Personality Cafe banner

Thinker Feeler Differences

127K views 221 replies 130 participants last post by  exciting fisherman 
#1 ·
In the spirit of John Gray's book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (which I have not read, the title says it all), I am offering some insights on the differences between MBTI Thinkers and Feelers, which I have observed over the years. This is not about men and women, because many of the men I meet are Feelers or Feeler-wannabes; and I suspect there are a comparable number of Thinker women, although I don't meet very many of them.

Although item 6 quotes from a humorous list, this analysis is not intended to be understood as a joke.

1. The labels "Thinker" and "Feeler" are not descriptive of what those people do. Thinkers are not smarter than Feelers, nor are Feelers more sensitive. Thinkers have feelings, and Feelers are able to reason logically. The fundamental difference is the values they hold in highest esteem: Thinkers give priority to Truth and Justice; Feelers give priority to Relationships and affirmation. That's the only difference, and it only applies when truth and affirmation are at odds, which tends to be more often than some people would like to admit. I would consider the labels unfortunate, except that any labels would soon develop the same or similar problems (see #5 below).

2. Thinkers are able to honestly recognize Feeler values in other people and adjust their actions accordingly. Given sufficient motivation (such as preserving a relationship that depends on it, or keeping one's job), Feelers are willing to put aside their distaste for disaffirmation to deal with uncomfortable truths. In neither case is that their respective preference.

3. Science and technology require an absolutely honest understanding of nature and physics, for which Thinker values work best. Educational institutions and the arts are more successful using Feeler values. Competitive activities like sports are more successful with an honest assessment of the competition and the factors that lead to excellence, which again favors Thinker values. Modern business is highly competitive, which dominates any relationship issues they might have with their employees and customers. Some customers will favor good business relationships (Feeler values), but most of them favor quality and price (driven by Thinker values). Democratic governments are sustained by good relationships with other politicians and voters; while the election process is often highly competitive, the relationship issues (Feeler values) tend to dominate political activity. This may not be the case in autocratic regimes, but I don't live under one, so I can't tell.

4. The global and American economy is driven by science and technology and modern business methods -- in other words, by Thinker values. Political and artistic considerations are not as significant as financial and technological issues for achieving wealth and power. This tends to give Thinkers a higher prestige status than Feelers in the public perception.

5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts. Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves.

6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too. There is a half-serious anonymous list of "The Guy's Rules" going around, one of which reads

If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the other one.
This is a good insight.
7. The American church (including the churches under its influence worldwide) is run by and for the exclusive benefit of Feelers. Thinkers are invited, but only if they agree to pretend to be Feelers. Some Thinkers succeed at the charade, most just stay away. Truth is, after all, their highest value. The Bible is more balanced, giving a slight preference to Thinker values, but an overwhelming preference to Truth over "relationship". The church power structure mostly ignores the Bible when promoting their Feeler values as "Christian".

8. Feelers believe it is important to say they love you, and to hear you say it to them, because that is affirming; Thinkers prefer to do loving things, and to see correspondence between the words and the deeds, because correspondence to reality is the test of truth.


Tom Pittman
1st draft 2007 March 24
Rev. 08 Feb 9, 09 Apr 30
Thinker-Feeler Differences
 
See less See more
#30 ·
I understand what you mean, when I first did the assessments a lot of the q.s. I kept thinking how I want to be or ought to be or have learnt to be, which is not the way to answer the questions!
What helps is not to be influenced by your environment or how you think people expect you to behave, but how you feel most comfortable and how you usually act or feel.

Ok, try this one, this one is different in that you can pick one or two choices out of the three. Remember to not answer what is expected of you, but how you USUALLY feel/act. (Don't think about what mood you're in now).

Discordia Inc. - Just who the HELL do you THINK you are?
(ignore that rude bit who the hell do you think you are lol)
 
#95 ·
Just tried it out now, really took advantage of being able to select multiple options. Cause really, each situation is different, you know? :)

I'm still an ISFP...and as expected I have a very high N too. Sensing was 10, Intuition was 9 lol.
 
