Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wanted to twist a common test question. Most thinkers are thought as rationals, not to say feelers can't be rational, but thinkers have it as a trademark quality to their way of thinking. But in terms of personal perspective nothing is absolutely true. To which I wanted to apply the question to what feelers might think of thinkers.

Do you guys think they are in fact rational? Or do you view their arguments as something different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Meepers

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
No, I do indeed view them as rational. It's just they can often seem oblivious to how their logic actually plays out in the real world. Sometimes the most logical thing isn't the thing that happens. This is especially true when people are involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
I think rationality is the mark of a mature thinker or feeler, not so much thinker vs. feeler. I think the ideal state of mind to achieve is wise mind: a balance of both the emotional and logical. I think immature thinkers are not as rational as they think they are, and when I was less mature I thought they were totally irrational. Now to me rationality means both, not one or the other. Neither is more important than the other, even if our brains are wired to see more value in one over the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,964 Posts
There are irrational thinkers and rational feelers. This because rationality is very subjective. To always be rational is to be somewhat limited, even highly inefficient at times.
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,253 Posts
I think they have a tendency to ignore important/useful emotional information, by discounting those factors they don't always make the most sensible choices. Just because they find emotional factors inconvenient and don't think they should matter doesn't make them actually go away...

Also I think sometimes Thinkers aren't as aware when their emotions are coloring their actions or reasoning. They especially seem to not count being irritated as being emotional and can fail to realize how moody they are being. When they fail to examine and process their feelings and try to just downplay them, they can end up having some pretty messy emotional baggage going on behind the scenes that they turn a blind eye to and try to pretend they're totally being practical and unbiased.

So in short I guess I don't think they're always quite as rational as they'd like to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
They aren't aware of their emotions as much as they should be sometimes. It can take them a very long time to realize why something "rational" isn't working. Example: As a French speaker from Quebec, you have two choices: learning Spanish because that'd be useful in your area to get a job VS learning English because half of your family lives in the USA and only speak English? Which one is rational here? Which one would be the most useful and why? Which one will actually work? Probably English even if you'd use it only once a year for its original purpose because there's an emotional motivation behind it.

Thinkers can have a hard time understanding that people don't want just a rational answer, they need something that'll motive them and make them happy. And on bad days they even see that as a weakness, being picky, being whiny or being an idealist. Feelers need more than facts. The rational answer will make me feel like shit? I'll find a different one then, it might take me more time to achieve my goal but I won't be upset while working on it. Thinkers are about the results, Feelers are about the process. The result isn't worth it if the process makes me feel like crap.

Thinkers can also go down a very slippy road where they just aren't aware of their own emotions at all and then gets angry when you point them out. I know you're sad about that thing that happened, you might not realize it yourself but I know that you are because you're very obviously restless, snappy and angry for no reason. Thinkers will often be angry instead of sad where Feelers will be sad instead of angry. Mostly I think that they don't take emotions enough into account especially when it comes to people. What you're telling me does work on paper, you're right, it's the rational answer, but in reality...

Another example: Your friend and you are being attacked by some beast. The beast is biting their hand and dragging them away. The only thing you have on you is a knife and attacking the beast probably won't work. Your only option is to cut off your friend's hand. Will you do it? Personally, I know that the right answer is yes. Would I be able to do it in practice? No. I'd probably attack the beast even if I know I can't win, at least that way my friend won't be dying alone.

You know how Feelers are seen as idealists when it comes to people, ideas, and just the world in general. I think the same can apply to Thinkers when it comes to how they view the ideal way of doing things. They don't take into account the human factor and then get upset when people are being "irrational". I also think that Thinkers aren't as rational as they think they are. They can have very strong obvious emotions that they just aren't aware of, and to me it's kind of scary. I can see you being moody because I'm telling you you're wrong, don't make it sound like I'm the only one being "emotional" here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Sometimes, But so are feelers too. Everyone have their own biases.
 

