There is a difference between a grudge and retaliation.
My observation is that T types claim to have control over their emotions but when their feelings become hurt they are less likely to listen to apology and more likely to act out long term and to hold deeper grudges. They appear to have little control over their emotions and feelings except of course to cover them in logical sounding language while still acting out the dictates of their feeling shadows. Almost like they are disassociated from their feelings even while being slave to them. Yeah, I find that more frightening to deal with than a feeler who knows and admits to their feelings. It's all a matter of perspective.
There are no angelic human beings. All types capable of meanness and vengence.
Grudges that cause long term communication problems and an unwilliness to listen to apologies or reason in relation to the problem that caused their hurt feelings is the biggest problem with Thinkers. I never said they weren't also capable of vengence. That's something you've decided on. I see no difference between Thinkers and Feelers as regards vengence, only in the way it may be enacted. Thinkers do find it easier to distance themselves from their feelings as far as conscious thought goes while still being driven and motivated to hold a grudge or seek venegence.
Fair enough, but the corollary is clearly also true about Fi-iers from a Ti standpoint.
Just as Ti can't release Critical Thinking 101 as the basis for evaluation of everything, Fi is similarly in denial about the possibility that any of its moral precepts might not be objectively certain, which is especially ironic in the case of NFPs because they pride themselves on their very ability to understand and appreciate other viewpoints. What I see from the outside is Fi getting upset at some perceived moral injustice and then using Ne to imagine a million more reasons to hate the offender even more, instead of trying to think of other ways to consider his perspective that might help explain.
A perfect case in point is the NFP-riddled raging political left. They often practice intolerance in the name of squelching intolerance ("You're not a SOCIALIST?! Moron!" comes to mind), and something about that doesn't sit right with me.
EDIT: By the way, Heart's insistence here that an Fi undercurrent is governing everything Ts do is similar to what I used to do to Victor all the time before I understood how Fi works.
And that's precisely the mistake you make, Heart, when you continue to conceptualize Ts as emotionally stunted children who really want to be open and use emotion as their primary language, but just don't know how and need a little extra help!
You're holding us to standards in Fi usage that we see as neither realistic nor desirable, and that doesn't make us lesser people.
In the part you quoted, I already said there are no angelic human beings. I never claimed Fi or Feelers didn't have their faults. I was merely pointing out that I've had just as much to-do over bruised feelings from thinkers (especially female thinkers) in my life and they are often harder for me to deal with and they seem almost disassociated from their feelings, as if their own feelings are big mystery to them that haunts them but cannot be seen. That's the best way I know to put it into words.
Heart said:My exact words were that when a thinker (especially a female one) has their feelings hurt, they seem to be almost disassociated from them yet haunted by them. Now that's not saying that thinkers are always governed by Fi or Fe, is it? Well, is it?
Heart said:Where the hell are you getting this from? I believe I said that both thinkers and feelers have their faults when it comes to dealing with hurt feelings, they are just expressed differently.
I don't know, but I do know that it's a mistake to imply that "haunting feelings" are somehow hijacking the driver's seat in the majority of our decision-making, and a little Ne should show you how ridiculous that appears from our perspective as Thinkers..
As I've pointed out before, often if we are experiencing our typically smaller range of emotion in the form of being slightly agitated with some perceived logical inconsistency, even if we weren't really very upset in the first place, you continued insistence on steering the conversation toward discussing our feelings/critiquing our ethics is perceived as counterproductive and, generally, very annoying--your claims become a self-fulfilling prophecy because you won't stop accusing of outrageous emotional states until we actually BECOME upset because you won't drop it.
I've learned from experience by now that it's best not to acknowledge Fi's "deer in the headlights didn't mean a thing by it!" innocence act. People give Fe a lot of shit for emotional manipulation but Fi is pretty proficient at it too, in a subtly different way.
Aren't we always?
Ti and Fi are different languages and neither thinks the other is as objectively good as itself.
I agree that it is potentially destructive to act only to achieve a desired feeling without taking consequences or ramifications into account. I'm not entirely convinced that is what the Feeling function suggests. What I understand the "Feeling" function is doing is to take into account the personal information and outcomes of a choice as well as the external, measurable information and outcome (or maybe that is what happens when F an T combine, since it is difficult to completely isolate either). For example, while it might make sense that a certain breed of dog would be the most practical and easiest to manage choice, if the children in the family have a strong, positive emotional reaction to another dog, it might be worth the emotional reward to go with that choice over the strictly practical choice. Or for another example, if a particular decision is going to cause emotional pain in self or others, it is worth weighing that pain as one of the variables in making the decision.F people creep me out. I don't understand them. I see making decisions off of your feelings as selfish and irrisponsible. The worst excuse ever, "I felt like it", like that matters. If people justify their actions according to their feelings where is the line that says what you were feeling is wrong. It seems immature. How is putting your feelings on someone else productive to anything? Where is the self control? You cant argue against what someone is feeling and asking someone to take your feelings into account is like asking them to cater unobjectively to you.
I am not trying to make people mad here I am trying to understand. What makes you all tick?
A perfect case in point is the NFP-riddled raging political left. They often practice intolerance in the name of squelching intolerance ("You're not a SOCIALIST?! Moron!" comes to mind), and something about that doesn't sit right with me.