#34 ·
Yeah, I'm definitely T, then. I prefer Truth and Justice, and as a result was sorely disappointed with the ending of The Lovely Bones, though I'm told the book is better. The point about religion was interesting. I remember starting to feel uncomfortable and skeptical in church at the age of 7 when I noticed everyone was droning along together and I couldn't figure out why. Who were they talking to? God. Why does he require them to speak on mass. He's hard of hearing. No he isn't, he probably has a million ears. Mommy, I just want to sit here and read...Though I am spiritual, mystical. I'm a pantheist. I believe that god is nature, particles, a disinterested yet loving entity made up of energy that sees time all at once from all perspectives. Course I don't know, but that's what I project onto the concept because I like that idea. I'm watching a Joseph Campbell documentary now.:wink:

Though, I do like hearing "I love you" repeated over and over and over again, but I like to see proof, ie. the deeds.

I've also noticed that when I do get emotional, it is rather primitive and I don't particularly understand it, though I am definitely pretty deep and sensitive. It's like Mark Twain said, 'All true emotions are involuntary." I tend to cry over anger caused by injustice, not sadness. Sometimes it comes out of the blue, when, rationally I don't know why the occurence warranted tears. I like crying. It's cathartic and mysterious. My emotions tend to be so all or nothing that they strike me as sublime, not gradual or spaced out over a reasonable period of time. And when I am in a bad mood, it doesn't last long. The storm is here, then it's over. Love is the only thing capable of making me really brood. I tend to get mad at myself when emotions make me irrational and I can't seem to trace their origin. The best emotions are caused by a mix of oxytocin and someone I really really like ;)
 
#38 ·
People who want facts can consult wikipedia.

People who want the perspective of human insight are free to consult with humans, who happen to have value systems which differ from each other- not making them wrong nor right, merely making them who they are.

Right and wrong are beside the point. Most people will realize, some taking longer than others, that more can be learned by asking someone a question to allow their intellect and emotions to develop than can be achieved through arguing. By stating our opinions we have not excluded the validity of every other person's opinion, we've merely shared our experiences as an offering to the rest of society- having little to no control whatsoever over what they will or won't do with it, how they will or won't understand it... A lot can be learned simply from asking someone WHY they feel a certain way and WHY the opinion(s) of someone else can offend them so much.

Freedom to agree or disagree and/or keep talking, either way. People are free to have their opinions of me, but it's not their opinions that dictate who I am- their opinions of me can only dictate who THEY are.

Like my mom has said, she would say 1 thing and each of her 8 children would hear something different and emotionally perceive it in a completely different way from their siblings and sometimes a completely different way from what she intended.

Disclaimers make everything take longer to say. Someone is always going to be offended, anyway. Can't make everyone happy, ya know [blah blah blah... disclaimers are for dummies].

I prefer Truth and Justice, and as a result was sorely disappointed with the ending of The Lovely Bones, though I'm told the book is better.
My ENFP S.O. also did not like the way the movie ended. When I explained to him from another perspective how it could be a kind of consolation- one way in which justice might eventually be dealt (reassurance to all the people in the audience with personal experiences who never got their sense of tangible justice) my S.O. still didn't like it, so I acknowledged his feelings and shared some of my own. My appeal to his understanding of how the things we don't know shouldn't ruin our personal lives and happiness so that we can move on regardless of doubt also didn't help him come to terms with the ending. I told him I'd rather be glad he isn't a parent who has lost a child in that manner who must suffer through not ever having finality.

