Thinker Feeler Differences

Originally Posted by Confused

These explanations have been a fascinating read - thanks all! A few months ago, I took the Myers-Briggs and tested INFP. Then I took one today and tested INTP. I am under a lot of pressure in my life right now and feel like I am the only person who is "holding the fort" or "staying grounded" for my children and fiance. I've heard others say before that Feelers can become Thinkers through changes in circumstances or through sheer determination and cognitive-behavioral modification. Do you believe this to be true? Why or why not? If I am an INFP when others are holding the fort and an INTP when I am responsible for doing so, which might you say is my "true" attribute, T or F?

I'm not sure, but you sound awfully INFP to me! The difference between INFP and INTP isn't just whether you use "F" or "T", what type of F and T you use.

INFP: Fi, Te
INTP: Ti, Fe

Which description fits you better, introverted thinking or introverted feeling?



According to MBTI, people don't change types, but rely on different functions at different times. So whether you're INFP or INTP, you're going to use both F and T. The question is, how do you use each?

Originally Posted by kibou

I'm not sure, but you sound awfully INFP to me! The difference between INFP and INTP isn't just whether you use "F" or "T", what type of F and T you use.

INFP: Fi, Te
INTP: Ti, Fe

Which description fits you better, introverted thinking or introverted feeling?

According to MBTI, people don't change types, but rely on different functions at different times. So whether you're INFP or INTP, you're going to use both F and T. The question is, how do you use each?

Thanks for this info! After considering the two, I think you're right about my being an INFP. Internally, I am very emotion-based; I am often either too proud or too practical to reveal this to others. Is that pretty much what you are saying?

cool thread! thanks for the knowledge! wooot

Yeah, I'm definitely T, then. I prefer Truth and Justice, and as a result was sorely disappointed with the ending of The Lovely Bones, though I'm told the book is better. The point about religion was interesting. I remember starting to feel uncomfortable and skeptical in church at the age of 7 when I noticed everyone was droning along together and I couldn't figure out why. Who were they talking to? God. Why does he require them to speak on mass. He's hard of hearing. No he isn't, he probably has a million ears. Mommy, I just want to sit here and read...Though I am spiritual, mystical. I'm a pantheist. I believe that god is nature, particles, a disinterested yet loving entity made up of energy that sees time all at once from all perspectives. Course I don't know, but that's what I project onto the concept because I like that idea. I'm watching a Joseph Campbell documentary now.

Though, I do like hearing "I love you" repeated over and over and over again, but I like to see proof, ie. the deeds.

I've also noticed that when I do get emotional, it is rather primitive and I don't particularly understand it, though I am definitely pretty deep and sensitive. It's like Mark Twain said, 'All true emotions are involuntary." I tend to cry over anger caused by injustice, not sadness. Sometimes it comes out of the blue, when, rationally I don't know why the occurence warranted tears. I like crying. It's cathartic and mysterious. My emotions tend to be so all or nothing that they strike me as sublime, not gradual or spaced out over a reasonable period of time. And when I am in a bad mood, it doesn't last long. The storm is here, then it's over. Love is the only thing capable of making me really brood. I tend to get mad at myself when emotions make me irrational and I can't seem to trace their origin. The best emotions are caused by a mix of oxytocin and someone I really really like ;)

Random question: Do you think there are any differences between T and F for not wanting to be typed? Perhaps for different reasons?

Originally Posted by Ghrim

I've never taken the official MBTI exam, but I've taken several different tests online and get about the same in each one. I'm strongly INP, but on the line between T and F, with usually a very slight lean to F. Both INTP and INFP describe me equally well, and I can get annoyed with people I meet who are extremes of either side :P

I've always been an avid debater plus equal parts daydreamer and deep thinker. I noticed the thinking/feeling differences in people before discovering MBTI and codified my interpretation of those functions for myelf before I ever knew I was an INXP

Logic/Objectivity are tools for generating understanding and cooperation in fairness between varying value systems, but when unbalanced by feeling/subjectivity can lose sight of its ultimate purpose and lead to actions and attitudes which betray human need. I've always seen this most often in people who cling too stubbornly to blunt objectivity and drive people away because they can't be convinced to turn their logical functions towards developing social tact. They may be presenting what they think is the best objective compromise, but without applying Feeling, they're terrible at selling that compromise to others. Since discovering MBTI, I've especially noticed that introverted thinking types tend to run information through their value systems and present the conclusions as fact, while refusing to admit that those conclusions are in fact the product of a value system. I've seen many discussions turn bitter over this behavior.

