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
#2 ·
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.
I approve of this thread. :) Far too much does the feeling function get undermined as a reasoning process. People are irrational, it doesn't mean the functions are.

I just want to clarify this one point, and the author seems aware of it. T uses objective reasoning but is still a subjective process as it is the product of a subject. F includes subjective data in their reasoning, T works with objective data.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#5 ·
I approve of this thread. :) I just want to clarify this one point, and the author seems aware of it. T uses objective reasoning but is still a subjective process as it is the product of a subject. F includes subjective data in their reasoning, T works with objective data.
All introverted functions use subjective data, and extraverted functions, objective data. This is what Jung says about Ti:
When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear.
Now compare his thoughts on Fe:
Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort.
 
#3 ·
So, Psilo.. if a person uses objective facts extracted from reality, but reaches a very subjective and personal conclusion, is it T or F?
 
#4 ·
I don't think that F is inherently less capable of reaching an objective conclusion than T. Objectivity is reached when a person steps out of their own preconceived notions to reach a conclusion free of bias. Probably easier for T, not impossible for F. I think in our example it could be either, but it's the process that differs. Unhealthy Ti and Fi is characterized as someone who is far too subjective in their interpretation of reality.

T I've imagined to understand relationships between object -> object in the world, F relationships between object -> subject.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#6 ·
I definitely think that Feelers can be mean...if anything, they are capable of being meanest because it is easier for them to sense a weakness/ insecurity and exploit it. T's migh be "insensitive", but generally this is unintentional...so in the long run it's the F's who have the greatest capacity to be cruel or kind. And if they truly do respond to the world subjectively, you could see how this might be dangerous.
 
#9 ·
I think of T and F like I think of right and left handedness. You can learn to be good at both, but the dominant one is the one you'll use first and rely on the most. Just like if someone throws a ball at you and you don't have time to think, you'll grab it with whatever hand is the dominant one.

I have a F preference, so in a new situation, the feeling data, value (what is important to me in the situation) comes out the most strongly.I have to go back and analyze later.

For a T, they might notice the facts first and work out their emotions/ figure out what they value later. But T's do feel, because without the F function, (asking yourself what you want, what others want, what's "good") it's a lot harder to make decisions.

(Admittedly, this is a lot of airy speculation, and probably applies to IN T and F types more than ES's.)
 
#73 ·
I think of T and F like I think of right and left handedness. You can learn to be good at both, but the dominant one is the one you'll use first and rely on the most. Just like if someone throws a ball at you and you don't have time to think, you'll grab it with whatever hand is the dominant one. I have a F preference, so in a new situation, the feeling data, value (what is important to me in the situation) comes out the most strongly.I have to go back and analyze later. For a T, they might notice the facts first and work out their emotions/ figure out what they value later. But T's do feel, because without the F function, (asking yourself what you want, what others want, what's "good") it's a lot harder to make decisions. (Admittedly, this is a lot of airy speculation, and probably applies to IN T and F types more than ES's.)
I agree and this balance can make for some kick-ass self-awareness.
 
#18 ·
You claim yourself to be a T?
You just made a subjective observation
Subjective observations is what Fs run on

I won't approve that you're a Thinker, until you come up with an objective and rational explanation on how this is true. And please do state your sources.
 
#11 ·
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.



[/INDENT]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?
Weird...I relate to the T's behavior even though I consider myself an INFP. I have trouble empathizing with others because I'm able to see the whole picture when they are more concerned with their own subjective experience. I think the difference is that because I am so concerned about maintaining harmony, I've learned to express objectivity in a sensitive way- for example, I will say "That's rough...it sounds like a tough situation to go through. I can see why you're upset. It might help if you look at it a little differently..." People usually appreciate when I help them see another side of something.
I've considered I could be an INTP but when I read the overall description of it, INTP doesn't fit me at all.
 
#12 ·
Skogprincessa...Fi is a dominant introverted function for INFP, so it makes sense that you might have trouble empathizing with others, that is more an Fe thing (not saying that Fe types are awlays selfless, either). Fi more commonly focuses on how oneself feels more than how others feel.

It also depends on what your enneatype is. If you are in the 4/5 space, you are likely to have an element of detachment that could include self-absorption - focusing too much on your own internal states - to the exclusion of the external world. In this case, you might also be close to the T line, creating more ambiguity.

