# Are thinkers feelers that rationalize with logic?



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

So here is the thing, I have seen xntj's talk about logic when I think they mean opinion/feelings. I don't think it's constant, there are certainly cases where logic is chosen despite feelings. I think that the idea of a thinker using pure logic is flawed. Logic can't be used perfectly by humans because we are biological entities with emotions that are generated by neurotransmitters or helped by the presence of neurotransmitters.

So now I want to logically justify feeling over thinking.

When I make a decision based on my feelings, I know I am doing that. I have no illusions that I'm making the most practical choice. I made a decision based on what I think makes life interesting. If I believe that I am making a decision based on logic that is actually based in emotion then my capacity to understand my mistakes is lessened. 

I'm intentionally arguing a side a little more than I believe because I want to hear the counter argument from the thinker side. I think the issue is more nuanced than I am describing. I have perceived from some thinkers a condescending attitude toward my feeling side. I used to just feel respect for thinking over feeling but I found it empty and meaningless. Now I have started to see some of its shortcomings (and I have also started using more logic in my life).


----------



## Theokon (Nov 19, 2013)

No one can know for sure if their logic is correct because you can't know if you are delusional, insane, false perceptions, or something. But feelings are purely based on an individual. Opinions based on feelings can't be right or wrong because two people can be totally different in the way they feel. Where as two people with different thinking can argue something and one of them has to be right once the arguments are tested. To rationalize something by thinking logically you would say this makes sense because the factors add up. Where rationalizing by feeling the factors all depend on your own feelings. But when making a choice it only makes sense to choose based on your feelings because what does logic matter? It only makes sense to do what you want if you can.

Also rationalizing based on feeling doesn't mean you will make the right choice to satisfy your feelings which is why it can be argued thinking should be used over feeling to rationalize. Thinking will look at the factors and how they make sense where feeling comes to an opinion on what is valued. You can use thinking to change the way you feel.


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

Jung described both the feeling and thinking functions as rational. 



> _the functions _ Whether we are introverts or extroverts, we need to deal with the world, inner and outer. And each of us has our preferred ways of dealing with it, ways we are comfortable with and good at. Jung suggests there are four basic ways, or functions:
> The first is sensing. Sensing means what it says: getting information by means of the senses. A sensing person is good at looking and listening and generally getting to know the world. Jung called this one of the irrational functions, meaning that it involved perception rather than judging of information.
> The second is thinking. Thinking means evaluating information or ideas rationally, logically. Jung called this a rational function, meaning that it involves decision making or judging, rather than simple intake of information.
> The third is intuiting. Intuiting is a kind of perception that works outside of the usual conscious processes. It is irrational or perceptual, like sensing, but comes from the complex integration of large amounts of information, rather than simple seeing or hearing. Jung said it was like seeing around corners.
> ...


Intoduction to C.G. Jung by C. George Boeree

The classic definition of rational, yes, has to do with logical reasoning. Descartes and other philosphers were among the Rationalist school, which favored secularism, utilitarianism, and anti-traditionalism (Google it to learn more). Feeling is commonly associated with emotions and the limbic system in general, are associated with feeling. 

Jung said feeling, particularly introverted feeling, as based on value judgement (hence the J label that Myers later christens). 

In all, I guess you can rationalize that you rationalize as much as thinkers in a Jungian sense, and less in a metaphilosophical sense. Personally, I generally detest decisions based on feelings because of their inherent lack of pragmatism, and their often over support on fallacious thinking or ad populum logic.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> Jung said feeling, particularly introverted feeling, as based on value judgement (hence the J label that Myers later christens).
> 
> In all, I guess you can rationalize that you rationalize as much as thinkers in a Jungian sense, and less in a metaphilosophical sense. Personally, I generally detest decisions based on feelings because of their inherent lack of pragmatism, and their often over support on fallacious thinking or ad populum logic.


I do tend to make decisions based on how they fit within my value system above my emotions. I dislike it greatly when they are in conflict but my value system wins out. 

