Personality Cafe banner

T vs. F

78K views 121 replies 64 participants last post by  Stevester 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
I think most cognitive function descriptions are vague and too abstract. I have been doing some research on the differences between thinking and feeling functions, and I came across this interesting article from http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/function.htm I am pasting fragments that I thought were really insightful, you can read the entire articule in the link



I stress that the “Feeling” function is generally poorly understood (as is iNtuition). This function is used for judging/reasoning. It is not the same as “emotions”. Instead, it interprets and assigns qualities or values of perceptions on a subjective basis. For example, if you are near an electrical power generation device that emits a large electromagnetic field and you subjectively experienced (feel) a “tingling” in your stomach, the skin and hair on your arms tingles, a light headedness in your brain and you attempted to interpret these sensations and convey them to someone is this “irrational”? Is it an “emotion”? Of course not, it’s simply difficult to describe to others using objective language. This function is used to discern variances in perceptions and to change your point of view. This function is appropriate for use in the area of ethics, musical and artistic expression as well as fictional literature. Here is Katherine Benziger's clarification on the feeling function,
The Physiology of Jung’s Four Functions & Their Organization
By Katherine Benziger, Ph.D., © March 1998; September 1999
"The difference between the Feeling Function and Emotions can be understood more clearly. The Feeling Function is a cortical capacity to recognize the presence or absence of harmony – between colors, tones, or human beings. By contrast, emotions are a limbic capacity to experience delight, anger, fear, grief."
For an explanation of the source of our most aggressive emotions (instinctive behaviors) you may wish to consider Dr. Paul MacLeans Triune Brain Theory. I elaborate more on this theory here.

“His Triune Brain Theory, based on an evolutionary model of the brain, proposes the idea that the human brain is really three brains in one. The R-Complex is similar to the brain of reptiles, in that it controls basic, instinctive survival thinking and behavior. The limbic system, which is similar to that of lower mammals, seems to be the source of emotions, some aspects of personal identity, and some critically important memory functions. The third and outer formation of the brain, called the neocortex, like the brain of higher mammals, is devoted to higher order thinking skills, reason, linguistic expression, and verbal memory.”

Discussion of Topic


Below is a portion of an exchange on the judging functions between myself and an individual who identifies themselves as a 'young INTP'.
"Hello Glen, I am a young INTP, and I found your site very useful with regards to self-development. ...For the most part, I have been trying to develop a theory of the differences of internal thought, and how (and which) ideas manifest themselves to different people."
- , Thu, 31 Jul 2003
For your theory may I suggest creating a model of the brain, distinguishing and associating thoughts and behaviors with the different regions of the brain. For the model I recommend incorporating not only Benziger, Jung and the Meyer-Briggs work but also the Triune Brain theory from Paul D. MacLean, and Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I find Maslow’s hierarchy fits perfectly with MacLean’s model. I cite various sources on my KnowYourself page. I think those references will give you a workable ‘big picture’ from there you could isolate and associate individual physiological structures and their functions, e.g. thalamus, Hippocampus, etc.
"I'm also interested in re-defining the functions. I do not think that Feeling is necessarily related to people, but rather it is useful for reading peoples' tone of voice, subtle facial expression, etc."

I certainly agree with you when you say, “the feeling function is not necessarily associated with people.” It is on it’s own a rational judging function which evaluates (organizes/qualifies/quantifies, etc.) perceptual data just as the thinking function does but using different rules and criteria. Because of the confusion inherent in the terms Thinking and Feeling, (after all, all four functions are parts of “thinking”) and Feeling is obviously too often confused with emotion, I prefer the terms objective and subjective reasoning. While even those terms could be seen as misleading, I think they’re an improvement.
"It has nothing at all to do with being nice to them, or knowing how to help them. I'm not very far yet, so I could change my ideas around again."
-, Thu, 31 Jul 2003
Well that depends on what you mean by “knowing how to help them”. You have to remember that humans are not purely rational logical constructs, we are also animals (limbic system and r-complex). If we were based solely on logic we would not be human and what it means to be human. We would not have the perspective or drive to discover our purpose that we do. Your comment reminds me of an example I use to distinguish T& F. This scenario happens all the time so it’s easy to find examples. Suppose you have a couple, one with dominant T and one with dominant F. The dominant F comes home stressed and upset after a difficult day at work. The T spouse sees the F slam their keys down and asks what’s wrong? The F proceeds to emotionally declare how horrible their boss is and the argument they got into. The T asks for details of the disagreement and then proceeds to calmly explain what the F did wrong that brought about their bosses involvement. The F is now shocked and really upset and asks T, “why are you siding with my boss?” F goes to the bedroom and slams the door. The T is confused and does not understand why the F got so upset when they were so close to solving the problem that caused the bosses involvement. Identifying this problem is obviously necessary so that the same or a similar problem can be avoided in the future. Of course the T is correct but they applied this strategy at a time when the F was in an entirely different state of mind. The F was in an agitated and emotional state. The limbic system was most likely fairly active, stress hormones were probably elevated, and it’s possible likely the individual knew they had made a mistake and were already internalizing the knowledge. The individual was clearly not in a state where they wanted to be told they screwed up. What they wanted/needed was reassurance and comfort not criticism, however constructive. Everyone needs external confirmation of their worth, some need more than others, and people need it most when they feel the most threatened. The T failed to fully comprehend the emotional state of F. There were of course signs the T may have seen but they applied little or no value to them. Another F dominant would have applied much higher value to these signals and because of their familiarity with the emotional state would have been able to empathize. T was cold and analytical when they should have been comforting, reassuring and supportive. Later when F was in a calmer, more rational state of mind, knowing they are indeed valuable and valued by others, would it be appropriate to discuss the objective issues.

