[MBTI General] Why do some thinkers demonize feelers?

[Magic Poriferan]

Magic, I think you should write a book and become the next Jung.

Shhhh! If anything makes Victor think I'll be the next Jung, he'll try to assassinate me.

 

[Giggly]

Shhhh! If anything makes Victor think I'll be the next Jung, he'll try to assassinate me.

Why does Victor want to be the next Jung?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Why does Victor want to be the next Jung?

Hahaha, maybe he secretly does. If you follow his post history, though, you'll see that he expresses hatred for Jung. He considers Jung the creator of new age religion, an opponent of reason(and Victor's beloved enlightenment), and an ally of the Nazis.

So you see, the next Jung would be someone that Victor would want dead.

 

[Giggly]

Hahaha, maybe he secretly does. If you follow his post history, though, you'll see that he expresses hatred for Jung. He considers Jung the creator of new age religion, an opponent of reason(and Victor's beloved enlightenment), and an ally of the Nazis.

So you see, the next Jung would be someone that Victor would want dead.

Ahh okay. haha Nah, I don't think Victor would harm anyone.

 

[runvardh]

Ahh okay. haha Nah, I don't think Victor would harm anyone.

Eh, we don't know him well enough to truly say if he will or will not, Hmm. To tell the truth, though, the ambiguity of the possibility does present a very humorous thing to poke at him about.

 

[ladypinkington]

Because thinkers can be poopoo heads,lol.

Yeah I went there.

 

[Jack Flak]

Anyone who totally discredits something due to the person's personality type is a total fart. That's my subjective opinion.

Of course.

I have to admit though, if someone says something sketchy, to which my response would be "What the hell are you talking about?" I'll initially give them the benefit of the doubt if they're, say, NT. And I'll say "What the hell are you talking about?"

With some other types, I'm more inclined to blow it off. "OK, that's great. See you!"

 

[Haphazard]

Hahaha, maybe he secretly does. If you follow his post history, though, you'll see that he expresses hatred for Jung. He considers Jung the creator of new age religion, an opponent of reason(and Victor's beloved enlightenment), and an ally of the Nazis.

So you see, the next Jung would be someone that Victor would want dead.

It'd be fitting if Victor became the next Jung. "He who fights monsters" and all that.

Then again, that was Neitzche.

@ Little Linguist: I suppose I'm a very nice NT. Regardless of type, if somebody says something very stupid that doesn't make any sense, I give them one chance to redeem themselves and make it make sense. If they don't take that chance, or they fail, I then proceed to tear their argument apart, like tearing the ribbon out of a cassette.

 

[animenagai]

It'd be fitting if Victor became the next Jung. "He who fights monsters" and all that.

Then again, that was Neitzche.

@ Little Linguist: I suppose I'm a very nice NT. Regardless of type, if somebody says something very stupid that doesn't make any sense, I give them one chance to redeem themselves and make it make sense. If they don't take that chance, or they fail, I then proceed to tear their argument apart, like tearing the ribbon out of a cassette.

what if it was just random small talk? i like being random just to bring a smile on people's faces. it's not like i just string random letters together or anything, usually some outlandish story that is obviously false. if everyone found it entertaining, would you find that obnoxious?

 

[Little Linguist]

Because only we can see their true evil.

Good point there.

I have no problems talking about love either. But talking about "what I want" is a different story

Aww, but I think people should be open and honest with each other. How can we grow and develop if we cannot open up our hearts and minds to one another? I mean - it's just a thought. *shrugs*

I swear open minded discussions get me in trouble all the time. Especially if I get bored when I go out with folks and get a few drinks...

Close minded rigidity sucks

Bah! Closed-minded rigidity is for "kleingeistige Menschen" (Hmmm, what the hell does that mean in English - wait a sec - Oh, man, this is one of these, hmm, German things...I'll let you know later). Anyway, if someone is truly open-minded, and I think intellectually curious people usually are or should be, they should not just react with total animosity towards new ideas. Now, that doesn't mean that one can't have a friendly banter now and again - maybe even a charged banter - but respect needs to be the key.

If you can't respect the people, you need to say, "Sorry, but you are a total fart, and I can't understand where your crazy ass is coming from. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to drink some wine because that would be more productive than talking to you."

This is true and never give up the good fight!