You mentioned fallacious reasoning and that is exactly what I am talking about. I guess I am annoyed by the misuse of logic. If an individual claims to be moved by logic then they should have the capacity to decipher their own motives to counter those motives with reason. If they aren't aware of their emotions then they use faulty reasoning and justify in logical terms motives that are created in the limbic system. 

From an NPR article titled "The Smarter You Are, The Stupider You Are"
"A recent study by Yale's Dan M. Kahan and colleagues might be thought to call these truisms of democratic political culture into question. According to the finding, the better you are at reasoning numerically, the more likely you are to let your political bias skew your quantitative reasoning."

Have you read_ Blink _or _Thinking Fast and Slow_?

Thank you for your response, I appreciate the information you shared.

Also, I am attempting to pull you into a debate despite the reply that you posted being a very respectful response.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

The phenomenon of rationalising feelings through the use of logic is widespread. I think most people do that quite a lot without even realising. In 4th Way this is called wrong work of centres (body, heart, mind) and its one of the primary things we need to watch out for.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

sarek- that looks interesting. I am going to look into it more. Mystical transcendence is an interesting concept. It seems like that is what the 4th way is referencing.

I have to admit- I am disappointed that I didn't engage an XNTJ in a debate. I thought I was being a little bit of a troll. Either I am a bad troll or no one fell for it because they are above getting upset by trolling. 

*sigh* 

That should be my question. How do you engage a thinker in a debate?


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

The thing about Logic is that it is really open to everything. 
Meaning you can apply it to almost any situation and it will open up the possibilities.
Seeing as Logic has such a wide lends it's hard to rationalize acting on a ridged feeling yet I'll do it sometimes and then find Logic in doing so.


I hate it when people make illogical jokes and expect you to take it as logic. 
I know that it's a joke but I'm not going to be ignorant just so you can make a joke, think of a better joke around me.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Kindlings said:


> I have to admit- I am disappointed that I didn't engage an XNTJ in a debate. I thought I was being a little bit of a troll. Either I am a bad troll or no one fell for it because they are above getting upset by trolling.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> That should be my question. How do you engage a thinker in a debate?


You have to find one who is interested in you as a person, then they will engage with you because they like you, not because you are logical. They will of course deny this.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Kindlings said:


> That should be my question. How do you engage a thinker in a debate?


I would suggest finding a way to present the topic that can end in anything but opinion shouting. As someone who has faced the "everything stems from emotion" argument before it cannot be resolved with logic or with evidence. Therefore, it's utterly pointless to spend time discussing it.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> I would suggest finding a way to present the topic that can end in anything but opinion shouting. As someone who has faced the "everything stems from emotion" argument before it cannot be resolved with logic or with evidence. Therefore, it's utterly pointless to spend time discussing it.


Well, Feeling types might not find that pointless.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> Well, Feeling types might not find that pointless.


If the question is "How do I engage thinkers in debate" then the fact that feeling types may find the arrived at method pointless seems, unimportant. 

To illustrate: 

Question: "How do I get garbage men to work harder" 
Method: "By giving them new uniforms" 

Your objection: Electricians may not work harder if they get new uniforms.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> That should be my question. How do you engage a thinker in a debate?
> I would suggest finding a way to present the topic that can end in anything but opinion shouting. As someone who has faced the "everything stems from emotion" argument before it cannot be resolved with logic or with evidence. Therefore, it's utterly pointless to spend time discussing it.


 You misunderstand me. I meant that a Feeler might well enjoy a debate with a Thinker on any topic which cannot be resolved with logic or evidence. And the Thinker might join in because they liked the Feeler.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> You misunderstand me. I meant that a Feeler might well enjoy a debate with a Thinker on any topic which cannot be resolved with logic or evidence. And the Thinker might join in because they liked the Feeler.


Ah a misunderstanding. I get where you're coming from with that, but I learned to not get into such debates when I was obsessed with religion at around 15.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> I would suggest finding a way to present the topic that can end in anything but opinion shouting. As someone who has faced the "everything stems from emotion" argument before it cannot be resolved with logic or with evidence. Therefore, it's utterly pointless to spend time discussing it.


