[Tad Cooper]

I keep seeing this all over mbti-related topics/forums that anyone with a T in their letter combination can't feel things or is less likely to 'feel'.
I was wondering how people 'feel' differently. How does an F feel something such as love differently from a T? Do we also feel physical sensations differently? Or is this all a big misunderstanding and do we feel everything the same, but go about our expression differently?

 

[KrystRay]

As far as I see it, the T makes me more of a rational decision maker, less likely to make emotional decisions. Maybe it's the TJ that sets my decisions in stone... I've noticed that P's in general are prone to change their minds a lot.

My "feelings" generally occur as anger and happiness. In general, I'm a happy person and I have a happy demeanor. Other feelings, like those of the INFP, I just don't understand. Maybe it's that I don't care enough about the rest of the world to feel anything, but feelings definitely get in the way of good decision making.

As far as love goes, it's not a feeling for me. Feelings are unreliable and can change at a moment's notice. Love is an action word and a decision one makes and keeps, regardless of the current feelings. Those that I love know that I love them because I ensure that they are happy and well cared for.

I'm a science person, so if I get butterflies in my stomach, I realize that these are just hormones being released into my body and that it will soon pass and I can once again make rational decisions. I actually had to learn that in one of my psychology classes. Awesome! I suppose everyone kind of experiences the same physical feelings from these hormones, but some people just think that it's a life changing event that happens like once in a lifetime and if they miss out on that one person that did that to them that it's the end... That's BS to me. But I know the science behind it.

If I decide to care about something, I will act accordingly to the situation. I can be very empathetic when needed. I understand that other people hurt and I try to be sensitive to their feelings. My kindness and understand stops, however, if an individual keeps doing the same things over and over and over and over again and keeps getting hurt by it. Then the hostile side of Krystal comes out and either things change or the friendship is over. I can't logically keep a friend around who is self-destructive. Too much stress for me!

 

[Isis]

I keep seeing this all over mbti-related topics/forums that anyone with a T in their letter combination can't feel things or is less likely to 'feel'.
I was wondering how people 'feel' differently. How does an F feel something such as love differently from a T? Do we also feel physical sensations differently? Or is this all a big misunderstanding and do we feel everything the same, but go about our expression differently?

I agree with Krystray...T has more to do with what you view as important in decision-making, not how you might actually feel about it.

I would not buy a dilapidated house because it's cute, no matter how badly I wanted it. I would find another cute house in better repair, even if it took a year.

Or I would not get married to someone who drinks too much even if I were in love with him, because that would be a bad idea no matter how heartbreaking the alternative. Like that, there.

 

[Immemorial]

It's related to the way we decide things is it not?

Like hiring someone you don't get along with, but who is highly competent would be a T thing. As opposed to someone less skilled but who you do get along with, which would be an F?

Is that not the difference? I'm not completely sure.

 

[HannibalLecter]

Perhaps a T doesn't comprehend the feeling - or at least not in the same way as an F? My emotions are nearly-permanently 'bottled up' - only to be released when withholding them becomes far too great a burden. Thus, when I do allow myself to "feel" them, they're strange and uncomfortable. I am not used to them, and that is probably what is meant by others of a type similar to my own.

 

[Tad Cooper]

I see, I think people may have been using it in the wrong way then.
I was also partly asking if being an F or a T caused a different way of feeling an emotion (such as people believing we all feel and see things differently i.e. we all know what colour blue is because we're told it's blue, but what if our blue is different from other people's blue?)

 

[NeedsNewNameNow]

Well I know I do feel things. Probably not as strongly as an F, but strong enough. I'm not well-equipped to know how to handle them, and tend to keep them bottled up.

The difference between T and F has to do with how you make decisiosn. I know my feelings always drive me to make poor decisions and I make much better ones with my T.

 

[KrystRay]

I don't think feelings are like taste buds, if that's what you mean. I'm pretty sure there are various intensities to how much people feel, like bipolar people feel emotions crash like waves over them and that's why they act the way they do... But people without chemical imbalances should be able to control their emotions.

 

[dude10000]

I was wondering how people 'feel' differently.

T makes me feel spergy.

:crazy:

 

[teddy564339]

To me the key difference has already been touched on, which is that thinkers naturally use objective criteria (usually logic and rationality), whereas a feeler is going to use subjective criteria (their own personal values, which could be emotions, or other people's emotions).

I've heard people say before "Because that's the definition, then of course thinkers feel emotions and feelers use logic." So why do people get the impression that thinkers have no feelings and feelers can't use logic? I think it's because it's all relative.

