Personality Cafe banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This thread is based T/F distinctions (&) primarily [Feeling] focused + analysis ::


By "implication," 'feelers' priorities revolving 'people'-fixations are side-effects, rather than 'direct fixation' points (re: in the same ways "emotions," and "actual feelings,") are simply side-effects / symptoms - rather than what 'feeling' ultimately focuses on, and thus "people fixation," and "subject-fixation," are not the same.



(Fe/Fi)-function(s) are about human-anatomy (re: well-being).


________

Thus, we can start with the 'distinctions' [via] thinking/feeling


What (Thinking) is 'ultimately' aboout ::

(Te)



(D) Structure: - All internalized (physical - properties / rules / attributes / substances') belonging to (X);

(E) "Things":- All external intimate-objects consisting of (attribtes / properties / substances)

(F) "Objects": - All external events, state-of-affairs, occurrences, et al - "existing," outside the subject/self



Although, it is not so much what (D, E, F) entails, but rather, it is in this arrangement/order in which the (Te)-specimen (or function) fixates on (F, E, D) that distinguishes it from the (Ti)-subset meta-meta preferences (D, E, F).


(Ti)

(D) Structure: - All internalized (physical - properties / rules / attributes / substances') belonging to (X);

(E) "Things":- All external intimate-objects consisting of (attribtes / properties / substances)

(F) "Objects": - All external events, state-of-affairs, occurrences, et al - "existing," outside the subject/self


A "preferences inside preferences," is what I posit. Ti is (D)-dominant with aux (E), Te is (F)- dominant with aux (E).

[HR][/HR]

What (Feeling) is ultimately about ::


(A, B, C) would deal with (Feeling). As I understand it: "feeling ---> subject-fixation," (as I expanded on in another post):

Thus, feeling will deal with 'anatomical well-being':

(A) - Human-anatomy of subjects

(B) - Pysiological make-up of subjects

(C) - Psychological well-being of subjects

__________________




(Fe/Fi) fixation on specimen(s) are side-effects:

Thus,

(Feeling) - as I understand it, deals with the anatomic-function / well-being of subjects - which is never said within typology itself, although, it becomes evident "Feelers," will be fixated on subjects (regardless of external / internal) stimuli, but differential anatomic "states" - thus, for the feeler, it is a subconscious reflex to be concerned with either the psyiological / psychological / anatomic states of subjects (including themselves), above all else, to which such logical-judgments will be made with the following categories/fixations/focuses in mind.

And I suppose, when we here 'fixation on subjects,' a hueristical-reflex occurs that equates it to nurture, habital care, and "emotions,", which may be a side-effect, however, not what "feeling," actually is - or 'fixates' on, which is not emotions, caring for other specimens, rather it is a logical-function constantly making judgments on the high-functioning anatomic states / well-being of surrounding agents + subjects:



So what is "subject-fixation," concerned with (?)

Ex; (1)


In general: (A, B, C):


(A) -

 
Anatomy of other subjects (re: organ health / bone health / muscluar/tissue health) - health of body :




(B) -

 
Physiological well-being (re: chemical-make-up / hormonal level + homoestatis / stability) of subjects:





(C) -

 
Psychological states of subjects: (emotions / feelings / biases / cognition/mind)




::



(Fi)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of themselves to address the anatomic-states of other humanoids;

(Fe)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of others; to address the anatomic-states within themselves;


Somewhere in between, values are formed.

::

If you wish; I can demonstrate what "logical-judgments on anatomic," states looks like (re: the distinctions between F/T - and Fi/Fe), however, I wish to keep this post less lengthy.



If we will break these down in "degrees", rather than either/or black/white:

(Fi) will have more fixation on (A, B, C) in this order,

While (Fe) will have more fixation on (B, C A) in this order:

_______________


(Thinking) - as I understand it, will be logical-judgments via with the ('anatomic function / structure / state-of-affairs') of all non-subjects which entails "objects," - but not always, some "thinking," function(s) can be utilized to break-down the anatomic-structures of subjects (re: "psychology of 'humans'), however, it differs from that of the feeler, in so far as it is not concerned with overall well-being, of said structures: which may by implication/disposition create a 'cooler' demeanor - but I do consider this a "strong" / sound distinction between the 'feeler/thinker' - in so far as there certainly are "emotionally cold" feelers (re: INFJ) - and "emotionally soft thinkers," (re: INTJ):

