Personality Cafe banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thinking and Feeling are difficult to pin down-- sometimes I think they're the most difficult of all the binary pairs. After much analysis, I can only make sense of it one way...

~Hypothesis~
Obviously everyone has emotions and obviously everyone has logic. But Feelings and Thinkers differ in how they think is the most legitimate way to communicate with others. By "communicate" I mean, what they think comprises the verbal and nonverbal language-field that is generated between people.

While Feelers both have emotions and use logic, they think emotions are a more valid source of truth and understanding. Therefore they are more likely to communicate using emotions. In some cases, they can be very, very good at using logic (better than certain Thinkers!) and yet still think that emotions are more valid and more of a priority in communication.

Ditto, Thinkers also both have emotions and use logic and, in many cases-- I have some in my own family-- they can easily be more emotional than certain Feelers (for example, my dad is INTJ type 6 and significantly more emotional than I am, INFJ type 9).
How emotional you actually are or aren't, or how good you are at using logic (or not), is not really the point. The point is which you think is a valid source of truth. Thinkers are more likely to communicate using logic and not think that emotions are as relevant when it comes to communication (although they may be very relevant at other times!)

Feelers think that if they've communicated appropriately and aptly in an emotional sense, the logic doesn't matter so much. They become fluent in the language of emotions, while only proficient or semi-proficient in the language of logic.

Thinkers think that if they've communicated the logic in a sound and clear fashion, the emotions don't matter so much. They become fluent in the language of logic, while only proficient or semi-proficient in the language of emotions.

Note that being emotional and speaking the language of emotions are two very different things.
Using logical analysis and using the language of logic-- that is, communicating in a way that is efficient and clear and unhampered by feelings-- are two very different things.
Emotional considerations hamper your ability to communicate logically ("that's okay-- your idea wasn't really stupid, I swear! Thank you for contributing! :hug:")
Logical considerations hamper your ability to communicate emotionally ("you're mistaken, that idea is completely nonsensical and stupid. We need to come up with a better idea. Next.")

Agree/ disagree?

P.S. if Feelers think that feelings are a more valid source of truth, it would also stand to reason that they use emotions more when making decisions (when is the standard MBTI party line about T/F). Doesn't mean they feel the emotions more-- but they trust them more.
Thinkers use logic more when making decisions, not necessarily because they're better at using logic, but because they trust logic more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
As this theory is new to me I can't say I've thought about this before, but I can say that my personal experience doesn't really fit with what you're saying. While I'm a 'feeler', I don't trust my emotions at all and don't think they are a valid source of truth. I also tend to be pretty cold and detatched while speaking, always more analytical than emotional.

So, I definitely disagree. Although I must confess that I am so detatched from my emotions that I can't say for sure that I might actually be trusting them without knowing them or something? I'm just guessing here though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
@Drecon what is your basis for identifying yourself as a Feeler?

Also I may not have been quite clear--
As this theory is new to me I can't say I've thought about this before, but I can say that my personal experience doesn't really fit with what you're saying. While I'm a 'feeler', I don't trust my emotions at all and don't think they are a valid source of truth. I also tend to be pretty cold and detatched while speaking, always more analytical than emotional.

So, I definitely disagree. Although I must confess that I am so detatched from my emotions that I can't say for sure that I might actually be trusting them without knowing them or something? I'm just guessing here though.
I'm not really talking about your specific emotions at any given time. I, too, am pretty detached from my feelings. I'm talking trusting the concept of emotions as being truth. There's a difference.

Like I said, Feelers can be quite logical and analytical on the inside-- while also distrusting the idea of logic as being the arbiter of truth in communications with others.

Someone could be doing something very logical when they say "wow, thanks so much for your contribution!"
Likewise, someone could in fact be reacting emotionally while saying "I don't think that makes logical sense."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
@Drecon what is your basis for identifying yourself as a Feeler?
I'm familiar enough with the cognitive functions and types that I'm absolutely certain of my [INFJ] type.

Also I may not have been quite clear--


I'm not really talking about your specific emotions at any given time. I, too, am pretty detached from my feelings. I'm talking trusting the concept of emotions as being truth. There's a difference.

