." Others may adopt a mix of the two. )
Another tactic practiced by hostile "T" 's, is to take an old confrontation which they deferred fully responding to at the time, and then ( when the "F" or opponent tries to informally work it out with them later, as the "T" had requested ) the "T" will behave as if all of this is now just history or "water over the dam" that is best not stirred up again; as though all parties had agreed to a resolution or compromise etc. at some time long ago. Although it is not the same thing, this sort of approach has a flavor similar to the moment in the Batman movie when the one guy tells Morgan Freeman "Didn't you get the memo"?
I see politicians do this "that was then, and this is now" stuff frequently. The way to respond to this is to remind people of the "past as prologue". Prologue to "more of the same" in the future. ( By saying "remind people", in my last sentence, I don't just mean to remind the clique that's using this tactic, but to instead make sure that others know about it also. When one is up against this tactic, one's opponents are often only putting on a sham "dialogue" with you, anyway, for the benefit of a third party audience, while sometimes even behaving as though they actually
speak for these others. )
Explaining the complexities of this are such that some people ( sincerely or not ) may simply say "tl/dr". So, to put it in a nutshell, I agree that it does seem "disingenuous" for a "T" ( or anyone ) to think that if 95% of their interaction with someone ( over a long period of time ) is just to criticize them, that this criticized person should feel satisfied with that as being reasonable behavior.