I even brought into the discussion the concept of how it's messed up that a person will be accused and judged and sentenced for a crime they never committed while the true criminal is out there, unpunished- The family of the victim then feels a [misplaced] sense of justice and finality that is completely unrealistic even though "tangible" as they watch a person die from lethal injection whom they are convinced has wronged them. Does it matter that our sense of justice is superficially served or not if either way the wrong doer is inevitably punished in ways which we cannot even fathom? Meanwhile, guilty or innocent, punished or not -whether capital or by some force akin to karma- we've de-humanized that person to the point of our own self-destruction as individuals and as a species.

...and, anyway, how does that solve the bigger, more sinister problems of our society? how does that make us turn to our children and see the potential in them to become monsters in the scenario that we don't nurture and teach them sufficiently to not allow that to be their fate of monster nor victim? at what point does suffering no longer teach us anything? at what point must we stop hiding from the suffering we pretend we don't feel which has been eating away at who we once were- so that we can stop harming ourselves and others to instead give expression to our own pain in a healing way and move on?

I still don't know if he understood what I was trying to communicate to him... When I watch a film, I always ask myself why a director or screen-writer did things a certain way, and though not 100% certain I can still find possible meanings in whatever direction the film was taken to help me understand what that personal message could have been, or else the film won't have much personal significance for me to draw upon now or later in my life.

I see the T vs. F to be quite a bit more complicated than I can grasp, which is why I keep trying to understand both the contrast and the shared human condition. I see it as one or the other being a starting point for an individual's growth until we can meet somewhere in the middle with accommodations made that don't require a person to go to extremes. There should be a balance between them, not disparity.
 
#40 ·
1. The labels "Thinker" and "Feeler" are not descriptive of what those people do. Thinkers are not smarter than Feelers, nor are Feelers more sensitive. Thinkers have feelings, and Feelers are able to reason logically. The fundamental difference is the values they hold in highest esteem: Thinkers give priority to Truth and Justice; Feelers give priority to Relationships and affirmation. That's the only difference, and it only applies when truth and affirmation are at odds, which tends to be more often than some people would like to admit. I would consider the labels unfortunate, except that any labels would soon develop the same or similar problems (see #5 below).

2. Thinkers are able to honestly recognize Feeler values in other people and adjust their actions accordingly. Given sufficient motivation (such as preserving a relationship that depends on it, or keeping one's job), Feelers are willing to put aside their distaste for disaffirmation to deal with uncomfortable truths. In neither case is that their respective preference.

3. Science and technology require an absolutely honest understanding of nature and physics, for which Thinker values work best. Educational institutions and the arts are more successful using Feeler values. Competitive activities like sports are more successful with an honest assessment of the competition and the factors that lead to excellence, which again favors Thinker values. Modern business is highly competitive, which dominates any relationship issues they might have with their employees and customers. Some customers will favor good business relationships (Feeler values), but most of them favor quality and price (driven by Thinker values). Democratic governments are sustained by good relationships with other politicians and voters; while the election process is often highly competitive, the relationship issues (Feeler values) tend to dominate political activity. This may not be the case in autocratic regimes, but I don't live under one, so I can't tell.

4. The global and American economy is driven by science and technology and modern business methods -- in other words, by Thinker values. Political and artistic considerations are not as significant as financial and technological issues for achieving wealth and power. This tends to give Thinkers a higher prestige status than Feelers in the public perception.

5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts. Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves.

6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too. There is a half-serious anonymous list of "The Guy's Rules" going around, one of which reads

If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the other one.
This is a good insight.
7. The American church (including the churches under its influence worldwide) is run by and for the exclusive benefit of Feelers. Thinkers are invited, but only if they agree to pretend to be Feelers. Some Thinkers succeed at the charade, most just stay away. Truth is, after all, their highest value. The Bible is more balanced, giving a slight preference to Thinker values, but an overwhelming preference to Truth over "relationship". The church power structure mostly ignores the Bible when promoting their Feeler values as "Christian".

8. Feelers believe it is important to say they love you, and to hear you say it to them, because that is affirming; Thinkers prefer to do loving things, and to see correspondence between the words and the deeds, because correspondence to reality is the test of truth.