Feeling/Subjectivity are used to generate value systems, which are inherently relativistic in nature, and thus (whether admitted or not) serve as a launching point for the logical functions, as all formations of objectivity and logic begin with interpretation of information that is limited by the subjective limitations of knowledge/experience. Feeling is also responsible for the most fundamental fabric of human relationships - that connection (good or bad) which may be explained only after it is developed. I think this is the part of us that gives us direction and meaning in life. Without the value systems generated by feeling, there is no way to generate priorities in life which translate into goals and eventually action. If feeling is left unchecked by thinking, it can also easily betray itself because selective use of objectivity is required to create the harmony it desires. Without any Thinking bridging the gap to value systems held by other individuals, which is what enables fairness and cooperation, pure Feeling is doomed to destroy the connections it creates.

I may be completely missing the point here, as I haven't read much about the stacking of functions in MBTI, but I hope I've offered something. I really think and feel that T/F is a very important balance for people to achieve and respect. I also agree that modern society is excessively T oriented.

This is exactly what I have been thinking lately. Thank you for making it so clear.
Feeling is the why, the motivation and reason for action, while Thinking is the how, the solution and implementation of visions.

Without Thinking we'd be stranded with alot of dreams and urges without the means to do something with them, unable make dreams reality.

Without Feeling we'd have no reason to do something, we'd be living in apathy and nihilism, not caring wheter we lived or died.

Both these examples are taken to the extreme. However, I can see some of these weaknesses manifest at dominante feelers and dominante thinkers. Like how some feelers are overwhelmed by only seeing problems and unforfilled potential without doing anything about it, while some thinkers being indifferent to suffering.

I would say that Feelers hold society together, but Thinkers allow society to function.

People who want facts can consult wikipedia.

People who want the perspective of human insight are free to consult with humans, who happen to have value systems which differ from each other- not making them wrong nor right, merely making them who they are.

Right and wrong are beside the point. Most people will realize, some taking longer than others, that more can be learned by asking someone a question to allow their intellect and emotions to develop than can be achieved through arguing. By stating our opinions we have not excluded the validity of every other person's opinion, we've merely shared our experiences as an offering to the rest of society- having little to no control whatsoever over what they will or won't do with it, how they will or won't understand it... A lot can be learned simply from asking someone WHY they feel a certain way and WHY the opinion(s) of someone else can offend them so much.

Freedom to agree or disagree and/or keep talking, either way. People are free to have their opinions of me, but it's not their opinions that dictate who I am- their opinions of me can only dictate who THEY are.

Like my mom has said, she would say 1 thing and each of her 8 children would hear something different and emotionally perceive it in a completely different way from their siblings and sometimes a completely different way from what she intended.

Disclaimers make everything take longer to say. Someone is always going to be offended, anyway. Can't make everyone happy, ya know [blah blah blah... disclaimers are for dummies].

Originally Posted by VenusMisty

I prefer Truth and Justice, and as a result was sorely disappointed with the ending of The Lovely Bones, though I'm told the book is better.

My ENFP S.O. also did not like the way the movie ended. When I explained to him from another perspective how it could be a kind of consolation- one way in which justice might eventually be dealt (reassurance to all the people in the audience with personal experiences who never got their sense of tangible justice) my S.O. still didn't like it, so I acknowledged his feelings and shared some of my own. My appeal to his understanding of how the things we don't know shouldn't ruin our personal lives and happiness so that we can move on regardless of doubt also didn't help him come to terms with the ending. I told him I'd rather be glad he isn't a parent who has lost a child in that manner who must suffer through not ever having finality.