For me, as an F, feelings are what drive me. I use them to make decisions because they are what are most important to me. For me, feeling right about something is more important than if it makes sense. It drives my whole state of being. I've always felt the most important thing for me in life is to be happy without directly taking away from other people's happiness.

I think a lot of that does have to do with me being an S as well...I'm very focused on my own world rather than the whole world. I have a natural tendency to have an "ostrich syndrome"...if I can't see a big picture problem, I'm really good at ignoring it if it's not directly affecting me. I know a lot of N's, especially NT's, might view that as selfish. However, if I can directly see someone in my life as hurting, I will go to extreme lengths to help them out and put their own needs above my own. So part of this is me being an ISFJ (with dominant Si and auxiliary Fe), not just being a feeler, but you can see how the F comes into play.



So because feelings are so central to me, compared to me, most T's are going to come across as not being in touch with their feelings because relative to me, they aren't. However, a feeler has to be extremely careful to understand that a thinker still has feelings and that they are important...just not as important as their logic, and not as important as they are to a feeler.

And of course the same is true in the other direction. I've actually had a number of people think that I'm a T before, since I am able to step out of my own self perception and look at things objectively. However, that's not my natural preference...I certainly can do it, but I have to make an effort. But since I don't naturally do it all of the time, a thinker still might think that I'm not good at using logic.

The difference between T and F has to do with how you make decisiosn. I know my feelings always drive me to make poor decisions and I make much better ones with my T.

What's interesting here is that I think this is why T's sometimes get frustrated with F's and F's get frustrated with T's. The criteria they use to determine which decision is "right" or "better" is completely different anyway! I mean, it's certainly possible for an F to make a decision, a T to show them why logically it was a bad one, and for the F to admit they were wrong. But it's also certainly possible that an F will make a decision based on emotions, a T can show them why logically it was the wrong one, and the F can still feel like they made the right one.

And it goes back to what's important to somebody. I don't think most T's can be at peace with a decision unless they choose the one that makes the most sense. Likewise, I don't think most F's can be at peace with a decision unless they choose the one that makes them feel the best.

That doesn't mean that a T can't convince an F to change their mind about something or vice versa. What I always find fascinating is that a T and an F can make the exact same decision for different reasons, and another T and F could make the opposite decision for their own reasons. It's a matter of learning to appeal to what matters to someone.

I think if T's and F's can learn to accept and understand each other instead of just thinking "I give up on this person, my way is right, and they'll never change", then they will be able to have a more positive effect on that person and what decisions that person makes. I really think any political issue can be analyzed from both a T and an F perspective, it's just a matter of showing people the details of either one.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Lets simply things to improve peoples understanding of MBTI and it's basis: Jungian cognitive functions.

T means - makes decisions based upon quantifiable/rational criteria as a preference

F means - makes decisions based upon instinct as a preference.

F doesn't equal 'is emotional/has more emotions than T'. A great example is one of the INFPs on the forum who used to think he was INTJ. Why because he really believed in logic and therefore pursued it as an instinctual choice until he changed his paradigm.

Post edit: I don't believe that F means subjective and T means objective; unless I misunderstood your argument.

 

[Tad Cooper]

Lets simply things to improve peoples understanding of MBTI and it's basis: Jungian cognitive functions.

T means - makes decisions based upon quantifiable/rational criteria as a preference

F means - makes decisions based upon instinct as a preference.

F doesn't equal 'is emotional/has more emotions than T'. A great example is one of the INFPs on the forum who used to think he was INTJ. Why because he really believed in logic and therefore pursued it as an instinctual choice until he changed his paradigm.

Post edit: I don't believe that F means subjective and T means objective; unless I misunderstood your argument.

I thought instinct was down to N/S, such as Ni being random moments of 'oh wait a sec' (Maybe I'm confused with Ni and F combination?)

To all: Thanks for the input!
What I meant wasn't the whole 'tastebuds' idea, but that feelings are the same or if feelings are completely different for everyone (not just how we react and but how we fundamentally 'feel' them)

 

[Isis]

Lets simply things to improve peoples understanding of MBTI and it's basis: Jungian cognitive functions.

T means - makes decisions based upon quantifiable/rational criteria as a preference

F means - makes decisions based upon instinct as a preference.

F doesn't equal 'is emotional/has more emotions than T'. A great example is one of the INFPs on the forum who used to think he was INTJ. Why because he really believed in logic and therefore pursued it as an instinctual choice until he changed his paradigm.

Post edit: I don't believe that F means subjective and T means objective; unless I misunderstood your argument.

I'm not sure Jung is the only criterion. The MBTI page says this:

Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).

That seems a little more touchy-feely than instinct. So, Jung might not think the F is more emotional, but there seems to be room for that in MBTI overall.