So a thinker would want to know that an argument is resolvable before debating?

Or 

Would a thinker prefer I make more calculated explanations of my stance that are perhaps backed by some kind of evidence (like neuroscience or psychology for this one)? 

I have a few XNTJs in my life. All of them I pick up on emotions from. Of course picking up on emotions isn't a logical process. I am just very intrigued by this process of emotional disregard or suppression? Probably a combination of the two.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Dabbling said:


> You misunderstand me. I meant that a Feeler might well enjoy a debate with a Thinker on any topic which cannot be resolved with logic or evidence. And the Thinker might join in because they liked the Feeler.


Well, I guess I have thinkers that like me! I am pretty sure I pissed one off with this idea so I wanted to try and get feedback from strangers. I just need to research the XNTJ functions.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

I wish they let you delete comments on here. This comment posted twice by accident.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Ah a misunderstanding. I get where you're coming from with that, but I learned to not get into such debates when I was obsessed with religion at around 15.


Well, not to totally derail this thread, but Christianity (the one I know best) seems to me to have a mix of fact, feeling, personal experience, ethics and historical information in it. That's not an emotion-only debate... 

An emotion only debate for me is something like 'Why don't you like film x? Everyone loves film x except you...' Now THAT would be pointless discussion.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Some of them sometimes do.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Kindlings said:


> So a thinker would want to know that an argument is resolvable before debating?
> 
> Or
> 
> ...


I'm interested in any discussion where someone has a field of expertise which I can learn from. So if you have a genuine interest in neuroscience or psychology I would probably listen to you. Since I don't know much about either field I would hesitate to engage, but I like listening. I have a built in 'she's only bluffing' detector so don't try to pretend you know stuff when you don't.

It seems to me that your actual area of interest and expertise is in detecting the emotions of your xNTJs. Why don't you try engaging them in a discussion about that, instead? They may not be aware of what they are emoting, and I would be challenged and engage (maybe not positively, but you would get my attention and some respect!) by someone who did that! For myself I would love that now but I felt very threatened by that kind of thing in my twenties...I was incredibly private and hated the feeling of being seen by anyone.

If you tackled the topic as a theoretical issue or as about a third party that might be a very good way in to a discussion. It wouldn't be a romantic approach. So...eg...'did you notice how angry xNTJ was yesterday evening? I thought he hid it very well when dealing with that taxi driver who was late. I don't find it easy to control my feelings like that...I wonder how he disregards them..' 'Or maybe it is suppression..' ...' Have you ever done that do you think?'....and, if it's going really well, followed by 'you know you looked a bit upset the other day when Sarah was leaving, but it was only for a moment...is that the same sort of thing?' Although if you got a sensible answer not an evasive one to this last question then you have a mature xNTJ in my view, or at least one who is clearly comfortable around you...or else they are actually not xNTJ...


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

The logic of Thinking types is definitely influenced by their emotions, but this doesn't mean they're feeling types. The feeling functions are actually a conscious process of determining value, they're not synonymous with emotions.

Even Star Trek's Vulcans only learned to repress emotional expression and make it totally subservient to logic... they couldn't eliminate it completely. And they were supposed to be an unattainable ideal of pure logic. What real-life Thinkers do doesn't even come close to that.

A thinking type can definitely be illogical, but they will be illogical in a different way from a feeling type. The thinking function isn't necessarily logic, it's just a way of making decisions impersonally. This method of making decisions need not be logical at all, it only has to allow the Thinker to make decisions without consulting values or personal feelings. The main reason Thinkers always speak of logic, is because in our culture, that's an excellent excuse to use impersonal (and possibly unpopular) reasoning. 

Strong thinking types may show an aversion to dealing with values, even in situations where doing so isn't logical... this is because they have an unconscious preference to avoid the personal, just as we have an unconscious preference to deal with it. Furthermore, if there were a widely understood system other than logic/reason which allowed Thinkers to make similarly impersonal decisions, a lot of them would probably adopt it. 