I even brought into the discussion the concept of how it's messed up that a person will be accused and judged and sentenced for a crime they never committed while the true criminal is out there, unpunished- The family of the victim then feels a [misplaced] sense of justice and finality that is completely unrealistic even though "tangible" as they watch a person die from lethal injection whom they are convinced has wronged them. Does it matter that our sense of justice is superficially served or not if either way the wrong doer is inevitably punished in ways which we cannot even fathom? Meanwhile, guilty or innocent, punished or not -whether capital or by some force akin to karma- we've de-humanized that person to the point of our own self-destruction as individuals and as a species.

...and, anyway, how does that solve the bigger, more sinister problems of our society? how does that make us turn to our children and see the potential in them to become monsters in the scenario that we don't nurture and teach them sufficiently to not allow that to be their fate of monster nor victim? at what point does suffering no longer teach us anything? at what point must we stop hiding from the suffering we pretend we don't feel which has been eating away at who we once were- so that we can stop harming ourselves and others to instead give expression to our own pain in a healing way and move on?

I still don't know if he understood what I was trying to communicate to him... When I watch a film, I always ask myself why a director or screen-writer did things a certain way, and though not 100% certain I can still find possible meanings in whatever direction the film was taken to help me understand what that personal message could have been, or else the film won't have much personal significance for me to draw upon now or later in my life.

I see the T vs. F to be quite a bit more complicated than I can grasp, which is why I keep trying to understand both the contrast and the shared human condition. I see it as one or the other being a starting point for an individual's growth until we can meet somewhere in the middle with accommodations made that don't require a person to go to extremes. There should be a balance between them, not disparity.

I would argue that thinkers are rational and feelers are more intuitive.

Originally Posted by matilda

1. The labels "Thinker" and "Feeler" are not descriptive of what those people do. Thinkers are not smarter than Feelers, nor are Feelers more sensitive. Thinkers have feelings, and Feelers are able to reason logically. The fundamental difference is the values they hold in highest esteem: Thinkers give priority to Truth and Justice; Feelers give priority to Relationships and affirmation. That's the only difference, and it only applies when truth and affirmation are at odds, which tends to be more often than some people would like to admit. I would consider the labels unfortunate, except that any labels would soon develop the same or similar problems (see #5 below).

2. Thinkers are able to honestly recognize Feeler values in other people and adjust their actions accordingly. Given sufficient motivation (such as preserving a relationship that depends on it, or keeping one's job), Feelers are willing to put aside their distaste for disaffirmation to deal with uncomfortable truths. In neither case is that their respective preference.

3. Science and technology require an absolutely honest understanding of nature and physics, for which Thinker values work best. Educational institutions and the arts are more successful using Feeler values. Competitive activities like sports are more successful with an honest assessment of the competition and the factors that lead to excellence, which again favors Thinker values. Modern business is highly competitive, which dominates any relationship issues they might have with their employees and customers. Some customers will favor good business relationships (Feeler values), but most of them favor quality and price (driven by Thinker values). Democratic governments are sustained by good relationships with other politicians and voters; while the election process is often highly competitive, the relationship issues (Feeler values) tend to dominate political activity. This may not be the case in autocratic regimes, but I don't live under one, so I can't tell.

4. The global and American economy is driven by science and technology and modern business methods -- in other words, by Thinker values. Political and artistic considerations are not as significant as financial and technological issues for achieving wealth and power. This tends to give Thinkers a higher prestige status than Feelers in the public perception.

5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts. Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves.

6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too. There is a half-serious anonymous list of "The Guy's Rules" going around, one of which reads

If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the other one.
This is a good insight.
7. The American church (including the churches under its influence worldwide) is run by and for the exclusive benefit of Feelers. Thinkers are invited, but only if they agree to pretend to be Feelers. Some Thinkers succeed at the charade, most just stay away. Truth is, after all, their highest value. The Bible is more balanced, giving a slight preference to Thinker values, but an overwhelming preference to Truth over "relationship". The church power structure mostly ignores the Bible when promoting their Feeler values as "Christian".

8. Feelers believe it is important to say they love you, and to hear you say it to them, because that is affirming; Thinkers prefer to do loving things, and to see correspondence between the words and the deeds, because correspondence to reality is the test of truth.


Tom Pittman
1st draft 2007 March 24
Rev. 08 Feb 9, 09 Apr 30
Thinker-Feeler Differences

I do agree with the statement about since it has been a long time unable to understand myself.