Thinker Weaknesses

As you may have heard, actual feelings, emotions, aren't exactly unique to feelers.
I'm an ENTP and I have always been very emotional.
I can cry pretty quickly if the right things happen.
If I see someone suffering loss, I tend to suffer with them, not for too long, but I still do.
I am very tactful, I don't ever want to make someone feel bad when I express something, and I believe that the truth can always be laid in a way that doesn't have to cause offense.

You know people that have hurt my feelings a lot?
FEELERS.

I have seen Fi doms who do things that totally mess with people on the Fe spectrum.
A very small and almost harmless example of this is an INFP chick I know who, without ever telling anyone, will separate from the group in order to seek something she found fascinating. Doesn't tell anyone, and then we all need to halt and wait for her magic moment to cease. This translates into other things, such as seeking pleasures that can negatively affect others around her, but these need to be experienced and it doesn't matter what any one thinks because, SCREW THEM! NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ME!
Meanwhile, plenty of Fe doms have literally told me "get over it" and many, MANY feelers have told me to stop being a cry-baby.
I, a thinker, never call my friends rough names, rarely do rough humor with them, and I love to know they're happy when they're with me, to the point that if I know they're not, I'd rather they'd be somewhere else.

All feelers, all thinkers, need to learn how to think and feel.

I don't see the direct correlation between F and T and emotions or knowing how people feel etc.

I see the "weakness" of Thinking types to be that they are too uniform in their decisions.
They see everyone as equals and tend to make decisions that are essentially "fair" for everyone.

This is a pro in a lot of ways as it is respectable, sure, it's a massive con as well though, in that the way they make decisions is less flexible with regards to - and less considerate of circumstances.


Ti-Fe: weakness is that they make decisions based on what they think is subjectively fair/just, at the expense of what is objectively considerate/important.

Te-Fi: weakness is that they make decisions based on what they think is objectively fair/just, at the expense of what is subjectively considerate/important.

imo

I refuse to accomodate the emotional needs of people, because I'm primarily interested in the function/benefit of every situation, need, or problem. Not only do I view emotions as useless clutter, but I simply fail to even process/understand emotion even if I try, be it my emotion or the emotion of another person. Because of this many of my relationships broke apart, and it took me years of reflection to figure out why exactly it happened.

Similarly to how you can struggle solving a math problem on an exam, not knowing what different parts of the equastion mean or how to combine them - this is how I feel towards emotional information. It just feels too confusing, overwhelming, chaotic to me. If I ignore it, I'll damage my relationships, and if I try to understand it, I'll just get confused. So since I can't properly process external emotional data, I try to imagine how would emotion develop internally in me if I were in that person's shoes, and try to act upon that understanding, but my projection rarely fits.

If the saying goes: "Treat others how you want to be treated", then this is the worst possible advice you could ever give to a Thinker. Because Thinkers (at least some of them) do in fact want to be treated in a cold, logical, functional manner, and since they automatically assume that others want to be treated the same way, they shall treat others like machines as well.

Te-Fi: weakness is that they make decisions based on what they think is objectively fair/just, at the expense of what is subjectively considerate/important.

Click to expand...

^ that as well.

Recede said:

In theory Thinking types are supposed to be weak in Feeling, but what does that really mean?

Click to expand...

Superb question(s), Recede - while (X)-specimen can have 'feeling' [at a differential gear] within the cognitive-'arrangement', this not necessarily denote a 'weakness' of function, rather a reflexive sub-personal effects mediated by constitutive ex post facto processes via 'cognition' (brain preference for (X)).

It seems to me, similar to various degrees of 'consciousness' and it's altered states and/or mental fluctation of 'states' that occur via the cognitive apparatus, and such similarities of function also occur via 'cognitive-typology' [as I reconized a casual correlation via the global complex [and other non-typology] cognitive sciences.

Consider :: The distinct levels of 'conscious gears' - (i.e., sleep cycles), in same ways always falling into REM sleep does not necessarily imply you 'prefer REM sleep' to other sleep cycles - as it is not eligible in the first place; to be of higher-order preference.

My post below, I posit a 'demonstration' [that does not bypass typology-theory] that (X)-function(s) can be 'strong' without being dominant ::

What does weak Feeling entail specifically?

Click to expand...