All others...Subjectivity/objectivity is always a matter of degree, it doesn't exist in a pure form, rather in relation to the person it's applying to in a particular instance. There is truth to the statement that all people are subjective because they are locked in their own individual viewpoints. There is also truth to the statement that some people are more objective than others. Imagine an introvert who is so locked into their own world that they have very ideosyncratic, almost schizotypal perception of reality that are often bizarre, out of touch, and just off the mark. Next, consider an introvert who has perceptions that are usually right on because they so carefully consider every piece of data they take in and fit it into an overall framework. Now, consider an extravert who is always trying to apply all kinds of dogmatic principles that don't take real people and situations into account or is just generally so loony and associative that their ideas have little practicality. Finally, consider an extravert who uses objective parameters to assess situations and create productive outsomes based on realistic interpretations.

These examples illustrate both introverts and extraverts who have or haven't managed to achieve adaptive use of thier dominant function (which generally involves integration with their other functions, as well). The point that these examples illustrate is that, even though we all exist in our individual loci of consciousness, we begin from a starting point of subjectivity with the potential to increase our objectivity over time. Hence, people can be subjective and they can be objective. It's hard to say someone isn't objective is their ideas are generally pretty accurate representations of reality. That takes something more than random chance. The metaphysical implications of this are quite interesting but out of the scope of this discussion.

Extraverts, be they thinkers or feelers, subordinate themselves to the object, per Jung, whereas introverts subordinate the world to the subject. All this really means is that extraverts attempt to align data with the object, idealzing the object as the starting point toward objectivity, whereas introverts attempt to align data with the subject as the starting point toward objectivity. Extraverted thinkers idealize objective parameters in the objective world, such as the actual characteristics of things, while extraverted feelers idealize subjective parameters in the objective world, such as personal cues and relations. Introverted thinkers idealize objective paremeters in the subjective world, such as relations between data, while introverted feelers idealize subjective parameters in the subjective world, such as values and internal feeling states.

One has to make the fine distinction between 1)a person's ontological status as an indivual loci of conscoiusness, 2)a persons' degree of actual objectivity or subjectivity, which is independent of function, 3)valuing the object or the subject as the arena for evaluation, and 4)valueing objetive or subjective parameters within one's chosen arena of evaluation.

The result is a calssification of how different types conceive of the path toward objectivty, which again, has no relation to how objective a given individual acutally is:

extraverted thinkers...value being objective the most: focus on objective paremeters in objective world
extraverted feelers/introverted thinkers...share middle spot of objectivity valuing: extraverted feelers focus on subjective parameters in objective world whereas introverted thinkers focus on objective parameters in subjective world
introverted feelers...value being subjective the most: focus on subjective parameters in subjective world

It's a bit much to get into here, but one can conceive of the various errors each type might make in trying to be objective.
 
#13 ·
Why why WHYYY is it always us poor T's that get stuck with a broken-hearted F??? There's one F there, on the couch, crying over the relationship that is not even ended, it's just in a middle-stage and I KNOW that you guys want compassion and not solutions and I'm trying to think of anything to say that wouldn't be giving advices but being on their side (how can I be on their side when I have no idea what the partner really ment with his actions?) but somehow I cannot think of any word. I actually tried that psychologic technique of "active listening" - repeating her every sentence but with a question mark. Like - her: "he's such an asshole" me: "he's such an asshole?" her: "yes, he's out with his ex" me: "he's out with his ex?" etc. But as much as this makes me feel like a complete moron (I would beat up the person who would "listen" to me like this), it seemed to work, now at least she told me everything (while I was repeating everything) and I think she feels better, she's smiling now. And I'm freeked out because I don't know when the rainpour will start again :/

Fellow F's, I beg you, tell me, how do we support you??
 
#14 ·
her: "he's such an asshole" me: "he's such an asshole?" her: "yes, he's out with his ex" me: "he's out with his ex?" etc. But as much as this makes me feel like a complete moron (I would beat up the person who would "listen" to me like this)
ROTFL - you nailed it Darner. My secondary Fe even drives me crazy (99% introverted). Extroverts with dominant Fe can be exhausting.

Although it is tempting to say "be true to yourself" (i.e. tell the drama queen to deal with it), in the real world we don't get to pick and choose the personality types of relatives, co-workers, professional associates, etc. People come into our lives for a variety of reasons.

Sense of humor helps. Understanding of your own personal limits and refusal to become the Feeler's emobuddy. In extreme situations, you may have to walk away from that relationship.
 