Their lack of interest in the personal and in value-based decisions doesn't necessarily indicate devotion to logic or an interest in excluding their emotions from their decision-making process. They're unaware or uncomfortable with personal values/ethics, but emotions, biases, and instincts can be a part of what drives them. It goes against the system of logic, but it doesn't go against the Thinking function itself. Society, to some extent, conditions Thinkers to use unbiased, objective logic just as it conditions Feelers to incorporate certain moral standards into their values. Those moral standards aren't always instinct for us, and being unbiased/objective isn't an instinct for them either. It's learned.

Basically, being a Thinking type doesn't mean you can't be biased or illogical. It just means you have to be biased and illogical in an impersonal, consistent way that doesn't involve any consideration of value judgments.

Am I making sense?


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

@delphi367

Brilliant. Thank you!

I understand and I appreciate the explanation.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Dabbling said:


> It seems to me that your actual area of interest and expertise is in detecting the emotions of your xNTJs. Why don't you try engaging them in a discussion about that, instead?
> If you tackled the topic as a theoretical issue or as about a third party that might be a very good way in to a discussion. It wouldn't be a romantic approach. So...eg...'did you notice how angry xNTJ was yesterday evening? I thought he hid it very well when dealing with that taxi driver who was late. I don't find it easy to control my feelings like that...I wonder how he disregards them..' 'Or maybe it is suppression..' ...' Have you ever done that do you think?'....and, if it's going really well, followed by 'you know you looked a bit upset the other day when Sarah was leaving, but it was only for a moment...is that the same sort of thing?' Although if you got a sensible answer not an evasive one to this last question then you have a mature xNTJ in my view, or at least one who is clearly comfortable around you...or else they are actually not xNTJ...


I'm comfortable saying they are XNTJ. I think I am interested in their emotions but specific emotions can be tricky to discuss.

I think I'm more interested in how the feelings are evaluated. 

Any chance you want to share what your internal dialogue sounds like? I would totally share mine 

I think I want to know the narrative that would go on. Especially in regards to something you had feelings about.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Kindlings said:


> So a thinker would want to know that an argument is resolvable before debating?
> 
> Or
> 
> ...


I prefer to know whether we're having a debate or shouting opinions at one another. I know the difference may seem minimal, but in essence it comes down to something like:
"Is the catholic church a force for good in the world?" as opposed to "Is there a god?" (I used titles from 2 debates I have on my hard-drive). 

In the case of the former it is possible to collect evidence in the form of historical documentation and facts for both cases. Charity work etc on one hand and dodgy behavior on the other. You can also form logical arguments based on the evidence and in logic on it's own. 

In the case of the latter, you get the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when it comes to various scientific methods. You also get the problem of infinite regression, non sequiturs, and so on in a lot of arguments. 

Subjectivity cannot be avoided, that was a central issue in one of Thomas Kuhn's arguments regarding science. However, you can seek to minimize the influence it has on you by sticking with evidence and logic. However, there is a huge step from "everyone has some degree of subjectivity" to "it feels right to me". If you cannot agree on what constitutes a proper argument, there is another problem. 

To take the cosmological argument since I've dealt with that before, which is basically an argument for a first cause or "uncaused cause". In this case, it's either infinite regression or a case of special pleading/ad hoc, because in the case of the former you end up with a situation where the "But what created the first cause" ad infinitum or you end up with "Well, in this case the first cause was not caused". 

If your opponent does not agree that the cosmological argument is a fallacious argument, then there is no point in having the discussion. At that point the discussion just ends up in tautology.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> I prefer to know whether we're having a debate or shouting opinions at one another. I know the difference may seem minimal...


I understand the distinction between the two and I appreciate the explanation. 

I find the XNTJ's logical dissection fascinating.


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

> I have to admit- I am disappointed that I didn't engage an XNTJ in a debate. I thought I was being a little bit of a troll. Either I am a bad troll or no one fell for it because they are above getting upset by trolling.


