Personality Cafe banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A lot of people are way off on their view of F or T.

They say F cries all day, and T is heartless.

Um, no.

I think both types experimeve the same strength of emotion, but their perspectives are different.

Scenario: An adult woman has an adult brother. The woman is single and has a young child. She has a very well paying job.
The brother is unemployed, disabled, lives in poverty but wants to spend time with his nephew and says especially since his dad isn't involved, he would like to step in a male figure.

The woman won't let her brother take the child to an activity, unless he pays for it. Her logic is "You don't have to take him to a circus or someplace that costs money. You could take him someplace that is free. It's not fair that I should spend money on him so you can take him."

The brother says, "You're right."

He is a Fi-Dom. He values her personal perspective.


Me as a Ti-Dom says the woman is absolutely wrong. I feel sad and angry about it. I value the PRINCIPLES of compassion. I don't care about her personal feelings about fairness. I care about the PRINCIPLES of fairness and of compassion for others. She is selfish and greedy and doesn't care about her brother or her son's happiness, only her own and her growing bank account.

What do YOU think?

This may be an example of how F cares about the individual's feelings, while T cares about the overacrhing principles. Both experience the same intense emotions either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
I guess I'd have to let life teach it's own lessons.

If my kid wants to hang out with my deadbeat brother, that's cool, but my kid will also gain an understanding that because his uncle does not have a job, he really can't take him to Universal Studios or anything like that. Expensive activities are expensive.

I would hope that they have a decent enough relationship that just spending time together would be enough.

And yeah, if I'm gonna spend money on my son, I'm going to be there so I can enjoy it with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sensational

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Interesting.

So maybe I'm wrong, it's not a Ti-dom pattern.

I have emapthy for others. I also know that there are other reasons for being unemployed in this present economy besides being a deadbeat. And I value that a person wants to stand in as responsible for another person's kid, to make him feel cared about by a male figure since his dad abandoned him, as more important of a life lesson than how much money a person makes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
Interesting.

So maybe I'm wrong, it's not a Ti-dom pattern.

I have emapthy for others. I also know that there are other reasons for being unemployed in this present economy besides being a deadbeat. And I value that a person wants to stand in as responsible for another person's kid, to make him feel cared about by a male figure since his dad abandoned him, as more important of a life lesson than how much money a person makes.
You're a good man. I applaud you for your insightful kindness.

The world probably needs more like you, and less like me, but hey, we all have our uses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks.

Part of the reason also, is an awareness of how selfish I would look if I were in the mother's shoes. I would be embarassed for acting that cheap and not helping my family. It's like she's showing the ugly part of her soul, but isn't ashamed.
 

·
Registered
isxp cp684
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
that's really an unusual scenario, at least in my family. My cousins grew up as my siblings; we lived in the same house and even shared parents so it's odd for me to think that the person taking us out wouldn't be financially responsible for us at that point in time

though it's an interesting point to make. still, I think it shows more about individual background than Ti or Fi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
A lot of people are way off on their view of F or T.

They say F cries all day, and T is heartless.

Um, no.

I think both types experimeve the same strength of emotion, but their perspectives are different.

Scenario: An adult woman has an adult brother. The woman is single and has a young child. She has a very well paying job.
The brother is unemployed, disabled, lives in poverty but wants to spend time with his nephew and says especially since his dad isn't involved, he would like to step in a male figure.

The woman won't let her brother take the child to an activity, unless he pays for it. Her logic is "You don't have to take him to a circus or someplace that costs money. You could take him someplace that is free. It's not fair that I should spend money on him so you can take him."

The brother says, "You're right."

He is a Fi-Dom. He values her personal perspective.


Me as a Ti-Dom says the woman is absolutely wrong. I feel sad and angry about it. I value the PRINCIPLES of compassion. I don't care about her personal feelings about fairness. I care about the PRINCIPLES of fairness and of compassion for others. She is selfish and greedy and doesn't care about her brother or her son's happiness, only her own and her growing bank account.

What do YOU think?

This may be an example of how F cares about the individual's feelings, while T cares about the overacrhing principles. Both experience the same intense emotions either way.
What a curiously specific scenario.

a) Don't say "you're right" unless you agree, or you've lost the right to argue your point. "I think I see what you mean, but..." is a better answer.
b) Do you really have all data? Could it, for example, be that she isn't completely sure about the market where she works, and that she's using her well-paid job to create a buffer of money to use in case of emergency? May it be that she has a higher level of expenses to cover with her higher income? Or may it simply be that she doesn't want to spend buffer money on activities she deems not to be worth the cost? Could the other part of the equation be modified too? Perhaps, as Ik3 suggested, the brother in the example actually could work if he wanted to even though he's got a disability of some sort. Or perhaps the sister knows something about him that you don't.

I think, since you asked the question, that you've put up a scenario that isn't nuanced enough. There's simply not enough data to properly evaluate any of the people in the example, nor their motivations for acting as they do.
I as a Ti-dom say that your example is Broken As Designed, and if it's based on a real-life situation I'm a bit disappointed in you for lashing out in third person on a public forum as an alleged Ti-dom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
A lot of people are way off on their view of F or T.

