[NT] The NT Prejudice Against Feeling

[Salomé]

So, why do we NT's devalue "feeling" or at least leading with a feeling orientation?

We do?

 

[Ardea]

Ich mochte ein Synarch.

(crap, I've forgotten most of my german knowledgezzzzzzzz - I mean to say that I would like a piece of synarch on a plate, but this is the only phrase i can remember.... as creepy as it sounds...)

 

[Synarch]

Ich mochte ein Synarch.

(crap, I've forgotten most of my german knowledgezzzzzzzz - I mean to say that I would like a piece of synarch on a plate, but this is the only phrase i can remember.... as creepy as it sounds...)

I felt transported! It's 1936 Berlin...and you were there.

 

[professor goodstain]

Ich mochte ein Synarch.

(crap, I've forgotten most of my german knowledgezzzzzzzz - I mean to say that I would like a piece of synarch on a plate, but this is the only phrase i can remember.... as creepy as it sounds...)

The thread is titled (Which type C member...) It's in the bonfire. If you could go ahead and cut loose in there, that would be great

 

[Ardea]

I felt transported! It's 1936 Berlin...and you were there.

AND TOTO TOO!?!??!

 

[Synarch]

AND TOTO TOO!?!??!

I'm talking about Nazi germany. Now you're really creeping me out.

 

[Ardea]

Turtlenecks and helmets?

I'm so there!


HEIL... ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Synarch]

I felt transported! It's 1936 Berlin...and you were there.

I guess I'm too old for most of you to get my reference: You Are There (series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sigh.

VB doesn't appear to like trailing parentheses.

 

[Ardea]

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for You Are There (TV Series in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the You Are There (TV Series article or add a request for it.
* Search for "You Are There (TV Series" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

* If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
* Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
* If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.

 

[Synarch]

Fixed the link.

 

[Ardea]

That actually sounds like it would have been a joy to listen to! I love radio shows!



Wait... you shouldn't have been alive back then either!!!

71-72... 53-57...

 

[juggernaut]

Disagree; reason exists to prove or disprove theory.

Reason without emotion, or some sort of moral compass, carries as much inherent danger as unbridled emotional reactions devoid of contemplation.

I'm not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with.

Just the same, every action begins with some sort of desire. Reason is simply a vehicle to move us from end (goal) to end (goal). It cannot push us to do anything. It just gets us where we want to go. An entirely emotionless being will not have desires that will require it to act in ways that conflict with a moral code. There is no wanting to compel that being to ever move in any direction....good or bad. No desire for money, recognition, validation, love, achievement...nothing. Reason, alone, is not going to drive any of the things that cause us to act in ways that conflict with right or wrong. It has no intentionality, it's completely sterile. Reason alone is never a threat to anyone. It's only problematic when it's coupled with unhealthy desires, or healthy desires that have run amok.

Morality and emotion often have very little in common. This is why we're asked to provide justification for our moral choices. Utilitarianism, principalism, and deontism all require us to defer to our rational capacities in determining what is the right course of action in a given situation. We start with a basic desire to avoid pain and experience pleasure, from there we build a rational moral framework which will help us achieve those ends. Instinctively, we may want to avoid pain and experience pleasure, but that has little to do with how we actual go about constructing a moral framework. You can be a highly ethical individual, because you see the reasonableness of behaving ethically, but have little emotional investment in the moral code you choose. You live "right" because it's, pragmatically, a better option.

 

[Quinlan]

Rational thinking sets us apart from animals, emotion and instinct set us apart from machines, obviously a healthy balance is what's important.

 

[substitute]

A thought just occurred to me that it's a bit unfair to say that prejudice against F-ness is an NT thing...

I mean, since the dawn of time practically, men (who make up the majority of T's) have lamented the down sides of dealing with women (who make up the majority of F's) and vice versa. Men have said of women "dames ain't nothin' but trouble" and "never trust a dame" or words to that effect, just like women have said "men are all liars/cheats/they will always hurt you". And when you look at these perceptions it's almost always F/T related strife at the bottom of it.

So I dunno... firstly it seems unfair to put it all down to NT's being stubborn or prejudiced, I mean to sort of pick on NT's particularly for falling foul of this age old issue, and secondly it seems rather unrealistic to expect this kind of deep seated, socially inbred conditioning to just evapourate in a cloud of pop-psychology...

 

[Frank]

Personally I love my enfps' emotions. They make my life richer in ways that mere logic never could. The only time I ever have a problem with her approach is when the logical answer is so obvious but her emotions override making the correct decision. Her understanding of the cost/benefit ratio in her decisions can also be frustrating.

 

[Nocapszy]

One of the unfortunate consequences of a classification system like MBTi is that it encourages a reactionary mindset against other types and tendencies rather than encouraging the view of there being a boundary-less

For future reference:
The word is "boundless."

complex spectrum of behavior in which the value of each "type" expression is largely situational. Factionalism is a consequence of defining type.

Not that that matters much -- I haven't seen but two people who've successfully translated theory into practice on the whole site and I've read at least 15 posts made by other people.