Reflecting back on the "thinking function," itself: it will fixated on (the following below in the opposition to the 'feeler' function):


Ex; (2)


It can entail things;

State-of-affairs; -----> (Do not confuse this with the 'perception' function(s))

Events; ------> (Do not confuse 'events' with the (Ni) dealing with time-lapse / essences) - rather than direct events themselves:



(D, E, F)


(D)

 
Structure: - All internalized (physical - properties / rules / attributes / substances') belonging to (X);





(E)

 
"Things":- All external intimate-objects consisting of (attribtes / properties / substances):





(F)

 
"Objects": - All external events, state-of-affairs, occurrences, et al - "existing," outside the subject/self






If we will break these down in "degrees", rather than either/or black/white:

Ex; (Te)-doms are less analytical than (Ti)-doms,

Thus the (Te)-doms fixation revolves around (F, E),

While the (Ti)-humanoid follow (D, E) - in this order:


[HR][/HR]


Although, I think the "feelers," have a tendency to mistype due to high-functioning dynamicism to NOT fixate [solely] on humanoids, but to also "adopt," [the thinker] mindset - adaptively / opportunistically so ::


Based off the above

Addressing [possibilities] via Feeler-dynamicism ::



Reflexive feeler [behaviors] (more common at a higher degree) - as implications / side-effects [rather] than innate fixations and/or 'common traits' ::


(X) Mood and/or Emotional Unpredictability (rather than instability):

(Y) More dual-hemispheric alternation/fluctation flexibility (T/F dynamicism):

(Z) People and/or persona ['interests' due to the presupposition of "subject-fixation,"]


& As to why "feelers," are more likely to type themselves as thinkers; it does not seem to be rooted within the (strong thinker/logic) bias, although, it may occur in less skilled-specimens within typology (&) be products of other personalized/psychological-malfunctions (e.g., insecurities), but this is not all it is.

"Feelers," may be more susceptible to high-functioning cognitive / psychological biases via the fixation on (congition / subject-fixation) in general, which is demonstrated to be 'unreliable' in scientific discourse, and other highly sound / reliable testing methods: (re: why 'ancedotal evidences / "experiences" / appealing to intuition over trial/error) and other subject-related abstractions are simply unreliable; which does not surprise me that 'feelers' may have more malfunctions typing themselves accurately than "thinkers" due to the the genetic / cognitive-disposition make-up to fixatue on less reliable "typing" methods when addressing themselves: - while 'thinkers' certainly have malfunctions typing themselves, and are susceptible to the same human-baises / hueristical reflexive thinking disregarding deeper analysis of the self:

Futher, a specimen may say in defense of this oppsition, "feelers have deeper understanding of themselves," (and who they are), which indeed, may be true on (surface-value psychology (re: "emotions") and/or other reflexive conscious-outputs, but this does not seem to be case when devolving deeper into the subconscious to which (cognition / and/or the 'inner workers') of humanoids has yet to be accurately described as "what is," (and how the 'self-subject' operates), in the subconscious degree: meaning, the deeper the "feeler" goes into understanding themselves via typology (re: appealing to the anatomic / psychological-states of themselves), the more unreliable, dogmatic / hueristic - it becomes. Which may certain explain why we have more "confused" feelers typing as thinkers; than vice versa. The thinker, due to less subject-fixation (will have a small, however significant) reduction in susceptibility to such internalized-psychological / cognitive-biases due to appealing to (structures / things / objects), outside of the self - or the subject. Creating a more 'stable' foundation in typing oneself; even if the foundation is 'unstable', the accuracy of such typing increases - due to the reduction of psychological-bias implementation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
@Catwalk I really enjoyed reading this. And I related to last two paragraphs. What I've found is that although some feelers accuse thinkers lacking emotional responses, thinkers tend to have more accurate perception and understanding of their emotions once they do. And as you've mentioned, I think it is due to their detachment to self. I would say you have a very accurate understanding. And I learned a lot. Thanks.

Although a good amount of time has passed, would you still be interested in explaining the following a little more in depth?

(Fi)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of themselves to address the anatomic-states of other humanoids;

(Fe)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of others; to address the anatomic-states within themselves;

Somewhere in between, values are formed.

::

If you wish; I can demonstrate what "logical-judgments on anatomic," states looks like (re: the distinctions between F/T - and Fi/Fe)
Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
@Catwalk I really enjoyed reading this. And I related to last two paragraphs. What I've found is that although some feelers accuse thinkers lacking emotional responses, thinkers tend to have more accurate perception and understanding of their emotions once they do. And as you've mentioned, I think it is due to their detachment to self. I would say you have a very accurate understanding. And I learned a lot. Thanks.

