Personality Cafe banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here are the F/T descriptions that I've seen as valid thus far, and their criticisms.

1) F is values such as good/bad, T is values such as red/ blue.

The problem with this, is the meaning of good/ bad. Good/ bad could simply be a descriptor of what someone else thinks.

If we add on that it is good/ bad in relation to self, then we bridge into another description of T/F, such as:

2) F is sentimental, ethical, relates to human values, puts importants on relationships, T is logical etc..

A relationship is one part "self" and one part something else. We can have values, feelings, emotions, thoughts etc... surrounding what we think a "good" relationship is as it relates to ourself.

So, this description depends on F being in a relationship with something else so to speak, such as being sentimental about a book, the self, relates to that book in a "good or bad" way.

The confusion here comes up when we could also say that a T user relates to a book in a good or bad, way, just for different reasons.

So again, another description seems to fail.

3) F users are more acquainted, use, and/ or base decisions from the emotion center in the brain as opposed to T users that do the same in the "logical" center.

For example, an F user might first relate through the emotion center, then check the logical center, then go back and check the emotion center, and T users vice versa.

So now, back to the "relationship" with things that might be different for a F and T user, this seems to be at the heart of it.

This description means that there is no description of what emotions are being used by F and T users, only that emotions are being checked/ used more often for F and less so for T.

Of course the strength of T and F also depends of what events we are using to decide upon the strength, for example, someone's whole life, or just the past few years, someone's average temperament, mode, mean, etc.. and/ or including or discluding exceptional situations such as high or low intensities of emotions or logic, reaction formations, repression, passive aggressive explosions, leaps of faith, phases, trauma or huge life changes, etc..

Lastly, here are a couple questions for further thought:

A) Is there a difference if we say emotion vs logic as opposed to emotion center vs logical center in the brain?

B) Is it practical to even say that someone uses emotion more than logic when it doesn't help us predict which emotion might be used?

A last point:

Emotion is always being used to some degree, for example a T user in the midst of solving a puzzle might have a strong "Flow" emotion.

I believe we want to measure intensities of emotion and logic being used (or more specifically the areas of the brain), and base the strength of F and T accordingly.

Typology would then choose the stronger one as preference in any given situation and/ or life average usage etc...
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
The problem with this, is the meaning of good/ bad. Good/ bad could simply be a descriptor of what someone else thinks.
And a person who adhered to these outer definitions would be considered an Extraverted Feeling type.


B) Is it practical to even say that someone uses emotion more than logic when it doesn't help us predict which emotion might be used?
No. Because emotions and the Feeling function are two very different things. This is just a whacky statement that people say offhandedly when someone isn't being 'Thinker' enough (like in the workplace or whatever). But in reality everyone has emotions just the same, the Feeling function is just there to rationalize those emotions and affects.

I'd really recommend reading The Feeling Function by James Hillman if you are interested in this subject. But suffice to say the Feeling function is the strange man in the group because it deals with emotional content and rationale, and as such as an effect on all the other functions, the ego, the complexes, etc. It sort of has a regulating authority in ways that the other functions do not have (if the complexes are feeling-toned ideas, then the Feeling function will have some say as to how you rationalize your own complexes). That means that a person with poorly developed Feeling consciously will be more than just socially inept, that might be the least of his problems. But he may have a profound lack of ability to truly understand himself on a level that isn't purely conceptual. Because all feeling-toned responses, whether they are driven by complexes, or affects (when you have a physiological reaction to a psychological issue -- crying or nervousness for example) these will all be rationalized to some degree by the Feeling function (so what this means is that how we commonly define Introverted Feeling as being "me" and Extraverted Feeling "the world" is somewhat wrong. Feeling is dealing with both the inner and outer world in terms of evaluation, the difference is with Extraverted Feeling the principles of that rationale are external -- a response you have is a good or bad response based on how the world defines good/bad, not yourself).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
@LiquidLight

Oh okay, so the only difference between the Feeling and Thinking function is that the Feeling function is being used when we are rationalizing anything dealing with emotions and affects.

So, is there data with correlations between Feeling function and certain emotions?
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top