 

[jbking]

Well...

I was also partly asking if being an F or a T caused a different way of feeling an emotion (such as people believing we all feel and see things differently i.e. we all know what colour blue is because we're told it's blue, but what if our blue is different from other people's blue?)

While there is an agreed upon definition of blue, this doesn't mean we all see blue the same way. Some may see it and this triggers all kinds of memories while for others it may stimulate the imagination and new things are created within one's minds.

While I am a T, I am also rather sensitive and can cry pretty easily. In some ways, I see this as part of why at an early age I focused more on developing logically rather than maturing emotionally then and sort of built myself up in a sense. How well that plays into my type is subject to much debate though probably of questionable value.

 

[Sybyll]

Feelers use emotions as basis for making decisions, so it makes sense that they would be more in touch with their feelings than Thinkers, who base their decisions on what seems more logical, distancing themselves from their emotions to see things clearer and more objectively. That's how I understand it, at least.

I usually don't make good decisions based on feelings, but I've read somewhere (sorry I don't have a link, it might have been at the Leonore Thompson Wiki somewhere, but that seems to be currently down, so I can't search for the source) that because Fs use their emotions to make decisions consistently, they become good at it and make good decisions based on what they feel is right, while Ts become good at detaching and using logic in their decision-making. Neither the T nor the F would make good decisions using the other's method, at least not at first. Like someone who is good at driving a bicycle is not automatically good at driving a car, even though they're both vehicles (ugh, what a terrible metaphor; I don't mean to imply that T is more complex than F or vice-verca); both take practice.

If I were to start making decisions based on feelings they would be immature decisions since Fe is my inferior function and not particularly well-developed... I think of it as pokemon. My T-pokemon is a high-level, since I use it all the time to battle wild pokemon (make decisions), but my F-pokemon is weak. If I started using my F-pokemon a lot though, it would gradually increase in level and after a while be just as good.

I hope I didn't insult anyone's intelligence with too many examples/weird metaphors. I had fun coming up with all of them though. :blushed:

 

[SPtheGhost]

I agree with Krystray...T has more to do with what you view as important in decision-making, not how you might actually feel about it.

I would not buy a dilapidated house because it's cute, no matter how badly I wanted it. I would find another cute house in better repair, even if it took a year.

Or I would not get married to someone who drinks too much even if I were in love with him, because that would be a bad idea no matter how heartbreaking the alternative. Like that, there.

exactly


its not that i dont feel , but to what extent do these feelings affect my decisions and beliefs

 

[Incorporeal]

I think the idea that there are two groups of people ("thinkers" and "feelers") is misleading. Obviously, those who rely primarily on reason for making decisions are capable of experiencing emotion, and those who make decisions based on feelings are capable of rational thought. In fact, I am of the opinion that "thinkers" are capable of experiencing emotion as intensely as "feelers" do, and sometimes even more so (when when said emotion is allowed to accumulate inside until it erupts). The primary distinction between the two, I think, is that "thinkers" have greater difficulty interpreting and expressing emotions than "feelers" do. While many assume that the stoic and aloof demeanor of many thinkers is an indication of their cold and detached nature, the reality is that the same emotions a "feeler" experiences are likely internally present within the "thinker", who is considering why he or she feels a particular way about a given situation. This brings me to what I feel is the second distinction between "feelers" and "thinkers". For thinkers, emotions fall into the same category as any other incoming data; that is, they are subject to the same analysis and procedural scrutinization which the "thinker" applies to everything he or she considers. Emotion does not exist on a plane independent from the "thinker's" critical faculty as something to be accepted without a logical explanation. At the end of the day, however, the emotion is still present. It is simply handled internally and not necessarily readily apparent to observers until the "thinker" has had adequate time to explain and become comfortable with how he or she is feeling. Problems arise for the "thinker" when he or she fails to account for a particular emotional response to external circumstances, which invariably leads to a subsequent period of re-analysis. After all, surely some detail was overlooked which must account for how the "thinker" feels; it is not acceptable for the "thinker" to simply feel without explanation. As a result, we "thinkers" have a tendency to create difficulty for ourselves where emotion is concerned when sometimes the best course of action is to simply let it be. Ironically, it is the "feelers" who accept emotion without subjecting it to the same dissection a "thinker" would who are likely better equipped to provide an explanation for why they feel what they do. Though I am getting a bit off topic at this point, I am of the opinion that this allows "feelers" to complement "thinkers" in areas where they struggle; they are able to provide "thinkers" with assurance that it is okay to feel a certain way and help them to mature to the point where the "thinker" is capable of autonomously reaching the conclusion that he or she does not always need to provide a logically sound reason to explain the way they feel.

