[MBTI General] F mystery debunked

[Giggly]

I want to kiss a Feeler

Fixed.

 

[spirilis]

Fixed.

well done.

 

[Blackwater]

I see that people have begun to disrupt this thread. - Maybe because the content is uncomfortable to them?

In any case, the off-topic remarks are now so numerous that it would be worthwhile to move them to a spin-off thread.

I see also that people are content to repeat the same ad hominem slur over and over.

 

[Thursday]

thats because we reached closure.

 

[Brendan]

thats because we reached closure.

Those with closure have usually passed the continuation stage... Conversations aren't exempt.

 

[Orangey]

Yes I concur. This is actually my main critique of Feeling. Although way too often people end up hearing "feelers suck". (which I, to the best of my knowledge, have never said).

Though this supports my earlier point that people unconciously treat Thinking as superior to Feeling. No one will take the statement: "Thinkers are so cold" to mean: "Thinkers suck".

I agree with this. Whenever there is a hint of criticism leveled at the emotionality of "F" types, even if it's not really a criticism, a mechanism is triggered that releases various defensive reactions. When someone says that "T" types are cold, no one feels the need to defend them by re-listing all of their merits. This behavior implicitly suggests that there is a power imbalance between thinking and feeling that places feeling on the losing end.

The fact that anybody felt the need to defend feeling as an "equally valid" or "just as rational" process confirms, over and over, the very hierarchy which they wish to deny.

Edit: I will say, however, that the OP was set up in such a way as to provoke that kind of response. Sort of like a trap. I would also like to qualify the first sentence of this post, as not all people (not all F's) respond in such a manner to discussions about "F" and emotion.

 

[SillySapienne]

INTPc

Now there is a perfect example of T's never, ever getting their intellectual panties in a twist.

 

[Haphazard]

This thread kinda makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

But I'll try to restrain myself because my therapist said it was bad for me to do that as often as I used to.

 

[MacGuffin]

INTPc

Now there is a perfect example of T's never, ever getting their intellectual panties in a twist.

Indeed!

 

[Sunshine]

I agree with this. Whenever there is a hint of criticism leveled at the emotionality of "F" types, even if it's not really a criticism, a mechanism is triggered that releases various defensive reactions. When someone says that "T" types are cold, no one feels the need to defend them by re-listing all of their merits. This behavior implicitly suggests that there is a power imbalance between thinking and feeling that places feeling on the losing end.

The fact that anybody felt the need to defend feeling as an "equally valid" or "just as rational" process confirms, over and over, the very hierarchy which they wish to deny.

Edit: I will say, however, that the OP was set up in such a way as to provoke that kind of response. Sort of like a trap. I would also like to qualify the first sentence of this post, as not all people (not all F's) respond in such a manner to discussions about "F" and emotion.

What do you mean by the bolded? Simply that T's have more power?

 

[Frank]

I am okay with whatever values they have (which often is compassion and the great fruit this yields) as long as they are able to state this clearly and stay consistent.

So you would be much more comfortable if they were robots. Never changing or evolving from the experiences of life and new insights they perceive. Is that what your saying?

 

[Orangey]

What do you mean by the bolded? Simply that T's have more power?

Nope, that's not what I mean at all. What I'm saying is that a defensive reaction implies, on its own, that they do. It's like if someone criticizes thinking types for being too cold, and the thinkers react defensively by saying that thinking is just as personal and compassionate as feeling (while of course retaining its positive logical side). This would imply that feeling is the superior function.

 

[SillySapienne]

Nope, that's not what I mean at all. What I'm saying is that a defensive reaction implies, on its own, that they do. It's like if someone criticizes thinking types for being too cold, and the thinkers react defensively by saying that thinking is just as personal and compassionate as feeling (while of course retaining its positive logical side). This would imply that feeling is the superior function.

Wouldn't the defensive replies, on their own, imply that the ones who are being defensive may be insecure, themselves.

Also, when one defends a point, that does not always translate to one being defensive.

 

[Sunshine]

Nope, that's not what I mean at all. What I'm saying is that a defensive reaction implies, on its own, that they do. It's like if someone criticizes thinking types for being too cold, and the thinkers react defensively by saying that thinking is just as personal and compassionate as feeling (while of course retaining its positive logical side). This would imply that feeling is the superior function.

Oh lol no.

Feeling types are just more sensitve and take things more personally.
That and...well....come on now you read BlueWing's post....

Wait a minute! Ok THIS is it. Thinking isn't copassionate. Feeling isn't logical. It's the people that are. It's always the people. If you're a T you won't automatically lack compassion (of course) and if you're an F you won't automatically lack logic (of course). But everybody uses both T and F, just differently and to a different degree.

Lol so you're telling me that if I say "Thinking is not superior" therefore it is superior becaue I'm defensive about it? That makes no sense. Whether I respond or not doesn't change the fact that neither T nor F is superior.

 

[Orangey]

Also, when one defends a point, that does not always translate to one being defensive.

No, you're correct to say this. I only mean that IF one defends feeling as being "equally rational", using rational in the everyday sense of the term in order to put feeling on equal footing with logic validity-wise, then it automatically implies that thinking is the superior function. In reality, though, I haven't seen many "F" types defend themselves in such a way, so what I'm saying has nothing really to do with the current thread, and it therefore sets up a kind-of straw man.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I foolishly walked into this thread well after it collected several pages.
Upon entering it's premises, I paused, and then exlclaimed "eeeeuwww!" as I began to realize what large quantities of wrong I just stepped in.

BlueWing is obviously the primary spewer of this wrong, but honestly, a lot of responders have thrown in their own couple of puddles.

As someone with virtually tied Ti and Fi, I feel really compelled to give my own analysis of situations like these, but I feel that it has already become too much of a mess to try cleaning.

Just maybe, if I have the grit in my craw, I will start a new thread based on some of the thought processes that this has initiated.

 

[Orangey]

Feeling types are just more sensitve and take things more personally.
That and...well....come on now you read BlueWing's post....

I'm sure he definitely intended to inflame people.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm sure he definitely intended to inflame people.

Nah I dunno what he wanted to do.
I assumed he was just frustrated and he was just venting. Also trying to bring to the light things he felt were wrong in the world. Ways of thinking that were harmful. I think he wants us to understand the importance of an objective view and sticking with principles.

 

[Sunshine]

No, you're correct to say this. I only mean that IF one defends feeling as being "equally rational", using rational in the everyday sense of the term in order to put feeling on equal footing with logic validity-wise, then it automatically implies that thinking is the superior function. In reality, though, I haven't seen many "F" types defend themselves in such a way, so what I'm saying has nothing really to do with the current thread, and it therefore sets up a kind-of straw man.

Ohhhhh. That explanation was more clear. I gotcha now. I wasn't really getting what you were saying before.

 

[Orangey]

Ohhhhh. That explanation was more clear. I gotcha now. I wasn't really getting what you were saying before.