One problem I have is with the NT prejudice against Feeling. As if being dispassionate is a virtue, applied generally. There seems to be this idea that being an NT means cutting loose from emotional motivations or values, as if this is even possible.

Is it cutting loose or is it avoiding it completely? Let's not forget what we're dealing with here.

Rational sense must work in concert with emotional sense to achieve wholeness as a person.

Says who? God? Your mother?

There is really no division. So, why do we NT's devalue "feeling" or at least leading with a feeling orientation?

I never really saw it as devaluing as much as I did parcelling it out appropriately.

How do you personally define feeling? Can you be healthy and dispassionate?

There is no personal definition of Feeling. There is a rigid definition.
Healthy on the other hand is subjective.

 

[sculpting]

I don't think I have a prejudice against feelers. In fact, I wish I were an NF of some sort...I still kind of wish I were INFP. Emotional self-awareness is a good thing to have (and I don't have it ).

Hey I'll trade you my Fi for your Ti... I'm sure there will only be a bit of blood involved... I would be the happiest INTP ever...

MBTI/Typing/Socionics has been boiled down to a mere gaming science. How to land an ENTP. How to seduce an INTP. It's very sad, and overwhelmingly manipulative...

MBTI/Typing/Socionics seeks to make something so abstract and personal into something concrete. It's inaccurate. It's become a tool for manipulation. It's... a poor classification tool. It does not do what it was intended to do. And has become something... strange.

Moderation in everything. We should all seek to balance ourselves. But not like this. No excuses for behavior. We are all unique individuals. Some of us share somethings in common, but a set of letters shouldn't be one of them.

Sorry that thread was meant to be funny and silly???

I would not throw the baby out with the bath water. Typing allows for a description and understanding of others who are very different from you. They are not stupid, not wierd, not intentionally being difficult, they just function vastly different from the way that you do. I pester folks at work all the time about "the letters". at worst its a funny game, at best they come up to me and thank me later as they have spent thier whole lives not understanding why they felt so different or alone. INTPs and INTJs especially.

I have spent about seven years playing with just the MBTI letters and it is realy fun to see people understand themselves a little better. The last few months with the functions have added an entire new dimension to the puzzle and helped explain so much more.

Watching folks interact, observing how the functions come into play is utterly beautiful. It's like watching raindrops fall in the water and seeing the circular waves ripple around and cancel each other out, or waves crashing against each other at the sea shore in little rows that migrate up and down against the sand. The complete and beautiful complexity is awe inspiring. It is the sort of pattern that makes me think there may actually be some sort of god, given how all the pieces fit together so cleanly, yet are so delicately balanced.

I think here-at least for myself-I often apply a very reductionist, razor like approach when I probe and question as I need to understand the pieces and how they differ and are the same to appreciate the patterns fully expressed IRL. It is overly simplistic and reduces individuals to categories. The beautiful part though is taking that basic framework or model I develop, then observing all the endless variety of people that fit into that basic mold. All horses have four legs and a head.... However each one is unique.

manipulative? potentially it is, many ethical issues here. Do I alter my behavior when I interact with others who are of different types? absolutely. Do I go into interactions with them with expectations of the outcome, often I do. I meet them on thier terms. I can only hope my Fi keeps me honest. Everyday I question my own judgement of this though...

I mean, since the dawn of time practically, men (who make up the majority of T's) have lamented the down sides of dealing with women (who make up the majority of F's) and vice versa. Men have said of women "dames ain't nothin' but trouble" and "never trust a dame" or words to that effect, just like women have said "men are all liars/cheats/they will always hurt you". And when you look at these perceptions it's almost always F/T related strife at the bottom of it.

..

I think this is typically a 60/40 split down the sexes, so I write much of the man/women diffs to social conditioning. The vast majority of folks I work with are hard core thinkers, men and women both-yet can both exhibit great depth of feeling.

In general, making the assumption that the T/F diff is somewhat biological in origin-evolution is a whore of a mistress. She finds the best solution via trial and error and implements it. The solution we currently have, was the best combination of types/functions to keep humans alive as a functional species. Thus you need both thinking driven and feeling driven decision making in combination it seems to have a balanced society.

 

[Sentura]

How so? Explain please.

there's a certain form of platonic love i reserve for mankind, even though i think that the world would be better off without most of it. i seem cold because i realize i care more than people can understand.

i think that's the best explanation i can offer you.

as an aside, trying to explain some of these things makes me think that somehow i'm reaching the limit of the english vocabulary.

 

[yenom]

Because I am not a computer
T for me is information processing
anything can be reduced to words and information, but there is no definite right and wrong

thats my perspective anyway.

I hold no prejudice against feelers though, but I don't know their brains work.

There a lot of things I do not understand about the huamn brain. It is a fascinating machine. Perhaps better understandfing of the brain can help us understand the link between thinking and feeling

 

[Shelovesyoumaybe]

Um okay, so I didn't read any of the replies simply because I cannot be bothered, I just wanted to add that I feel that prejudice as well. One T boldly told me that "feelers are fucking weak" I was like, "Oh really?" because if not myself, I know a lot of feelers that are hella strong.