# Thinkers are poor with "value/ethic/feeling" judgement (why the absents of clarity?)



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

*Thinkers are poor with "value/ethic/feeling" judgement (why the absents of clarity?)*

Socionics has clarity in its description of Ethic type's poor handling of logic, for example *Ego* "Fe" readily accepts external logic structures that easily align with the "Fe" ideals. There is comfort in taking the leap of faith since easily "Fe" would have stood in approval and as the "ego", in the weltanschauung is the most capable analysis block so its easy to lean on. However as noted that can easily result in poor analysis the logical consistency element is doubted by the adept logic blocks were: "Te" criticizes the logical inconsistency, though through pointing out the missing facts ("Fe" biases are unsound to it) needed to make the proposed model logically stable. "Ti" criticizes the logical inconsistency, though through pointing out how the perception misaligns with the presented facts. "Fi" ego types have a similar issue with logical errors spawned from their readiness to adopt logical models inline with their "Fi": "Ti" criticizes the logical inconsistencies instead through pointing out the flaws in the fact's quality ("Fi" biases are unsound to it); "Te" criticizes the logical inconsistencies instead through noting how the model miss aligns with external facts. 


Whereas not much is easily described on how *ego* Te and Ti types are poorly capable of reasoning the *value/ethics/feeling* judgement realm. Why is it that? Why is it not as clear? Thinkers are bad with Feeling/Ethics judgement but why is that supposedly left to poor etiquette, social skills and what not, most of the time.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

I wouldn't say poorly capable. The right word might be slower. Thinkers can definitely deal with ethical matters, it just doesn't happen as snappily as feelers. While on the other hand most feelers can handle things like math, with effort. Although that might also be dependent on other functions/orders as well. Sometimes, people just don't care about using their inferior functions and pass judgement as fast as they can with whatever the can think/feel of. Nothing wrong with that, people are meant for different things.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

sinigang said:


> I wouldn't say poorly capable. The right word might be slower. Thinkers can definitely deal with ethical matters, it just doesn't happen as snappily as feelers. While on the other hand most feelers can handle things like math, with effort. Although that might also be dependent on other functions/orders as well. Sometimes, people just don't care about using their inferior functions and pass judgement as fast as they can with whatever the can think/feel of. Nothing wrong with that, people are meant for different things.


So you'd say feelers are equivalently "slower" with logic, its pretty apparent that everybody engages in all the functions but proficiency in them affected by position and that is something I want to really discover with thinkers. Its pretty apparent to feelers


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> So you'd say feelers are equivalently "slower" with logic, its pretty apparent that everybody engages in all the functions but proficiency in them affected by position and that is something I want to really discover with thinkers. Its pretty apparent to feelers


Yes as a data point for you, I'm definitely slow on making and/or taking into account feeling judgments (generic meaning here) compared to certain people. Not going to claim much proficiency either  

(Btw this proficiency thing vs position I believe can be dependent on what kind of situation one is in... doesn't have to be consistent in the person's life overall. E.g. someone could be crap at using an approach in many situations but in a specific kind of situation the person might practice it for some related goal and be pretty good at it. Essentially this is about adding more variables into the original framework of functional attitudes  )

Now why would it be like that for me, I don't know the exact reason for it. It feels like this aspect of things is often just not so much in the foreground and when it is I sometimes still have to think first to decide what would be best. And then it also depends on my mood somehow, just to complicate things  IRL this is even more obvious than online. I have two very distinct modes of being that I talked about in some typeme threads of mine, one of these modes has me quite sociable, the other doesn't, maybe that's related to the "F" thingies.

If you want to break it down into functions with I/E attitude; Are we talking only socionics now or MBTI too?

Not that it matters because I find stuff attributed to Fi definitions in either theory pretty hard to make sense of. There's an answer to your question really, it's hard to convert impersonal logical reasoning to all those supposedly (?!) deep-felt ethical ideals but it can be possible if you find a good logical framework for them. I sometimes do this myself. It's just not going to be an actual internal feeling or whatever it's supposed to be lol.

Otoh I'm ok with showing e.g. sympathy for other people in certain cases simply because I can focus outwardly on the person/people. Not sure how that'd be going through any kind of "Ti" though, it all feels more direct to me somehow. (--> Hey Jung could say that's because of preferring Extraversion  I myself would simply say it's a manifestation of psychological workings of the mind that's more complicated than a few generic functions.)

Anyway... Fe if defined in this way of focusing on other people being around in a dynamic way is ok, sometimes it's in the foreground on its own a lot  My warning here is that some of it might be just sensory attention and direct response through that attitude without actually caring about other people in a more deep way, instead just "going along", so take this part for whatever it's worth. 

Fe, if defined as focusing on society's collective ethical rules, e.g. considering how some action or thought of mine said out loud is going to affect others or what's considered impolite or outright rude to someone else, that's more of a bother to me and that's where I can have delays in thinking of it. Otoh, if someone else is being rude *and* if I feel responsible for people there for whatever reason, I have no problem discerning rudeness directed at someone in the group and instantly reacting to it. In other cases when not feeling responsible in this way for other people's feelings, I don't perceive certain things as rudeness, shocking certain people this way. *shrug*

Note; All that also means, my social skills are partially good and partially not. You wondered about social skills in OP but I think it's not such a simple relationship there.

And then Fe when defined as this certain kind of emotional energizability in socionics (that's a different definition again; e.g. I mentioned the collective rules too because that was also mentioned on socionics sites...), it works *if* I'm in the mood for it  But I have no idea how this can be contrasted to "T" functions directly or why there should be a direct relationship between strong Ti and weak Fe. I've read about attempts to connect the two but I see it more like, one is "on" and the other is "off" or vice versa... And Fe as relating to emotional energizability doesn't have a lot to do with very good etiquette either (that was also mentioned in your OP).

Eh, I hope some of this makes sense. I like this topic of T/F though... Ask questions if needed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't think feelers are slower in their logic but I think the word hesitant is a better word to describe that you are initially hesitant to apply thinking logic on a situation if you could as well first solve it using feeling logic (or try to).


----------