My thread below - gives more a technical response, thus breaks down the anatomic 'subject-fixation' via the "feeling functions," and feelerse themselves [and a brief thinker analysis] - (what they do / how to recognize them - and how they work), a (e.g., psysiological / psychological / socio-biological) via structural analysis [beyond] simply functional unexplanatory/ inexplicit definitions &, description(s), that even Jung seemed to leave simply too vague.


http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/1170801-understanding-feeler-humanoid.html


I have found a very weak correlation between 'emotions' and the (F)-dichtonomy - and a very weak correlation via 'logic' with the (T)-dichtonomy as anything other than a reflexive-side effect, rather than a higher-dimensional mental 'personal' preference. Regardless, the argument(s) that (X)-feeler is 'more emotional' that a thinker - (re: higher dimensionality via mental-processes) are simply too weak to be intellectually considered. The claim(s) that 'feeling ultimately entails emotions' & thinking 'ultimately entails logic', [and here is where such distinctions lay] is simply incoherent for more reasons than one.

What are some examples of things that are hard for them to do or understand

Click to expand...

I do not have malfunction(s) understanding the 'feeling function,' and/or it's structural make-up / use itself - but rather, I have always struggled [especially when younger], with productive application -- and/or applying such knowledge that produced favorable results (e.g., bringing more tact to sensitive situations that entail more diverse humanoids); in some regards, my cognitive make-up [by sheer genetic opportunism] could not make use of (Fe).

Further, (Te) always sufficiently seemed sufficient enough because of it's prediposition to be fixated outside of subjects, thus a strong enough (Te) 'objectively' works with people out of pragmaticism & open(s) a predipositional need to utilize subjects to adequency - rather than a fixation on the well-being of (X)-subjects cooperating which an implication uniquely attributed to (Fe), thus:


For ex; (1) --->



It took me a rather long time to be 'comfortable' with confidently applying (Fe) -- as it never produced sufficiently distinct results that could not be address [via] implicated of (Te); that is fixated on, indeed, 'all state-of-affairs' outside of the subject.

When younger, I lacked sufficiently [understanding] of (X)-behaviors and/or side-effects occuring via the environment as a result of (Fe/Fi), thus, isolated and/or disengaged myself from the affair or situationa - deeper understanding [beyond] observational residue of (Fe/Fi)-specimen(s) left behind via the environment, makes me more comfortable around (Fe) - and thus, more functional [as I have learned 'ways to apply it'] when it reflexively occur(s).

For ex; (2) --->


Sufficiently understanding of 'How' (Fe/Fi) works, the goals of the situation, and how (X) can be applied - and/or if (X) fits.

and what is the extent of that difficulty?

Click to expand...

The consequences of such - was always a reluctance to participate [that I could address (X)-subjects]; without formal insertion of my own subjective persona by implication [which seems to be the side-effects] of high-functioning subject fixation(s) via Fe/Fi distinction(s).

For instance, is it difficult for Thinking types to understand why people feel what they feel?

Click to expand...

No.

Recognize psychological motives and defense mechanisms?

Click to expand...

No.

Recognize the tone of what people say/write (such as friendly, antagonistic, confident, angry, intentionally or unintentionally careless, etc.)? Be tactful about how they word things to conceal or express attitudes? Recognize emotional manipulation?

Click to expand...

It seem(s) a general fixation on distinct form(s) of stimuli, denotes a sensitivity to certain types of stimuli, thus, it does not surprise me that (((young thinkers))), may have minor malfunction(s) in certain areas such as 'emotional manipulation' and/or be late bloomers where humanoid(s) who have predisposition to 'subject-fixation' seem to excel -- although such disparaties can occur in any humanoid -- [there is perhaps more susceptibility to (X)-specimen] with attentiveness elsewhere.

I do think, however, more thinking-specimen(s) mature out of this [if they are willing] - although due an absence of 'feeling' attribute(s) in the dominant / aux degree - such maturity may be lagged behind that of the (feeler).

Recede said:

Would it be possible to get examples of this? I know that even Feeling types won't necessarily be good at recognizing and understanding their own emotions, because that is influenced by individual psychological factors. But in general, how do Feeling types approach emotions? What is their process like? How and to what extent are they aware of others' individual needs? Will some Feeling types rely on general principles of good will and adjust occasionally to fit the situation, or are they always determining what each situation requires?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, Feeling types are more likely to pick up on emotion because it's useful to the Feeling process. For the healthy Feeling function, the goal is harmony and human welfare. Emotion is information that gives us a direct indication of the state of our own well being.

I understand where your line of questioning comes from, but it's kind of hard for me to step out of my dominant Feeling perspective to explain it as if from the outside. I'm tempted to say that "obviously" the approach would just be adjusting ones actions according to what the Feeling function has picked up on. If I as an Fi dominant were to find myself in a situation that went against my own values, let's say I'm in a job that makes me feel like life is grey and boring, and I strongly value living life to the fullest, the next step would be taking Te action to accommodate that Fi judgement, by quitting the job and attempting to create the life I feel is worth living. If I was a dominant Te user I might have found that decision foolish, because it was a well-paying job. Looking at it in this way you can also see how the society that we live in is dominated by the Thinking perspective.