 @Kindlings

I didn't know you wanted to have a debate. I suppose it's ironic than a supposedly argumentive type, the ENTJ, didn't want to debate the "passive" INFP. Not sure what there is to debate. Not to get all Kuhnian up in here, but if we define Thinking and Feeling in Jungian terms, then in order to change Jung's view, we have to form a new paradigm. Jung's view on Feeling and Thinking, and "rational functions" seems to answer your question reasonably well I'd would assume. 

If you are curious about XNTJ logic, read some XNTJ literature. Read Nichomachen Ethics by Aristotle, or The Gay Science by Nietzche or something.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> @Kindlings
> 
> I didn't know you wanted to have a debate. I suppose it's ironic than a supposedly argumentive type, the ENTJ, didn't want to debate the "passive" INFP. Not sure what there is to debate. Not to get all Kuhnian up in here, but if we define Thinking and Feeling in Jungian terms, then in order to change Jung's view, we have to form a new paradigm. Jung's view on Feeling and Thinking, and "rational functions" seems to answer your question reasonably well I'd would assume.
> 
> If you are curious about XNTJ logic, read some XNTJ literature. Read Nichomachen Ethics by Aristotle, or The Gay Science by Nietzche or something.


When I mentioned this idea to an ENTJ before he became a little aggressive. I was expecting that again. I am not sure he is ENTJ- he may be an ENTP. 

I am a little more interested in engaging with more XNTJs than I am interested in learning about the topic separate from human interaction. I didn't get the response I thought I would but I think I understand a little better. Basically I am killing two birds with one stone. I get to interact with XNTJs more and I get to learn about more. When I interact with one currently they get lots of questions as I try to understand them. I do debate with the ones I know now, I even win sometimes (very grudgingly for them). 

I may try The Gay Science by Nietzche. I did enjoy "God is dead". I am going to include a quote from wikipedia because it is such beautiful writing:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

It is emotive writing. 

The only problem with using Nietzsche or Aristotle to understand the XNTJ type is they are rather exceptional men. I won't know what to attribute to their own genius and what to associate with other XNTJs. There is also no way to be sure their type. I need to sit down with a book on Jungian functions. 

I am much more interested in exploring their emotional side. I don't know if that will happen though. It seems like it isn't easy to access that part. It probably wouldn't be rewarding for me to either. Curiosity killed the cat!


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

I think it's not really one thing. For myself, there was an element of not necessarily knowing what my emotions were and having the impression that when I do have feelings that I need to deal with them immediately. Eventually they just shut off because I didn't know how to deal with them and nobody wanted to help me out with that. 

I think many thinkers (NT/ST) will fully admit that he/she has feelings, moral judgments quite often and feels a certain way about things. It's just that this doesn't dominate a thinker's thought process. Rationalizing away your feelings is just an unhealthy way of coping with something that is uncomfortable. IME, both thinkers and feelers do this a certain way. Personally, I have allowed myself to let negative feelings linger while I come up with something better.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Pendit76 said:


> Jung described both the feeling and thinking functions as rational.
> 
> Intoduction to C.G. Jung by C. George Boeree
> 
> ...


Jung's actual delineation of Judgment and Perception is direct and indirect thought - period.

Cognitive functions, you know the definition of cognitive? -*functions are not emotions*. 

Perception functions are not irrational by the dictionary definition of the word. Perception functions are intake, and they just are what they are without having been deliberated. Jung was a contemporary of Freud, so his idea of ego is about the observing self or a type of participation, or choice. Judging functions of introverted and extroverted attitudes are said (by Jung) to be direct thought -more ego participation in the Freudian sense.

Emotions may be a corrolary - sometimes. But emotion is a physiological, full body experience, and often not chosen in the jungian sense of rationality. What we call feeling *functions,* on the other hand, simply have different criteria than what has been labled the thinking functions.