Both objective and subjective reasoning can be used in any arena from human interaction to cosmology. However, selective application of each, to problems best suited to the rules and criteria of each will result in the greatest efficiency and clarity. To try to simply describe differences between T and F, I often describe T as ‘thinking in probabilities’ and F as ‘thinking in degrees’. For an example of how they can both be used but one is more appropriate than the other I suggest describing your love for someone in terms of probabilities. Even the question seems absurd, as the answer would likely be either 0 or 100%. Instead if you think in terms of ‘degrees’ this seems to make perfect sense and you can likely recall poems which strive to describe this condition with more appropriate terminology, e.g.
Sonnets from the Portuguese: 43
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of every day's
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints, -- I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! -- and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
- Elizabeth Barrett Browning
"I'm also interested in re-defining the functions. I do not think that Feeling is necessarily related to people, but rather it is useful for reading peoples' tone of voice, subtle facial expression, etc. It has nothing at all to do with being nice to them, or knowing how to help them. I'm not very far yet, so I could change my ideas around again."
-
To further elaborate on why the Feeling function is often confused with emotion I think it’s important to emphasize my prior comment about why in human interaction someone with dominant F would unconsciously assign more value to perceptual stimuli than someone with dominant T. I haven’t researched it but I think it’s likely the posterior quadrants (cortical convexity or sensory lobes) of the neo-cortex are more physically integrated with the structures of the limbic system then are the frontal lobes. I assume this because of my generalized view of brain evolution and what little I know of the differences between various species. Very simply, large frontal lobes are extremely rare but all mammals and most other species have the sensory lobes (as well as limbic structures and r-complex). And obviously the relative cortical efficiency plays a large role. So with these assumptions, it should not be difficult to see why someone with dominant (100% most efficient) F would place more value on identifying and associating perceptual evidence with particular emotional states. The T dominant may recognize some of these signals but they apply little value to them personally (subjectively). Even if a T dominant has a career where they study these states, they often apply objective values (scores) to the evidence and more rarely associate them subjectively. Additionally, in emotionally charged situations a T dominant will find it easier to disassociate (detach) the signals then someone with F dominance. It’s completely natural even automatic for an F dominant to unconsciously empathize with another’s emotional state. Because of this unconscious proclivity the F dominant must make a conscious effort to objectify the facts and issues involved if they wish to disassociate themselves.

The Triune Brain theory is valuable in helping one distinguish between the products of the neo-cortex and those of the older brain structures. Prior to my enlightenment I hadn’t considered the theory itself but I did effectively reach the same conclusions by examining some of my own emotional (instinctual) response to several situations. I can recall two specific situations distinctly. One was when I posted several of my own personal observations on the INTJ open club and several of the observations were critically attacked. I had an instinctive response (a feeling) that I was personally being attacked. Since there was no reason I had to respond to the challenges right away I decided I would wait and consider the points being addressed. I thought (correctly) that by distancing myself from my initial reaction I could examine his points more objectively.

Because I had a reasonably good understanding of the differences and qualities of INTJs and INTPs I realized that what the INTJ was doing was not attacking me but instead attacking what he saw as logical errors in my statements. He was targeting errors in reason and not trying to hurt me. I used this understanding to create a distinction between the ideas (my thoughts) I had proposed with who I was as a person. I then saw what he was compelled to do as an INTJ was a distinct skill I could use to help me understand my views from his perspective. Something similar might be asking someone to proofread something you wrote. You might not notice your writing is difficult to understand because you failed to explain something you unconsciously thought was obvious.

In some of the points he was making I could see the differences in our perspectives were based more on semantics and differences in base assumptions. INTPs have a tendency to make claims that appear to be unsupported by the circumstances because we often base them on conclusions we had reached previously. However, because these unstated assumptions are not apparent to the other party subsequent claims appear unfounded. An INTP must remain cognizant of these differences when communicating with other types. (Of course other types do this as well but the claims INTPs make are often rather complex and controversial.)

The other situation involved a bout with infatuation (a.k.a. falling in love). Because I recognized my behavior was completely irrational I looked at it as a form of ‘drug poisoning’. I did a little reading and discovered the isolated chemical responsible is phenylethylamine or PEA. After objectifying the condition I was able to overcome it’s affects which is fortunate as the feelings were not mutual. This experience gave me the insight necessary to understand how ‘nature’ regulates behavior in animals that do not have such a well-developed neo-cortex. I realized what we objectively describe as ‘instinctual behavior’ in other animals we subjective understand as ‘emotions’ when we experience it. Which means of course that animals have feelings.