Like I said, Feelers can be quite logical and analytical on the inside-- while also distrusting the idea of logic as being the arbiter of truth in communications with others.

Someone could be doing something very logical when they say "wow, thanks so much for your contribution!"
Likewise, someone could in fact be reacting emotionally while saying "I don't think that makes logical sense."
Just throwing something out there to see if I understand:
Would you say that feelers would be more likely to subscribe to the statement: "It's more important to be nice than to be correct"?

I mean, I would never take someone on their word if they insist on something, but I won't risk angering them by saying that out loud if they might react emotionally. I feel like keeping the peace is often worth the price of someone else being wrong.
I do have different standards for myself than others though. I could never accept anything as true unless I completely understand the reasoning. If someone else refuses to do that, I accept that.

Would that be in line with your reasoning or not?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
@charlie.elliot your ~Hypothesis~ is essentially how I always saw this difference. Although, instead of identifying logic or feeling as the source of "truth", I would rather call it as the "primary pillar" or the "bearing wall" of one's sense of identity, existence, and security.

For example, as a xxTx myself, I tend to feel the following way when talking to Fi/Fe-dom/aux (i.e. INFP and INFJ in this case)

Talking to INFP: he's an idealistic traditionalist to the core, and he clings so much to his ideals, that he simply creates a form of tunnel vision for himself, by focusing on what he considers to be "right" or "just", and refusing to embrace the cynical/ugly side of reality. I try to explain the importance of the cynical/ugly side to him, because, from my perspective, good/bad are subjective things, and what is truly important is one's ability to see the clear picture no matter how pleasant or unpleasant it is. Because only a clear picture can provide you with enough security and power to survive and live to the fullest. But he completely rejects my approaches, as though if he was to accept a more objective perspective detached from justice and "goodness", his whole world would collapse. Values/morality/justice/traditions are his "bearing wall" of existence.

Talking to an INFJ: she's quite pleasant to speak to, because she rarely expresses her own opinion, and instead shows great interest in my opinions. And I enjoy talking without being attacked for my occasional logical inconsistencies, but likewise, as with the INFP, I also develop a feeling of alarm and worry for the INFJ, as her lack of desire to counter my opinion or express her own, feels like a major flaw that would harm her ability to survive and live to the fullest. It feels, as though if she was to become more assertively independent in her style of communication (like an INFP or an xxTx), battling or alienating the people around her for the sake of "truth"/logic, her world would also collapse. Conformity and harmony are her "bearing wall" of existence.

I agree with you that being a T or an F doesn't make you more logical or more sensitive. But it identifies what kind of impulses drive your decisions and behavior.
However, these driving impulses are less about "truth" and more about "security". (it just happens so that objective truth is the source of personal security for T-types)
I find security in clarity, objectivity, no matter how ugly it may be, no matter how much it will alienate me from others.
INFP finds security in his values/ideals, no matter how much they will alienate him from others.
INFJ finds security in agreement and harmony, even if she disagrees with the group opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Haha ok @Mez, but a lot of people don't agree with me (I've posited this idea before in posts and it was met with mostly resistance). And its not how F/T is normally defined... I don't think (except the decision-making part). Or maybe people didn't realize I was saying the same thing they believe conceptually.

Yes, security is also a way to think of it. I did say "trust". Socializing can be scary/dangerous, so we rely on what we most trust.

And yes @Drecon, whether or not you believe its more important to be nice or correct is also a part of it. "Being nice", "being correct" implies communication. It doesn't say a thing about how nice or how correct you actually *are*, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Communication depends on context. I can communicate the same proposition very differently to different people, though I certainly do have a natural method. In an ideal world where I don't have to worry about appeasing others, I would definitely rather articulate myself in an unemotional fashion.

My own thought that relates to the thesis of this topic is that I like to think of this sort of thing in terms of what people find persuasive. When I hear Ti, Fe, or Fi arguments, I usually cringe somewhat. When I am persuaded to change my mind, it is almost always after hearing a good Te argument. My gut sense would be that everyone would be responsive to empirical arguments, but I have learned by now to not just suppose that other people are similar to myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,012 Posts
Agreed

Somewhat random a tad but yet at the same time I think can be related to the topic.