Tom Pittman
1st draft 2007 March 24
Rev. 08 Feb 9, 09 Apr 30
Thinker-Feeler Differences
I do agree with the statement about since it has been a long time unable to understand myself.
 
#43 ·
The simple answer IMO is that thinkers take more of an impersonal approach whereas feelers give way more of an importance to personal considerations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neon Knight
#44 ·
Thanks guys :)

I guess the question I should ask now is, is it possible for someone to switch gears temporarily as long as the stress or depression lasts and not entire types, under stress/anxiety or in depression? Or might that have more to do with personality?
 
#45 ·
It's important to note that thinking dominant people have feelings and feeling dominants think rationally. What matters is where those judging functions are diverted.

An ESFJ appears to be feeler on the outside due to Fe and likes it that way. Most rational thinking is done internally (Ti) since Fe is the dominant or supporting function of this type, however he or she may feel a bit awkward with Ti because it's his or her inferior function. Just like the INTP has feelings but finds connecting to other people on a more personal level awkward.

ESTPs, think rationally, but all of this is done internally. I know an ESTP. He projects more his subjective opinions than he does his logical world. In fact, hardly anyone knows about his analytical abilities.
 
#47 ·
5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts. Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves.
I don't lie about what I see as central core values for myself and others. I don't wish to imagine myself as a thinker, I just think that being a feeler doesn't necessarily mean I can be more irrational than most thinkers.

6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too.
Uhm..not really



8. Feelers believe it is important to say they love you, and to hear you say it to them, because that is affirming; Thinkers prefer to do loving things, and to see correspondence between the words and the deeds, because correspondence to reality is the test of truth.
It's not that we don't value correspondence to reality. Huh? Why that implication?

For example, I just think that if an experience was ever highly subjective, personal, beautiful to me alone I don't need to seek outside validation for it. I believe in moderation. Finding my balance when it comes to separating certain aspects of my personal life and connections to the outside world does not mean I am removed from reality. I am not removed from reality, I am very much in touch with the outside world, it just happens that I place a rather intense value on emotions and subjective meanings in ways that a lot of people may not be able to understand.

Alongside that value, we just happen to interpret certain truths and importance of human nature very quickly in our abstract thinking, and of course we'd be stereotyped as irrational, because certain people just need to see 'concrete proof' in everything. Just accept that our thinking processes are different, and it is no mark of either superiority or inferiority, okay?
 
#49 ·
> Thinkers give priority to Truth and Justice; Feelers give priority to Relationships and affirmation.

I strongly disagree with this.

Truth and Justice are Fi values, Relationships and affirmation are Fe values.

Or, in other words, these are Ji vs Je values, not T vs F.

(Unless I'm a T and I don't know it ..)

I think for Fs, specially NFs, they see the "heart vs mind" as a false dichotomy. Whereas Ts (whether NT or ST) see it as a real dichotomy.

I personally think the "heart vs mind" is a false dichotomy, and I think ultimately this is why I'm setteled on myself being an F.

> Science and technology require an absolutely honest understanding of nature and physics, for which Thinker values work best.

Fs can easily work in science and technology; specially NFs.
 
#72 ·
haha, it's kinda amusing to look at what I wrote when I thought I was INFP.

So, apparently Truth and Justice really are T things after all.

Unfortunately now I don't quite understand what the T/F distinction is all about.

I can understand how a sensor can be irrational (xSFx types). My gramma is ESFJ and she sucks at logic and it's very obvious (to me anyway). Though I'm not sure if it's her type or her old age :p

But how can a person be iNtuitive, see the big picture, see the concepts and ideas and theories .. and yet suck at logic? How does that work?

What is it like to be an INFP? To have a big Ne, but a very small Te .. what is that like?

I guess what I don't understand is, why would anyone suck at logic? Specially if they have a big N function! How?
 