#20 ·
facts are objective in that they are considered pure truths. interpretations of fact are subjective.

every person interprets a fact differently. these interpretations are commonly referred to as conclusions. logic by nature is the process of determining the correct conclusion by way of utilizing purely truthful facts. and yet, logic is not infalliable. the straw vulcan trope proves this. (a quick example: i could say "cars have engines," which is a fact. but then i could draw the conclusion, "that means all cars are capable of driving". which is a conclusion, based on the fact, that is false. the reason it is false is provided in another fact, which states, "cars sometimes break down. machinery is not indestructable." by continuing on the course of projected facts, one gets as close to the objective, logical truth as possible).

the universe is subjective in nature. that we even have language to begin with and differentiate between things individually to begin with proves this. if the universe were entirely, purely objective, there would be no reason for humanity to exist or for thought to exist because everybody would know all the same things and individual thought would be irrelevant. so it is not logical to then say "thinkers use objectivity". they don't. they interpret facts, which is inherently subjective in nature.

nevertheless, the difference comes because a thinker interprets what he believes is the truth, whereas a feeler interprets what he believes is "right". a.k.a what is morally and ethically correct. often this gets confused with emotion because ethics are based on personal experience and subjective bias. so, a rationalization of this process may mean, "feelers are inherently more subjective than thinkers". i don't know. bla bla bla bla i'm the teacher from charlie brown.
 
#22 ·
facts are objective in that they are considered pure truths. interpretations of fact are subjective.

every person interprets a fact differently. these interpretations are commonly referred to as conclusions. logic by nature is the process of determining the correct conclusion by way of utilizing purely truthful facts. and yet, logic is not infalliable. the straw vulcan trope proves this. (a quick example: i could say "cars have engines," which is a fact. but then i could draw the conclusion, "that means all cars are capable of driving". which is a conclusion, based on the fact, that is false. the reason it is false is provided in another fact, which states, "cars sometimes break down. machinery is not indestructable." by continuing on the course of projected facts, one gets as close to the objective, logical truth as possible).

the universe is subjective in nature. that we even have language to begin with and differentiate between things individually to begin with proves this. if the universe were entirely, purely objective, there would be no reason for humanity to exist or for thought to exist because everybody would know all the same things and individual thought would be irrelevant. so it is not logical to then say "thinkers use objectivity". they don't. they interpret facts, which is inherently subjective in nature.

nevertheless, the difference comes because a thinker interprets what he believes is the truth, whereas a feeler interprets what he believes is "right". a.k.a what is morally and ethically correct. often this gets confused with emotion because ethics are based on personal experience and subjective bias. so, a rationalization of this process may mean, "feelers are inherently more subjective than thinkers". i don't know. bla bla bla bla i'm the teacher from charlie brown.
Well said!

Facts are meaningless unless they are related together in a framework. Indeed, ALL people have such frameworks, even if they are unaware of them. Even newborn babies have innate instinctive predispositions, the source of Jung's Archetypes, through which they interpret sensory information.

Facts do not speak for themselves.
 
#29 ·
T and F are both rational SUBJECTIVE functions. (Human perception is subjective by nature).

T observes the world as an object. F as a subject.

T steps away from a situation and observes from a detached perspective. F steps into a situation and interacts personally with it.

Intelligence and emotions are measured by IQ and EQ not by T and F and neither has any bearing what so ever on your Jungian Function order.
 
#31 ·
T and F are both rational SUBJECTIVE functions. (Human perception is subjective by nature).

T observes the world as an object. F as a subject.

T steps away from a situation and observes from a detached perspective. F steps into a situation and interacts personally with it.

Intelligence and emotions are measured by IQ and EQ not by T and F and neither has any bearing what so ever on your Jungian Function order.
I disagree. You say they interact personally with it.

Do you know any way of interacting personally with something that doesn't have to do with emotions?

We can measure the difference in emotions, like I was saying, based on the stability.

T's a more constant emotion of "flow" vs. F's a more intense up and down.

Each seek this emotion, and the actions create that emotion.

We can say they seek the action or the emotion, they are the same thing.

Also, are you saying T's are being objective while they do a puzzle, even though they do so to reach emotional homeostasis as we are wired for (we are not actually robots), and therefore are not being the subject and interacting with it?

Like you said, human perception is subjective by nature, so I think how you are describing T and F isn't valid.

T's aren't detached. They are engaged in the "flow."

psychopathy----meditative "flow"------intense joy sadness------bipolar
T------------------------------------------------------------------------F

I think the above graph is an improved way of looking at it, but I would love more opinions on this.
 