·
Registered
INFJ
Joined
·
5,593 Posts
I think some thinkers are very rational, and some not so much. Again, not a trait that's associated with type, but an individual difference. It's like saying all religious people, liberals, or women are irrational, something I've actually heard people say, but in reality individuals differ from person to person, even as a thinker type, you have to realize that some feeler types actually are rational, just as some thinkers are irrational.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
I think they have a tendency to ignore important/useful emotional information, by discounting those factors they don't always make the most sensible choices. Just because they find emotional factors inconvenient and don't think they should matter doesn't make them actually go away...

Also I think sometimes Thinkers aren't as aware when their emotions are coloring their actions or reasoning. They especially seem to not count being irritated as being emotional and can fail to realize how moody they are being. When they fail to examine and process their feelings and try to just downplay them, they can end up having some pretty messy emotional baggage going on behind the scenes that they turn a blind eye to and try to pretend they're totally being practical and unbiased.

So in short I guess I don't think they're always quite as rational as they'd like to be.
Everything you said here, yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I don't see rationality relating to whether you are a thinker or a feeler. It's something completely separate. Logic and sensibility are two different things entirely. While thinkers are good at using logic that doesn't make them inherently rational or sensible. It depends on the person.

I have an ISTJ sister who is the most rational, sensible person I know. I have an ISTJ brother-in-law who is one of the least rational, sensible people I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
In the strict sense of rationality being the best calculated course (something that is forgotten, but comes out if you delve far enough in to the etymology), I will admit that the tendency of thinkers to downplay emotional considerations can be irrational at times. Thinkers and feelers complement each other in this regard, and both sides are important to making good decisions. Specifically, I find that talking it over with feelers can be very useful because they have a tendency to apprehend the human element that I will overlook.

Just such an event happened to me today; we were discussing the implementation of a business practice and I made a purely logical argument for why it made sense in the framework of the rules that we have. An ISFJ coworker suggested that our clients might not be happy with implementing it in that fashion and we should be wary about proceeding. That was an important dimension that I had not given enough weight and that could have led to taking a potentially irrational action.
 

·
私を愛して
ESTJ; LSE; 3w4; Sp/Sx
Joined
·
14,683 Posts
Feelers: Do You See Thinkers As Irrational?
Met plenty of irrational Thinkers, though NT types are more so seen as rational whereas ST types are more so seen as realistic.
I definitely value realism over rationalism, so conflict between the two philosophies are present nearly everyday.
I would also class SF types as realists and NF types as idealists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
It depends on how you define rational. In socionics, J is called rational and P is called irrational. In MBTI, NT is sometimes called rationalists.
If you think rational means consider the long term effects and pros and cons when deciding things, it's probably a J thing. I am INTP, and I sometimes make decisions based on what I want, rather than what is good for me in long term, such as waiting for the last moment to do the work I really hate. While my INFJ friend tend to choose whatever is good for herself in long term and make other people feel happy. She is the one who prepare a lot. Maybe my friend and I is not enough to represent what other J or P thinks, but I do think that Js consider long term more than P.
If you think rational is to put away your feelings and emotions when deciding things, it's probably a T thing
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,253 Posts
Thinkers will often be angry instead of sad where Feelers will be sad instead of angry.
I've noticed this as well. I think they tend to express all emotions as anger/irritation because they are annoyed with having the emotion and annoyed with not knowing what to do with it. Additionally Thinkers seem to find it very important to not appear weak, and anger has a stronger out-pushing energy whereas sadness seems more inward and vulnerable, thus the preference for anger.