(never mind the fact we will, in all our evilness, try to stop you, but please do carry on. We want you to feel like you're doing well!)

PP!!!!! OMG!!!!!

Feeling is a poor name for what it does.

It's not unjust to relate it to emotions though. It is invariably the direct result of an emotion. It's just that, we can't say Feeling equates, because not all emotions are automatically Feeling judgement.

Extroverted perception often appears to offer emotive responses as do all introverted functions when violated or otherwise released -- see: catharsis -- including Ti (yes I'm talking to you Bluewing).

True.

And yet many of them are Ts.

Thinking could be veiled as selfishness.
Maybe we're the demons.

No wait! It must be those impulsive sinning Se types.
Or the conniving intuitors; perhaps its them.


Find my angle.

Extreme farts are the . Balanced folks of all types are really cool to be with and interesting to talk to. IMO.

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.

How can you illustrate something as complex as the human brain and psyche into mere words? It is difficult in any language, even in English.

Of course.

I have to admit though, if someone says something sketchy, to which my response would be "What the hell are you talking about?" I'll initially give them the benefit of the doubt if they're, say, NT. And I'll say "What the hell are you talking about?"

With some other types, I'm more inclined to blow it off. "OK, that's great. See you!"

HAH! Interesting. I'd be more likely to say, "What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!" to any type and then judge and say, "Man, you have a point there," or "Man, you ARE a crazy fart that comes out of my dog's ass after eating potato salad." regardless of type.

Jack Flak's response: Ok, that's great, see you!!!!!!!!"

Hahahaha!

 

[Nocapszy]

Extreme farts are the . Balanced folks of all types are really cool to be with and interesting to talk to. IMO.

People like you right?

Find me one of these balanced people please. There seem to be none in my area.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

People like you right?

Find me one of these balanced people please. There seem to be none in my area.

This seems like an easy chance to say that your eyes deceive you.
But really, how are you so sure? The context of the thread makes me presume that we are talking about people that use aproximately equal parts Thinking and Feeling, in which case I'd say some people are definitely candidates.

In a lot of ways, it might make sense to say I'm balanced, but I know that you would just assert that I'm F. So again, I just wonder if your own way of looking at things prevents the possibility of a balanced person in your mind.

 

[SquirrelTao]

I have to admit though, if someone says something sketchy, to which my response would be "What the hell are you talking about?" I'll initially give them the benefit of the doubt if they're, say, NT. And I'll say "What the hell are you talking about?"

With some other types, I'm more inclined to blow it off. "OK, that's great. See you!"

Then I guess you wouldn't make a good pupil of a Zen Master. Unless of course you had the Zen Master take a reliable MBTI test which proved him to be an NT.

 

[Anja]

Little Linguist, you mentioned the words kleingeistige Menschen and it reminded me of how interestingly psychology-oriented the German language is.

Perhaps a good example which may fit into this discussion is the word schaudenfraude, joy in others' suffering. Could there be a sadistic element for some in attempting to humilate another on line?

I think many perceptive people here have been encouraged by another to talk about their problems. "Go ahead; Get it out. It's good for you. I'll listen."

In discussing our troubles sometimes it calls up unpleasant feelings in us. And just when we begin getting in touch with our usually hidden pain we begin to see a micro-momentary expression flit across the face of the questioner. A flicker of a mean-spirited smile. Something hungry in the eyes. A secret delight in our pain? And, oh boy, do I shut my mouth fast!

One doesn't have the advantage of communicating on line of seeing the others' facial expression. So further "testing" must be done to determine motivation. This, in itself, may produce more verbal sparring than would happen in face-to-face encounters.

At any rate when I think I see it being attempted a red flag goes up immediately in my head and the message comes through to me that I may be dealing with a person who hasn't got good mental health.

Then my feelings kick in. I feel pity, suspicion, sometimes disregard. And sometimes I feel irritation that those feelings have risen in me.

Could it be a power/control issue for some? Yup. A need to prove their superiority to others. What's behind that driven need? I think I know. . .

Why do I think it's unhealthy? Because it creates discord and unhappiness instead of understanding and harmony.

 

[Domino]

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.

You have no idea how crazy it makes me when I can feel and see a function, bright in mind, but eluding definition. Those are the times where I make up my own word just to snatch at the meaning of the mystery.

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.