#36 ·
It's not as simple or as clear-cut as Feelers are emotional and sensitive, Thinkers are analytical and logical. This is because people aren't simple or clear-cut. I believe the main difference is the degree of traits. For example, I'm a Feeler, but I'm not emotional, I don't cry at movies and I'm not sensitive. However, I pick up on other people's feelings very quickly. That's what makes me a Feeler.
 
#37 ·
Hey are everybody in this thread saying different things? The confusion was never bigger than when it comes to cognitive functions. You guys seem well-read. And even then you swim these waters full of doubt and contradiction. Cheers!!
 
#38 ·
I think that thinkers and feelers aren't better or worse than each other,
I think that they perceive life on a different way, which is neither better or worse,
Like thinkers act on what they think or reason to but logic,
and feelers act on the way they feel in that present situation,
so neither are better or worse than each other only different.
 
#41 ·
I have come to conclude the difference between a thinker and a feeler is merely choice.
Because all sufficiently healthy human brains have emotion.
An F/feeler (emotional person) then, is one who prefers to linger in their emotions, values them to a high degree.
A T/thinker ("logical" person) then, is one who feels that rationality, logic, reasoning, methods, and efficiency are most important.
A thinker then still has emotions. We simply prefer to make our decisions based on what is rational/efficient/etc.

A sure way to determine if you are a thinker or a feeler is to ask yourself which sounds more important to you:
Follow your heart. (like this one? think it's true? If you said, yes, you're probably a feeler.)
Shape up or ship out. (like this one? You might be a Te user ;)
 
#47 ·
which can be crueler? that would depend on the person... if a F type might be better at finding "weak points/insecurities" (not sure if this is completely true) then they would have a type of "ammo" to then use against another--conversely, you don't have to ferret out another persons' insecurities in order to hurt them (and plus you don't have to a be a F to sense an insecurity)--i'm sure a T can think (haha) of a way to cause someone emotional distress. plus, you also have to take into account a persons aptitude/potential/I.Q./method of thought to really know what they are capable of--a stupid person can easily be cruel without knowing it--a smart but tactless person can be cruel with again, not knowing it--and a genius of any MBTI/Enneagram type can be cruel to suit their own needs (being a F doesn't make you vomit rainbows and sh!t diamonds, and being a T doesn't make you cock your head in curiosity at human interactions and say, "does not compute" ).

as far as F's being more sympathetic towards another... maybe? in the situation that Sunless described (F coming home angry, T being tactless) i wouldn't say that the T acted in a "bad" way. my T and F are almost equal, as far as the scale goes, and i try to use both functions to apply value to something. in the situation that was mentioned, i would recognize the fact that the F is upset, but is still wrong. since the F isn't in a frame of mind to deal with the problem, i would console him/her, unless the problem is too trivial to address in that manner (yes, sounds "harsh" but sometimes people need to grow up and take responsibility/stop whining). if the problem is "trivial" then i would lessen the "degree" :)P) to which i would console the F--i would give "tough love" instead. i don't know, no one single situation is the always the same, but i've seen an INTJ that i am close to handle a situation with extreme tact and social/emotional delicacy that would leave some F and T types in a confused stupor.
 
#58 ·
Fun indeed and we managed to get deep enough. I agree about human nature (and the Pope). Let's shake on that. :wink:

When I said "So...T or F?" it was a very lame attempt to link back to the main topic.
Hmm, but now that you brought it up, I do wonder about whether I'm T or F...though I don't want to make this topic about myself (as much as it'd tickle my ego...not). You say I'm "kinda leaning" towards T which shows me that I don't sound too much like either one.
About your question of whether I go out of my way to not hurt feelings vs being blunt and straight: I'm a mixture of the two...and since I'm so avoidant in the first place, it's hard to think of actual examples off the top of my head.
Anyway, thinking versus feeling - I'm quite enjoying this fuzzy quest.
 
#59 ·
We got so deep that it was not even on this topic board lol.
Not that I'm a genuis about this, but you may be boarder-line of the T and F it is possible but rare, like being boarder-line on E and I is possible and quite common.
T are rational, logical think with reason etc, they acknowledge their emotions and then dismiss them or hide them.
F are based normally on their emotions, they protray they emotions ( so they don't hide their emotion, they let you know how they feel about something) which is not a bad thing. they more ask how you would think on something so they don't hurt others at all.
I don't know as much as I would like about F's, because I'm a T and I more wanna understand that one.
Neither are better or worse though, they just deal with life in their own different way.
 
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