So apparently, according to the author of the article, feeling is not about emotion, but about judging the world subjectively. How do you feelers relate to this? How do you experience your feeling functions? Can someone be a feeler and be mean because his subjectivity directs them towards cruelty?
 
See less See more
1
#109 ·
Ti dom/aux user are often paired with Fe to a certain degree. If their Fe is somewhat developed, that would explain the superficial warmness.

In reality? Internally, at unhealthy stages, Ti can be the most self-destructive function due to internalized systems and logic, causing unspoken criticism, both to people and oneself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OP
#113 ·
Feelers have a nasty habit of twisting facts around so that they'll be happy or at least ''okay'' with them. Which yes, in many cases can come off as irrational or down right stupid. i.e. ''No way my husband would ever cheat on me. We spent 50k on our wedding ceremony, he would never throw this away for 2 minutes of sleazy sex with a stranger....'' and then comes the paramount of F types: ''I know it in my heart....'' no logical data necessary, because it threatens their happiness and stuff.

Meanwhile Thinkers are utterly convinced they are right about everything. I challenge you to find a T type who doesn't think they're a know-it-all in casual arguments and gracefully accepts being corrected on a regular basis. When T types do get challenged or realize they are wrong, they typically become argumentative and arrogant, instead of letting their ego take a tiny hit, learning from it and growing as a part of it. More mature ones do, but then more mature feelers will face ugly truths and deal with them.

But in both cases these are examples of stupidity, so no, I never once equated T and F to intelligence.
 
#114 ·
I am sure I am a tert Fi user, but Te is aux. From what I can tell, F users give more importance to the emotional effects of a situation rather than the reality of a situation; the effects are the reality, where T searches for the reality apart from those effects.

For example, a toddler runs by and pushes another toddler over accidently. The F toddler that was pushed will not be consoled if they are told it was an accident - the hurt feelings and surprise from the push are felt all the same, and that is what matters. The toddler would be consoled by having those feelings validated, and once this is done, they can accept the intent was not malicious and view the wider context. The problem of the offender is based directly on their effect, with the cause a secondary concern (same could go for witnessing another toddler pushed). The T toddler first requires knowing why the push occurred outside of their personal experience. The problem of the offender would be directed at how the offense occurred instead of the effects, such as a lack of carefulness. The effect is informed by the cause. This is a rudimentary example, just to give a sense of how I am interpreting decision making based on F vs. T.

I don't think one is better than the other in this example. Should the pushed F toddler be told not to cry because it was an accident? Does the T toddler diminish themselves by evaluating their feelings based on the cause of the situation?

With characteristic Fi self referencing, I tried to think of a time where I believed my feelings about a situation were more important than what actually happened - and, at least if this trail of thought goes anywhere, I found I can come at the world with that perspective when attempts to understand the situation any other way fail.

I have experiences which moved me so much, that any context given that would contradict and therefore render that movement invalid is unacceptable, and so outright rejected. It is not because the I don't believe the potential for an alternative view isn't there, but that I don't assign it any importance.

Maybe this is more of an Fi phenomenon than Fe.

Does this make any sense? I don't like my use of the words "cause" or "effect" but I cannot find better terms at the moment.
 
#116 ·
I think the huge gaping hole in a lot of people's understanding of personality theory is that neither T nor F is a complete perspective. Nor is anyone person capable of having a complete perspective, ever. Comparing T and F for the purpose of understanding them better is good. However, if you inherently believe one to be better than the other, you are confused. Every single cognitive function can be expressed in negative, damaging ways. It's not a T or an F thing to be a toxic, negative presence in people's lives so using negative examples from your experience to define the functionality is close minded and inaccurate.

Also, 'feelers' aren't dictated by emotion. All types can be prone to emotional outbursts when they feel the things they value are being ignored or pushed to the side, or if they're just plain unhealthy. Feelers just place more importance on emotional perspectives.

If T is logical, F is subjective. T is black/white and contrast, F is shades of grey and comparison. F and T thinking produce two very unique perspectives that are equally as valuable to the million different facets of society that keep it moving forward.
 
#120 ·
This is neat, I love how it includes a real example in it. it helps my understanding far more than a lot of abstract function descriptions i see scattered all over the place lol
 
#121 ·
Hold on, if F is subjective and T is objective...
And i is subjective and e is objective...
Does that make Fi extremely subjective and Te extremely objective?
I guess you could view it that way, actually.
 
#122 ·
All introverted functions are subjective because they come within the individual and all extroverted functions are objective because they come from outside data.

I agree those definitions are a bit loose because yes, we've heard many times that emotions are subjective and facts are objective and we attach facts to thinking. It just doesn't work like that in Jungian psychology.

See it more as extroverted functions are policies and introverted functions are your opinions on said policies.
 
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