 

[Tad Cooper]

I think the idea that there are two groups of people ("thinkers" and "feelers") is misleading. Obviously, those who rely primarily on reason for making decisions are capable of experiencing emotion, and those who make decisions based on feelings are capable of rational thought. In fact, I am of the opinion that "thinkers" are capable of experiencing emotion as intensely as "feelers" do, and sometimes even more so (when when said emotion is allowed to accumulate inside until it erupts). The primary distinction between the two, I think, is that "thinkers" have greater difficulty interpreting and expressing emotions than "feelers" do. While many assume that the stoic and aloof demeanor of many thinkers is an indication of their cold and detached nature, the reality is that the same emotions a "feeler" experiences are likely internally present within the "thinker", who is considering why he or she feels a particular way about a given situation. This brings me to what I feel is the second distinction between "feelers" and "thinkers". For thinkers, emotions fall into the same category as any other incoming data; that is, they are subject to the same analysis and procedural scrutinization which the "thinker" applies to everything he or she considers. Emotion does not exist on a plane independent from the "thinker's" critical faculty as something to be accepted without a logical explanation. At the end of the day, however, the emotion is still present. It is simply handled internally and not necessarily readily apparent to observers until the "thinker" has had adequate time to explain and become comfortable with how he or she is feeling. Problems arise for the "thinker" when he or she fails to account for a particular emotional response to external circumstances, which invariably leads to a subsequent period of re-analysis. After all, surely some detail was overlooked which must account for how the "thinker" feels; it is not acceptable for the "thinker" to simply feel without explanation. As a result, we "thinkers" have a tendency to create difficulty for ourselves where emotion is concerned when sometimes the best course of action is to simply let it be. Ironically, it is the "feelers" who accept emotion without subjecting it to the same dissection a "thinker" would who are likely better equipped to provide an explanation for why they feel what they do. Though I am getting a bit off topic at this point, I am of the opinion that this allows "feelers" to complement "thinkers" in areas where they struggle; they are able to provide "thinkers" with assurance that it is okay to feel a certain way and help them to mature to the point where the "thinker" is capable of autonomously reaching the conclusion that he or she does not always need to provide a logically sound reason to explain the way they feel.

Very insightful post! I think this is one of the reasons it can be hard to distinguish between Fs and Ts, because it's more based on action than on fundamental 'selves'.

Feelers use emotions as basis for making decisions, so it makes sense that they would be more in touch with their feelings than Thinkers, who base their decisions on what seems more logical, distancing themselves from their emotions to see things clearer and more objectively. That's how I understand it, at least.

I usually don't make good decisions based on feelings, but I've read somewhere (sorry I don't have a link, it might have been at the Leonore Thompson Wiki somewhere, but that seems to be currently down, so I can't search for the source) that because Fs use their emotions to make decisions consistently, they become good at it and make good decisions based on what they feel is right, while Ts become good at detaching and using logic in their decision-making. Neither the T nor the F would make good decisions using the other's method, at least not at first. Like someone who is good at driving a bicycle is not automatically good at driving a car, even though they're both vehicles (ugh, what a terrible metaphor; I don't mean to imply that T is more complex than F or vice-verca); both take practice.

If I were to start making decisions based on feelings they would be immature decisions since Fe is my inferior function and not particularly well-developed... I think of it as pokemon. My T-pokemon is a high-level, since I use it all the time to battle wild pokemon (make decisions), but my F-pokemon is weak. If I started using my F-pokemon a lot though, it would gradually increase in level and after a while be just as good.

I hope I didn't insult anyone's intelligence with too many examples/weird metaphors. I had fun coming up with all of them though. :blushed:

Twas similies m'dear :wink: I'm liking the pokemon references!

Thanks, all, for the responses!

 

[lilmunchkin]

I see, I think people may have been using it in the wrong way then.
I was also partly asking if being an F or a T caused a different way of feeling an emotion (such as people believing we all feel and see things differently i.e. we all know what colour blue is because we're told it's blue, but what if our blue is different from other people's blue?)

My dad keeps presenting this idea to me, and I typed him as ENFP...I wonder?

I'm a highly sensitive person. This results in my feelings being so powerful they can shock my body so much so that I go numb.

 

[Tad Cooper]

My dad keeps presenting this idea to me, and I typed him as ENFP...I wonder?

I'm a highly sensitive person. This results in my feelings being so powerful they can shock my body so much so that I go numb.

So am I! HSP can be a pain in modern society (especially when a truck goes past and blows its horn making you black out for a moment)