#50 ·
the difference between a thinker and a feeler is not a difference between logic and emotion. it is a difference between making decisions based on interpreted facts (i.e things that the thinker believes to be the truth) versus making decisions based upon ethics (i.e morals/beliefs, things that the feeler believes to be right).
 
#51 ·
I don't wish to imagine myself to be a Thinker, and I honestly wish more Thinkers would admit that they Feel.

I also disagree with the assertion that Feelers want to hear you say that they love you and Thinkers want to act with loving deeds. I'm sorry, but where did you get that?

There are five "love languages" and quite a few Feelers have Physical Touch as their first love language, and it's not unusual for some Feelers (most usually SFJs, probably) to have Acts of Service as their primary love language. Quality Time also tends to rank pretty high up for many feelers. Words of Affirmation actually hovers toward the bottom for me, as I understand that any jerk can say he loves me and not mean it (including Thinker jerks :wink:).

The American church is run for the exclusive benefit of Feelers? I don't think so. First of all, there isn't one American church. While grass-roots evangelical fundamentalist churches might appeal more to Feelers, there are certainly Feelers who reject those sorts of churches, and plenty of Thinkers who belong to the Catholic church.

Overall your list is pretty good, but there are also some ridiculous generalizations.
 
#52 ·
The longer I think about this subject the more convinced I am that the F/T thing is bunk. Thinkers feel, so it is illogical to devalue emotion. Thinkers being 'logical', therefore, denotes that they will not fail to consider their own (and other people's) emotions, given emotion's value to human life. Even the most robotic human being in the world lives their life hoping to have pleasant feelings (whether this is from taking apart a radio, driving a race car, eating ice cream, winning a chess match, falling in love or dying in their sleep- to name a few examples). Also, the objective standards Thinkers are supposedly holding to are- what? Factual and Incorrect? What about social issues- I know just from being on this forum plenty of Thinkers have opinions on social issues- but these are humanistic concerns (you know, 'for the good of mankind' stuff). Considering this, that means Thinkers can also be moralists. But that is very, very close to idealism. Especially if you start calling it: Truth and Justice. (Which even the OP referred to as a set of standards Thinkers are prone to). But it is the Feeler who is supposed to be idealistic, the Feeler who is supposed to be concerned with humanism. Speaking of Feelers: everyone knows that Feelers think. Since Feelers think, that means a Feeler's ideas are influenced not only by emotion, but by logic as well. If this is true, that means they could very well resemble the most logical breed of Thinker (a person who is logical enough to not forget that they are human.)

Besides, I see more than just Feelers getting upset at each other on here. So they don't have a monopoly on being reactionary, either.

I am convinced: the F/T distinction is NOT as important as I thought to begin with.
 
#53 ·
I have strong spiritual experiences fairly often (some of them rather "ecstatic") and I use Fe dominantly. I do enjoy the community of a church (which is why I joined a Unitarian Universalist Church recently), but I also have intense spiritual experiences. Maybe that's more using my Ni as they are more direct experiences before I assign them value?
 
#54 ·
Great thread.. after taking a few tests and also the test for cognitive development, I'm still not convinced with myself being INTJ. I often see myself as an INTJ with more developed feelings or just an overthinking INTJ. Is it right to say that it is more a preference when it comes to using Te or feelings when it comes down to cognitive functions?
 
#55 ·
"Thinkers prefer to do loving things, and to see correspondence between the words and the deeds, because correspondence to reality is the test of truth. "

That is a judgment? :p
 
#57 ·
Thinkers don't think about their own self growth as much as feelers.

Therefore they don't understand themselves as much.

Therefore they don't trust as much of intense feelings as feelers do.

Therefore T/s experience more emotional stability with a constant "flow" emotion often created from objective puzzling,

where as F's experience more highs and lows, which actually can be sustained through objectivity.

The T's are more external I suppose.

It is not about valueing relationships or truth or justice as you say in point 1.