Better! I like that.

 

[Alpha Prime]

Let me offer you another way to think about it, Alpha.

"Should" implies that there is one, and only one, way to do something. It implies that there is only one global authority on things and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to that belief is out of the loop. Use of it tends to set one's self up as superior to all others. It can be a word of alienation.

It always reminds me of sitting in church and being told what I am supposed to believe - or else. "Everyone should be a Christian." Yup?

It also limits the user's openess to a variety of learning experiences and can close one off from possibly something which would work better for them.

Basically "shoulds" are how how we end up in war. How we end up in divorce. How we end up angry with others. How we end up unhappy. Someone isn't doing things the way they "should" and we know better so we hasten to force our will upon others. The results aren't usually too pleasant.

Think about how you feel when someone else tells you what you "should" do. Most people don't like it. For that matter, think about how you feel when you tell yourself you should be doing something you don't want to do.

So. Being relatively aware that there is that necessary evil called "reality" I know that if I don't do certain things it won't go well for me. But I have a choice. No one needs to tell me what I should or shouldn't be feeling or thinking. As all personality types, I prefer to figure out what works best for me.

Now. Certain immutable forces dictate shoulds. If I jump out of an airplane, I should pull the ripcord. Make the suggestion, explain to me why and I'll consider it.

See what I'm saying? It allows the respect that maybe people can take a suggestion or figure it out for themselves. A choice! Yippee. Everyone loves them.

Just a better way to deliver one's ideas to others because it honors their autonomous existence.

I think that's what we're talking about here. How to better "hear" each other in harmony, if not agreement.

And let me offer you another perspective, to return the favour: By negating this:

- A heart doesn't belong on a sleeve. Feelings should be a source of great strength, inside your chest, combined with the intellect.

.. you are saying that a "heart" should be kept on a sleeve and feelings should be a source of weakness. This makes no sense at all in this context, to say the very least. If you want to debate the general use of the word "should" then start up another thread.

And the word "should" does not imply that there is only one way, I think you are overgeneralizing.

Taking a single exchange like this one and using it to define "feeler logic" is a similar process to the one you find erroneous?

I'm not certain what I would call that, but it has more to do with being image conscious than authenticity or feeling. It also demonstrates a lack of feeling analysis. It might be an example of flawed "feeler logic", but it seems rather external to serve as much of an example.

Sometimes one single example is enough to define something, which I believe can be done here. If my example is not congruent with the official definition of "feeler logic", then please post the OD here, so that we can all have a common base for discussing this topic.

 

[Little Linguist]

People like you right?

Find me one of these balanced people please. There seem to be none in my area.

Ahhh, well, I have my little quirks, too. But on the whole, I can handle and get along with pretty much anyone due to my balanced functions.

Only problem happens when my Ne takes over a little bit - then I have the tendency to walk in front of moving cars without noticing.

But other than that I'm pretty cool.

Nope, you'll have to come to Germany...I can show you around, though!

 

[Anja]

Alpha, I've reviewed my threads and I see no where where I have said that "a heart should be worn on one's sleeve." I certainly don't believe that's a wise thing to do.

My post to you referred to how you word your opinion to another, not on your idea of how you should handle your feelings. None of my business. It may be a good personal choice for you to not show your more tender emotions in public.

My post suggested to you that when someone endeavors to change my mind I find them more convincing if they word it in language that doesn't sound superior or forceful. I think I'm not alone in this preference.

See, what I was doing was offering you a suggestion that may help you in getting your ideas across in a way which will encourage others to sit up and listen. I would guess that everyone would like help in that area, including myself.

When you put words in my mouth I was tempted to write you off as unreasonable.

The point of this thread is that we all desire for people to take our ideas seriously. How do we do that in a way that doesn't make them close their ears? Or cause conflict?

It was a hint at what works for me and of little consequence, in general, one way or the other.


Edit: Actually I've taken the point of this thread further than the OP questioned. To talk beyond the "Why" and make a suggestion about the "How."

 

[Anja]

Rereading. "The word should does not imply that there is only one way. . ."

What dictionary are you using?

 

[Haphazard]

what if it was just random small talk? i like being random just to bring a smile on people's faces. it's not like i just string random letters together or anything, usually some outlandish story that is obviously false. if everyone found it entertaining, would you find that obnoxious?

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