Example today at my job interview I was given various scenarios. In one I was essentially asked if for the role I was applying for (a general manager in Assisted Living) if it was better to be, task oriented vs/or people oriented in all these various scenarios she gave. As far as what was most conducive for the environment.

Bragging right btw I answered TASK over people skills related for myself in all the right scenarios, where many people would have answered it were best to operate off of people orientation, given the industry we work in of human care, many try and sell themselves on 'people orientation'. My interviewer actually stopped specifically at that part to say she was impressed with my ability to grasp where each use of reasoning and skills were necessary. Because many people sell themselves on only one or the other extreme. I just thought it was maybe kind of an example as far as what you're alluding to. (Got the job btw, not that you cared I just happen to be super duper excited about it :smile: .

If I had to guess the HR manager who interviewed me was NFJ. She definitely grasped the context and uses of both methods (obviously she went to school for it) and seen the relevance in my communication style and general approach. Just thought I would add that you can use a distinct approach to reason and communicate yet still grasp the relevande in an approach which opposes ones own natural inclination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,428 Posts
Thinking is judging on the basis of impersonal criteria and Feeling is judging on the basis of personal criteria. Both are primarily about judging, which, being a rational process, requires logic in both cases, if by "logic" you mean "reasoning." Emotion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Feeling. They certainly impact communication style, but I see no reason to describe them as being "primarily about" communication.


Gifts Differing
Two Ways of Judging
A basic difference in judgment arises from the existence of two distinct and sharply contrasting ways of coming to conclusions. One way is by the use of thinking, that is, by a logical process, aimed at an impersonal finding. The other is by feeling, that is, by appreciation—equally reasonable in its fashion—bestowing on things a personal, subjective value.
Jung:

Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection.
However, Jung goes on to say that feeling turns into "affect," a term used synonymously with "emotion" and described as a "feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations." I don't see that this connection between Feeling and emotion was incorporated into Myers-Briggs theory, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Communication depends on context. I can communicate the same proposition very differently to different people, though I certainly do have a natural method. In an ideal world where I don't have to worry about appeasing others, I would definitely rather articulate myself in an unemotional fashion.

My own thought that relates to the thesis of this topic is that I like to think of this sort of thing in terms of what people find persuasive. When I hear Ti, Fe, or Fi arguments, I usually cringe somewhat. When I am persuaded to change my mind, it is almost always after hearing a good Te argument. My gut sense would be that everyone would be responsive to empirical arguments, but I have learned by now to not just suppose that other people are similar to myself.
Yes exactly. Te is the one you trust. You could be the most emotional person in the world (not saying you are...) but you trust Te. And, what's more, you assume others do as well, so you attempt to communicate using Te. We communicate with others via the source of truth that seems most legitimate to us.



Thinking is judging on the basis of impersonal criteria and Feeling is judging on the basis of personal criteria. Both are primarily about judging, which, being a rational process, requires logic in both cases, if by "logic" you mean "reasoning." Emotion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Feeling.
That's what I said over and over in my post. Being a Feeler doesn't have to do with how emotional you actually how or what emotions you are actually feeling.

They certainly impact communication style, but I see no reason to describe them as being "primarily about" communication.
Well, that's a matter of degree :)

Those quotes don't particularly support or not support my theory.
Thinking or Feeling determines which you trust more, logic or feelings;--> so it determines which you use both to make decisions and to communicate with others.
re: the Gift Differing quote: when making decisions, Thinkers try to reach the conclusion that is objective and impersonal. Feelers try to reach the conclusion that is subjectively pleasing. Trusting, decision-making, etc. Same thing. Thinkers trust something impersonal, Feelers trust something subjective.

I know Feeling is judgement; I would think that would very clear from what I wrote. It's a tool, one that you choose to use in certain ways to get what you want-- just like communication and reasoning are both tools in all situations when you use them.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top