They say F cries all day, and T is heartless.

Um, no.

I think both types experimeve the same strength of emotion, but their perspectives are different.

Scenario: An adult woman has an adult brother. The woman is single and has a young child. She has a very well paying job.
The brother is unemployed, disabled, lives in poverty but wants to spend time with his nephew and says especially since his dad isn't involved, he would like to step in a male figure.

The woman won't let her brother take the child to an activity, unless he pays for it. Her logic is "You don't have to take him to a circus or someplace that costs money. You could take him someplace that is free. It's not fair that I should spend money on him so you can take him."

The brother says, "You're right."

He is a Fi-Dom. He values her personal perspective.


Me as a Ti-Dom says the woman is absolutely wrong. I feel sad and angry about it. I value the PRINCIPLES of compassion. I don't care about her personal feelings about fairness. I care about the PRINCIPLES of fairness and of compassion for others. She is selfish and greedy and doesn't care about her brother or her son's happiness, only her own and her growing bank account.

What do YOU think?

This may be an example of how F cares about the individual's feelings, while T cares about the overacrhing principles. Both experience the same intense emotions either way.
Sorry Just to clarify what is upsetting to you? that the brother won't get to play the father figure, or that the mother won't pay for their trip to have fun? or both? Or to you are they one and the same? you say she is wrong, on what issue exactly if you don't mind.
 

·
Electronica Wizard
ISFP
Joined
·
6,709 Posts
What I can see of the mother is that she is being resentful towards her brother that her hard-earned money should be given to him so that he could bond with his nephew instead of her with her son. It's more than the matter of money. It's deeper than that. It's like the uncle has a free golden ticket to happiness whereas she has to slave her day away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ik3

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
I also agree that there isn't enough information, however given just what's in the picture and taking it at face value, it's her money and she can do what she wants. How's that for principles? Live and let live. I'm not going to get angry at a single dad who won't pay for me to take his kids somewhere it doesn't matter how much he makes. It's none of my business.
If I cared about the KIDS I would take them somewhere free, or even just help them with their homework. If I cared about THE EVENT or THE MONEY then I would get angry. See how that works?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
A lot of people are way off on their view of F or T.

They say F cries all day, and T is heartless.

Um, no.

I think both types experimeve the same strength of emotion, but their perspectives are different.

Scenario: An adult woman has an adult brother. The woman is single and has a young child. She has a very well paying job.
The brother is unemployed, disabled, lives in poverty but wants to spend time with his nephew and says especially since his dad isn't involved, he would like to step in a male figure.
Honestly, I'm a nephew, brother, and an uncle. I have friends that have kids, some without father figures and some with. I can actually see where the woman is coming from in this situation. What the mother does with her money is her prerogative and her business. Spending time with a kid doesn't have to be something fanciful.

Going to the circus won't make you anymore of a male figure than going to the park and watching him/her play. The way how I feel if you want to step up and be that guy, then you should do it in your own way. Save up money for it, and then go when and where you can, research stuff that you can do, budget and set aside the time for it. It won't matter and honestly depending on how old the kid is just having an adult to hang around that isn't mom or dad would be cool enough.

I was never fond of fishing, or going to the circus honestly. I had more fun memories with my step dad just playing games together. That was a helluva lot more fun. It never cost him a thing to sit down and just play with me outside of his time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,421 Posts
Here I copied and pasted a brief part of my discussion in that was in CT section.

I was answering a question on what I value... Because I answered any concern for humans someone generation Z questioned whther I was a feeler automatically.

As seen here....
are you a feeler? Or is your Fe well-developed?
Um I guess I am confused why because I value....
Courtesy, random acts of kindness, not trespassing onto others beliefs, considerate tactic.
That it would make me a feeler. Being conscious of others is not what a feeler is. Theres a lot of feelers that are pricks actually. Being unconcerned with others does not make someone a thinker.

Anyways I am not a bleeding heart in the sense that you may get. I have emotions because all humans have emotions (except socio paths). I do have an extremely generous heart yes. But it does not come before what I see as the greater good, big picture, or principle of a matter. In other words no I am not a PC sucker. Just because I care about people, nor does it mean I am a feeler.

Um that said when I test on mbti I test very close on F vs T in other words not all my judgements and values are persuaded by pure logic or pure emotion. I lean more towards Ti however.