You know how Feelers are seen as idealists when it comes to people, ideas, and just the world in general. I think the same can apply to Thinkers when it comes to how they view the ideal way of doing things. They don't take into account the human factor and then get upset when people are being "irrational".
yep. Something I think they often don't seem to recognize is how emotion affects one's energy, focus, motivation. While it does seem to affect thinkers less than feelers, I'm not sure that emotions are as irrelevant to them as they would like to think.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Holy annoyances in a box, batman! XD

They especially seem to not count being irritated as being emotional and can fail to realize how moody they are being.
Which is your interpretation of my state and has no bearing on my actual state. Also, there is a rational reason for my irritation, so rather than explaining to me how I'm emotional, let's talk about this thing you did that irritates me.

I know you're sad about that thing that happened ...
No, you don't know that, you think you do. If I tell you I'm not sad, I'm not sad. And in particular, if I'm angry, I'm angry, not sad.

Additionally Thinkers seem to find it very important to not appear weak ...
... which has nothing to do with anything and ...

...I'm not sure that emotions are as irrelevant to them as they would like to think.
... is exactly as irrelevant as I think it is -- and I'm not sure that is as irrelevant as you would seem to think.

/daily discussions :tongue:


But other than that, <3 Stuff like the above drives me nuts IRL, but a world full of sense, reason and logic would boring too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
No, you don't know that, you think you do. If I tell you I'm not sad, I'm not sad. And in particular, if I'm angry, I'm angry, not sad.
You being angry probably means you're angry, but I'm still sticking to what I said. Thinkers usually express sadness by being angry. You sound just like me before I realized just how much anger was hidden behind my sadness.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
You being angry probably means you're angry, but I'm still sticking to what I said. Thinkers usually express sadness by being angry. You sound just like me before I realized just how much anger was hidden behind my sadness.
How is this not winning by redefining? If I express X and say that's anger, and you come and say this X is actually sadness, we're calling the same X different names. I don't know that this is useful. Or I'm missing your point. If you mean to say that thinkers react by being angry to situations you would be sad about, I could get behind that (if it's actually true I mean, I have no idea). But that doesn't mean my anger is actually secretly sadness, it's still anger.

Generally (though I'm not sure if this holds for all thinkers, it's probably more an ST thing): What you see is what you get, so this "it's actually ..." is often looking for something that doesn't exist. Which is why, to get back to the thread topic, NF in particular can appear wildly irrational to the opposite, though I haven't heard yet someone accusing me of the same, from their POV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
If you mean to say that thinkers react by being angry to situations you would be sad about, I could get behind that (if it's actually true I mean, I have no idea).
What I was trying to get at I think is that sometimes people don't realize that the way they react to something is not the emotion itself. That's what I meant by: When you're angry, you might actually be sad. And I'm not specifically talking about you. I'm talking from a personal experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcal

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,896 Posts
Wanted to twist a common test question. Most thinkers are thought as rationals, not to say feelers can't be rational, but thinkers have it as a trademark quality to their way of thinking. But in terms of personal perspective nothing is absolutely true. To which I wanted to apply the question to what feelers might think of thinkers.

Do you guys think they are in fact rational? Or do you view their arguments as something different?
Most thinkers may consider themselves rational but MBTI and other personality typing is theory, whereas being rational is more about brain health and decision making, so someone labeled (self-labeled or otherwise) as a feeler could be more rational over all than someone labeled (self-labeled or otherwise) as a thinker.

Gotta factor in mental health, e.g. The Unibomber is considered either INTJ or INTP; was he rational most of his life, or how about the last years when he was isolated and planning the stuff that would result in mailing bombs, killing strangers. Rhetorical.

Many so-called 'thinkers' have mental illnesses such as schizophrenia that shows up most often--according to studies I've seen, in men at or around college-age and in women later in life. (Feelers, too.)

We aren't only our personality theory labels; we're a mix of genetic code, early conditioning, ongoing life experience and so much more than the four letters for MBTI type or triad and what-not for Enneagram.

I test this side or just over the line for feeler vs thinker--very close, so my own label would read on this forum--if it were a possibility:

INtp or INfj.

Am I rational to propose we adopt that kind of labeling on Perc?

Y'all tell me. xD
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top