It is that thinkers don't trust intense emotions for a source of information, and consider it a distraction, where as feelers don't.

Since feelers therefore end up feeling intense emotions more, and if those emotions happen to be love, etc... then they will tend to be better with empathy, and therefore might focus on relationships with people more than T's. But that isn't always the case.
 
#60 ·
Thinkers don't think about their own self growth as much as feelers.

Therefore they don't understand themselves as much.
Self-awareness does not depend on whether you are a thinker or a feeler. I'd argue that self-growth means something different or is dealt with differently by thinker but is still important.

Therefore they don't trust as much of intense feelings as feelers do.
This is not a logical consequence of self-awareness. You can understand yourself very well and still decide that feelings are secondary.


The T's are more external I suppose.
Again, I guess this is more about being an introvert / extravert than a thinker or feeler. It may also differ between individuals.
It is that thinkers don't trust intense emotions for a source of information, and consider it a distraction, where as feelers don't.

Since feelers therefore end up feeling intense emotions more, and if those emotions happen to be love, etc... then they will tend to be better with empathy, and therefore might focus on relationships with people more than T's. But that isn't always the case.
Thinkers don't act on emotions most of the time, they favour thinking over feeling. However, they can and do have intense emotions, it is more of an individual thing than a type thing really. Not expressing them or acting on them does not mean that you are not feeling them.

Empathy tends to be a Fi thing (sympathy tends to be a Fe thing) but it is true that Fi/Fe dom (or aux) will often be better at both than thinkers.


The real main difference is how you tend to deal with life or are more comfortable with. Head or heart (logic, efficiency, morality, etc.). The rest varies greatly from an individual to another. Some thinkers are not really logical because they did not really developped their skills or didn't have access to the right education. Some feelers are. Some feelers are very self-unaware and self-absorbed, other aren't.

We are just more or less balanced, mature or able to use our skills.

Also, we need to take into consideration other functions when speaking about those differences because the way one deals with their head or heart also depends on the rest.

[By the way, if spirituality is a Fi thing, then I shouldn't be an INTP and yet I am.]
 
#59 ·
a strongly Feeling-oriented friend and I were walking towards our building at work. a guy passed us on a cycle quite fast. - the approach was a steep sloping road. just as he crossed us, he got a call on his mobile so he whipped it out and started talking without sounding breathless or fatigued.

me: <aloud> wow, he's fit. good stamina. <thinking to self> i need to work on my exercising routine.
feeler: yeah, just look at him! now i can totally imagine him literally sweeping a girl off her feet and carrying her.

i have been chuckling about this for a month now. and i still experience a feeling of mild disbelief that that was her spontaneous and only reaction!
 
#63 ·
I see two flaws in your analysis:

1. You take no consideration of Fi vs Fe and Ti vs Te, which are very different functions.
2. You take no consideration of the perceiving functions, which have just as much to do with decision-making as the judging functions.

I also strongly disagree with 4. I mostly disagree with 5, 6, and 7. 8 demonstrates the first flaw. I can elaborate if you really wish.
 
#64 ·
i think feelers tend to give more weight on interaction, even though they are introverts.or you just can feel a feeler, they will be more 'there' when you talk to them. but they are as annoying as a thinker, because they will found a personal angle in every thing you are saying(if you are searching for advice, for example). they have to, thats the only way other people will feel affirm and connected.will spend more time trying to understand and heal.
when thinker will probably just blab about the conclution, or a way to solve the problem.
feelers will have more integrity, look more 'pride' then thinkers. thinkers will just be plain silly, because logically they think 'who needs to be fake'. in my opinion, feelers are more proud of their accomplishment, grateful. thats why they fit into religious direction. when thinkers will just search for a leap to improve, never will be satisfied. they wont be very grateful of what God has given due to the never ending drive of competence and understanding.
thats the overall i think, but if you really want to determine if this person a feeler or a thinker, just talk to them. you can sense it insteadly.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top