I laugh when people here cater to their stereotypes and appeal to either being more compassionate on the basis of being a feeler and having more merit in caring for others, the same as I laugh when thinkers play off emotion as if they are all robots.
So anyways I get what your saying fully! Yet I completely disagree with your end thought of it all on principle. What your appealing to is the brothers situation. I am confused why does she have to give him money just because she has it. If the brother wants to take her son somewhere he can take him to the park. Shes not being selfish for not giving her money to someone by appealing to them being less well off. Its a distant relative of the child she does not owe him money to play with her kid if he wants to nor should he expect it. As a parent I have sisters (aunts) who like to enjoy time with my kids, my view is if they ask to take my kid then they are forking the bill-the principle of the matter is they are the host and they invited. Their circumstance is irrelevant as things are free or they can wait til they have money... Now if I ask them to watch my kid and take them somewhere then it is my job to chip the money for the cost in. I think your concept on F vs T I grasp. Your concept on Fi vs Fe/Ti nope I don't jive with at all, sounds very Fi supporting an Fi. You do appeal to the uncles personal situation and think the group situation or rules should revolve around him. What ?Fe is, is a consistent system on how the group dynamics work best. In other words not molding them to others. and I am sorry but is the uncle really so selfless if he expects to in his subconscious be compensated just because of his situation. How is the woman selfish she is not denying the uncle time with the son (that would be selfish) shes saying its not her job to pay for his idea).

So anyways your view or scope on the situation does not automatically make you a feeler your right on that. Theres plenty of Ti/Fe Thinkers, & Te/Fi Thinkers, and examining the situation does not mean one is a feeler or appealing to either side specifically.

But how one rationalizes the situation does define Fi vs Fe. Regardless of if one is a T or F.

Interesting.
I have emapthy for others. I also know that there are other reasons for being unemployed in this present economy besides being a deadbeat. And I value that a person wants to stand in as responsible for another person's kid, to make him feel cared about by a male figure since his dad abandoned him, as more important of a life lesson than how much money a person makes.
I don't think you have any grasp how self righteous and victim like this sounds from Ti/Fe perspective. So he is a victim because he wants to take the kid the mom says ok but doesn't hand him money. Under the basis that she is selfish because she is better off. And shes supposed to appeal to his personal situation while crying in his head that he is doing her a favor.

If any shit like that was said to me about someone trying to be there to do a favor for my child I would say I don't need your kind of kindness take a leap. The nerve. And further more lack of diginity or regard for anyone outside his situation.

I can lend my support to a sibling if they ask for personal help outside the situation. And consider others outside myself. But I don't owe someone with well intention but no tools money to do me a favor. WTF?

I would probably tell one of my less off siblings to fuck off on the principle of them personalizing the issue around themselves and their well intention and pinning it on me for what I give them to do to perform all under the pretense of the child. Doesn't sound like its about the child sounds like its about an extremely one sided individual who expects others to give on the basis of their well intention and boo hoo circumstances, someone who must not grasp the value of the dollar as they just expect it from someone doing better, just on the premise of they mean well and have a shitty circumstance.

Anyways how much you appeal the entire situation subjectively to someones well intention and circumstances does not sound Ti to me at all. Like at all. I am not saying your a feeler like someone must have said and you were looking for confirmation your not a feeler. I am not sure I see any Ti/Fe here at all, and honestly Fe cousins the Fi's that are well rounded would not even subscribe to this. Its so subjectively argued that many Fi'ers would be like WTH no, and seems undisputable that its not Fe/Ti thought.

For the record I have given my sisters both money at different times after they had my children and did stuff with them because one is a starving college student and the other is a 'dead beat' that doesn't have recreational money. But never on the premise of them asking, or expecting it. Just because I was grateful. But it was after the event took place I handed them money. Not me expected to flip the bill for the recreation they chose when I was not there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I've read all the replies here. I'm glad for all of your perspectives.

I disagree with your viewpoints- I guess we just see the world differently.

Some background info- the Morher asks the brother to watch the kid atleast once a week and does not pay him for babysitting. The brother pays for the food out of his own poverty. The mother doesn't offer to pay.
Now the kid is very extroverted, asks his mother if he can go someplace with the uncle, since the mother won't take him places. And tthe mother says "no. I'm not paying" but if the brother pays, she'll let him go.

She'd rather see her brother go without food, in order for him to pay that $10 for her son. The son is very extroverted and will vocally ask the uncle to take him somewhere and so that's usually how it comes up. If you care about your son's happiness why do you have to be there too? She'll only pay of she's there to see the credit.


How is that caring about her son's happiness? That's carinf about her own happiness, only.

If you aren't going to be there for your immediate family and you're going to try to get one up on them to grow your bank account, and pinch your purse strings with them, then who are you going to show generosity for?

Maybe it wouldn't annoy me as much if she didn't call herself a christian, yet refuse to give. I don't like people who delude themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
I actually agree with OP here, although not necessarily for the same reasons. Maybe it's just how it was with my family when I was growing up, but they were frequently expected to pay for whatever I did, even when other family members were the ones offering to take me. And yeah, that stuff was a hell of a lot more fun and memorable than any of the free stuff that I did. My view is, it's your kid so you should be the one to pay for them, unless someone else offers to pay or you compensate them in some other way.

Now, if the brother had a habit of borrowing money and not returning it or using the kid as an excuse to go out and do things, I would understand why the mother would get angry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Its the mothers money, the mothers child, and the mothers life. The uncle has no automatic right to anything from her just because he's her brother.

The mother can do what she likes.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top