"General principles of good will" sounds like how a Ti user would integrate lower Fe, or just how a Te user would achieve their goal of success measured by externally agreed upon standards. I assume you may be a Thinker. It can be difficult to fully understand the cognitive functions that we suppress, especially outside of the role they have in our own psyche. I'd recommend reading about the Feeling functions' role in different positions of the stack.

I hope my perspective was at least somewhat helpful.

BlueWings said:

"General principles of good will" sounds like how a Ti user would integrate lower Fe, or just how a Te user would achieve their goal of success measured by externally agreed upon standards. I assume you may be a Thinker. It can be difficult to fully understand the cognitive functions that we suppress, especially outside of the role they have in our own psyche. I'd recommend reading about the Feeling functions' role in different positions of the stack.

I hope my perspective was at least somewhat helpful.

Click to expand...

"Principles" might not be the best word. I guess I'm referring more to something like a habit, or natural way of expressing oneself, as opposed to constantly changing and adapting. Like for example, being friendly, optimistic, empathetic, responsive, validating, etc. Some people will like to joke around more and others are more serious, and people have different communication styles and interests, so that will of course naturally change how you interact with them. But I feel like it's not going to completely change how you interact. A lot of things are fairly universal, like people generally like receiving validation, like people to be friendly toward them, like receiving positive responses, etc. Some things will change, like someone might appear not in the mood for positivity or conversation or certain topics. But when people adapt to others in that way, isn't it kind of automatic and not really conscious? Not like you're changing your whole interaction style around this person but more just respecting their needs and wishes?

I think this is a really important question because a lot of people who type themselves as thinking describe low order feeling as not liking small talk (does anyone like small talk? Really?) or being less social (because I care about deeper things) or being less swayed by emotions or other things that are sort of non-flaw flaws. Or really minor things that remind me of when a writer makes their character clumsy in order to make them flawed. Weak feeling functions ARE a failing, they are not understanding or being unable to deal with whole areas of decision making.

Warning: the following draws heavily from socionics, both because I'm into socionics and because I think it does a much better job of delineating F/T and describing what it means to fail at either. If you don't like any socionics in your MBTI/Jung, this may not be the post for you.

Anyway, here are some of the ways low order feeling can manifest:

What Failing at Fi Looks Like
Here I'm focusing mostly on xxTPs, who in socionics have both low dimensional and unvalued Fi.

Inability to Regulate Relationship Distance -- This can be either feeling unable to get close to people or unable to pull away from people or both. It often manifests as an "all or nothing" approach to relationships: either we're as close as any people can be or you're a stranger.

Inability to Define Their Relationship to Someone -- particularly if it's a more complex relationship where there's no immediate label to be had. So you get constructions like "She's my, um, [name]?"

Inability to Determine What They Want -- Not what they should want. Not what it makes sense to want. Not what would be ideal for the situation. What they actually want. Desires do not always make sense or have internal cohesion, but Ti users, expecting their internal world to make sense and fit into their personal system, are almost completely blind to the parts of it that don't. This can lead to a number of things including: not being aware of their own biases, not noticing that they are being mistreated, not noticing that they are unhappy, etc.

Reluctance or Difficulty Picking a Favorite -- Instead answering with what is best, most effective, most interesting, etc. Or just staring at the asker blankly and going "Um...."

What Failing at Fe Looks Like
Here I'm focusing mostly on xxTJs, who in socionics have both low dimensional and unvalued Fe.

Inability to Regulate Tone -- General inability to control the tone of their voice and/or match it to the mood of the conversation or the effect they intend to have on their listener. This often results in being unintentionally (emphasis on unintentionally) off-putting. Often bad at charming or connecting with people, even when they want to.

Explosiveness and/or Extremely Cold Affect -- This is an all or nothing approach to the expression/communication of emotions. Either they'll abruptly start screaming or crying or laughing in an uncontrolled-seeming way, or they'll suddenly become a robot and literally sound like a text-to-speech program.

Tendency to Take Things Literally -- These people often have both an inability to read others' tones in any complexity and the belief that tone is just unimportant flourish. Because of this they will consider tone of voice or accompanying affect as useless information and throw them out, preferring instead to examine the literal content of a statement. But because tone is often part of the point (or even the entire point) of a statement, this process can result in nonsensical or incorrect information.

General Awkwardness and Inability to Recognize What is Considered Normal or Acceptable -- and not in a cool way. This is legitimate awkwardness and tendency towards offending people whether they want to or not. They have no sense of whether something will "go over well" in a given situation or group.

----

Full Disclosure: I am an ENTP so I have much more of a problem with Fi. Because of this it's possible that description is more complete or accurate, since that's what I have personal experience with.