OP, your sense of what is right, or what you experience as your own sense of taste, your own "code" or priorities, and personal evaluation of the world around you is Fi. By dictionary definition this would be irrational because it doesn't have to have a cause and effect, there is no proof or disproof that will change these "values". Jung says this is rational - according to his definition of your awareness that you observe yourself making a choice.

One thing I am wondering about (not being Fe or Te dom) Extroverted judgement for both Fe and Te, must be experienced as being a kind of middleman in ones life? The objectivity is outside, the choice is inside. Introverted judging functions observe their own mental activity, but Extroverted functioned influenced persons see themselves as a choice maker and then only as a reflection through something outside themselves?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Perhaps the most succinct explanation I have ever encountered on this topic was such..

All human perception is subjective.. All humans use a form of logic and rationalization when planning actions, deciding the value of something and coming to conclusions.. The only difference between T and F is one of where the value is placed.

T will favor objective criteria and F will favor subjective criteria.

What this might look like is a T and F deciding who to lay off.. The T will look at the bottom line and want to lay off the least productive worker.. They will look at measurable things like punctuality, sick days, meeting quotas and such.. The F will favor things like group dynamics.. If the person is liked and maybe who just had a twins and bought a house.

Or who to cut from a final sports roster.. T will look at stats while F will focus on intangibles like heart , wilting under pressure or coming through when it matters most. 

And really that is the only difference..


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Arclight said:


> Perhaps the most succinct explanation I have ever encountered on this topic was such..
> 
> All human perception is subjective.. All humans use a form of logic and rationalization when planning actions, deciding the value of something and coming to conclusions.. The only difference between T and F is one of where the value is placed.
> 
> ...


Ti, may realize that the group dynamic is important to the bottom line.
Fi will think, what are the company values, what kind of team will be in line with the "mission" or even which people do I like to work with.
Ti will assess strengths of the people and how they produce- off from each other. They will have examples in their mind of projects that went well. If they know someone is flat out unproductive - they will get canned but Ti might also see ways to shift people around to make everyone more productive. Ti will fire the people they just can't fit into a scheme of where they believe the company needs to go.


----------



## unoriginal (Dec 22, 2013)




----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

@unoriginal

You lost me. What is that?


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Ti, may realize that the group dynamic is important to the bottom line.
> Fi will think, what are the company values, what kind of team will be in line with the "mission" or even which people do I like to work with.
> Ti will assess strengths of the people and how they produce- off from each other. They will have examples in their mind of projects that went well. If they know someone is flat out unproductive - they will get canned but Ti might also see ways to shift people around to make everyone more productive. Ti will fire the people they just can't fit into a scheme of where they believe the company needs to go.


 If you didn't consider how to ensure the success of the business then everyone would fail. If it was a matter of a slightly better employee versus a guy with twins- I would get rid of the slightly better employee. A companies "values" are just marketing ploys normally. It's rare that it carries weight. 

It would come down to my values basically- if the most important thing was continued survival of the business then that would be how I would decide. Then my process would be focused on a similar analysis of individuals strengths and weaknesses. It would also be concerned with a successful group dynamic but not necessarily one that is good for me personally. I could have an alternative higher goal than the business' survival though.

It's funny to read the analysis of cognitive functions from various types. It's so easy to see the "rightness" of your own cognitive function and difficult to appreciate the alternative. 

It's weird how that works. I always feel I have the right opinion and I absolutely must be wrong a good portion of the time. That's why P makes more sense because...


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Old Intern said:


> Ti, may* realize that the group dynamic is important to the bottom line.
> *Fi will think, what are the company values, what kind of team will be in line with the "mission" or even which people do I like to work with.
> Ti will assess strengths of the people and how they produce- off from each other. They will have examples in their mind of projects that went well. If they know someone is flat out unproductive - they will get canned but Ti *might also see ways to shift people around* to make everyone more productive. Ti will fire the people they just can't fit into a scheme of where they believe the company needs to go.