Although a good amount of time has passed, would you still be interested in explaining the following a little more in depth?

Thanks in advance.

I reckon we can see patterns with "hyper-awareness," of agency in feelers - such as a misattribution of agencies to non-agents; as well which seems to be more a side-effect of subject-fixation in general:

"Stuffed animals have feelings,"

"Sentimental attachments to objects,"

And et al.


Because (Fe) humanoid(s) will be following (B-dominant, C, A) first; you will notice that such specimen(s) will be more inclined that (Fe) to utilize affective-empathy and/or a distinction(s) in how they address the anatomic-state(s) of others ::

Ex; (1)


The XSFJ specimen is [more likely] to be concern with the (frustrated homeostasic need(s) of another):

(X)-specimen looks uncomfortable [frustrated agency - deteriating homeostastic needs) via the environment - (X)-specimen isn't keep up with the environment, let's see what's going on // this bother(s) me - something must be wrong with (X).

(Reflexive measure(s) will be considered :: "If (X)-specimen's homoestatic-needs are frustrated - how will this affect me? And what is the quickiest way to address this?" How can I be so sure my homoestatic levels are 'safe'", if the homoestatic needs of (X) are not functioning properly (?)

With (C)-support, the (Fe) specimen is going to have side-effect(s) in relation to another's psychological well-being & the psychological affects on themselves. They will be more susceptible to biases / mood instability and so forth - than a thinking specimen.



____________

** In other words, (Fe)-humanoids will have hyper-awareness of the homoestatic-states in surrounding agencies; before themselves. (Their "values" will be pre-logical, and shaped off hyper-awareness of other homoestatic needs. Their logical-judgments follow by reflexive-values, will 8/10 times be about translating tautological 'observations' about other anatomic-states in possible distress (if at all), to attempt to make syntactical [valid] argument(s) to support these demonstrable anatomical-states (schema), why they wish to support (X)-states, is because it is tied to their overall well-being / sustainment.

(X)-is angry.

(X) told (A, B, C) about (Y).

If (X) doesn't happen, someone will be upset.

If (Y) happens, someone will be proud.


____________
____________

Because (Fi)-humanoid(s) will be following (A-dominant, B, C) first; you will notice such specimen(s) will be more inclined to utilize [cognitive-empathies] to address other specimen(s) around them - the distinct way in which the (Fi)-humanoid functions is in concern with ones own health - due to hyper-awareness of [ones own agency], these specimen(s) will internally be fixated on maintance + self-care in relation to surrounding subjects - [as the (Fi)-humanoid always "seems selfish,"], I am inclined to think the reasoning due to subject-fixation, that most (Fi)-specimens are 'internally self-care fixated' is because an unhealthy self - cannot effectively assist surrounding selves - nor agencies:

Because (Fi)-humanoid(s) are more concerned via anatomic-function(s) (Dominant-A) with (B)-support -- they are less daring, more risk-adverse, and more reluctant to attain to [other specimens and/or agencies]; this internal awareness makes them sensitive to [internalized-states of other selves]; because they have insight to internal anatomical-dysfunction(s).



How will doing (X) affect me?

I will do (X); just because. Why should I do (X), if I don't like it? If I don't "need to" (?) How can anyone else be "comfortable" with this?



(C) - will manifest in a hyper-analytical ability to address psychological-states of other specimens on a more subjective-level [simply because they are utilizing [how (X) will effect them - with how other specimens may or may not respond] to such affairs: specimens will also be more susceptible to biases / mood unpredictability and so forth.


I know (X) has a problem with narcissism; because I recognize (X)-in myself from a period of (X, Y, Z) - they may feel synthesized or see a pattern in (X)'s behavior in relation to themselves:


___________________________________



(Fi)-humanoids will have hyper-awareness of ones own agency in surrounding agencies; [before the awareness of how other agencies are affected], their values will be pre-logical, translating reflexive 'tautological' observation(s) on ones own anatomical-state [in possible distress, if any at all] to formulate syntactical [valid] argument(s) to support these either demonstrated or not anatomical-disturbances in order to maintain themselves.



This is stupid.

That is dumb.

I don't like this.

(vis-à-vis)

Either I will like this; or I will not like this.

Either this is wrong, or this is right.

(Either (x) or Y).

 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top