I would have considered that an Fe approach, actually. Why do you say Ti? I always thought of Fe as being aware of group dynamics and using them to decide how people can best work together. If you're aware of how people get along, what they're most comfortable with, etc, and using that to inform your decision, then that sounds a bit like Fe to me.

Of course, it may be a moot point... all Fe users have Ti, and vice-versa. Could just be a question of emphasis.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> I would have considered that an Fe approach, actually. Why do you say Ti? I always thought of Fe as being aware of group dynamics and using them to decide how people can best work together. If you're aware of how people get along, what they're most comfortable with, etc, and using that to inform your decision, then that sounds a bit like Fe to me.
> 
> Of course, it may be a moot point... all Fe users have Ti, and vice-versa. Could just be a question of emphasis.


I would assume Fe is extroverted - about the people but Ti is strategy, your private thinking about how the pieces of the puzzle work, whereas TE is not thinking about complexities and ones's own observations. TE users seem to think this person is this or that (evaluativive with Fi, judgemental but not objectively observing) but a Ti user would incorporate something like, this person is a good multi-tasker and this other person is a good leader, or this person is lazy but brilliant and would think about how this can be used or not.


----------



## Kindlings (Dec 7, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I would assume Fe is extroverted - about the people but Ti is strategy, your private thinking about how the pieces of the puzzle work, whereas TE is not thinking about complexities and ones's own observations. TE users seem to think this person is this or that (evaluativive with Fi, judgemental but not objectively observing) but a Ti user would incorporate something like, this person is a good multi-tasker and this other person is a good leader, or this person is lazy but brilliant and would think about how this can be used or not.


Is it just a bad analogy?

Isn't it more about motivation than the actual decision?


----------



## smokeafish (Jun 21, 2014)

no, we do do that but we're called thinkers because we think more than we feel, it's as simple as it sounds, feel free to argue against me, would be interesting


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

@Kindlings

A pure thinker is motivated by the (subtle) emotions related to some kind of 
logic, a pure feeler is motivated by the (subtle) emotions related to value systems/ethics. In real life there is no such thing a pure thinker or a pure feeler. Feeler and thinker are motivated by different aspects of life, but emotions are behind both of them.

If someone is fully aware of emotions, then they are able to use their logic-system or their value-system in the most balanced way. But both types can be completely crippled by emotions.

A feeler-type simply acts based on a value-system more often than a logic-system, whereas a thinker acts based on a logic-system more often than a value-system. They are complementary, and a well developed person will discover that both a value-system and a logic-system are required to live a balanced life.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

if a thinker has a personal interest in a conclusion then the chance is there his personal preferences or prejudices will influence his thinking...it's not hard to use flawed logic and ignore or downplay relevant evidence to shape an argument to get a desired conclusion, while all the time believing it is objective...this is actually quite common

on the other hand, if the thinker has no personal interest in a conclusion, then his reasoning will be free of personal bias and he probably has a better chance to reach a valid conclusion, though the possibility his logic may still be flawed and his evidence still be insufficient is ever present because he is human and may be lazy, ignorant, etc

either way, it is not hard to find statements made by thinkers that are wrong and sometimes even quite silly


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> if a thinker has a personal interest in a conclusion then the chance is there his personal preferences or prejudices will influence his thinking...it's not hard to use flawed logic and ignore or downplay relevant evidence to shape an argument to get a desired conclusion, while all the time believing it is objective...this is actually quite common
> 
> on the other hand, if the thinker has no personal interest in a conclusion, then his reasoning will be free of personal bias and he probably has a better chance to reach a valid conclusion, though the possibility his logic may still be flawed and his evidence still be insufficient is ever present because he is human and may be lazy, ignorant, etc
> 
> either way, it is not hard to find statements made by thinkers that are wrong and sometimes even quite silly


an example of emotion-laden thinking can be found in a thread called "non-SJs what do you think of SJs?"...there you'll find thinkers and feelers alike trying to defend the position that SJs are just as innovative as the other temperaments...it's patent nonsense, but people will bend logic and facts to achieve the conclusion that comports with their values


----------

