# Thinkers: Do You Believe Thinking Is A Superior Function To Feeling?



## Stars (Jul 23, 2009)

Ever since I discovered the MBTI, I've had the impression that at least a small percentage of Ts believe that their preference is better than the F preference. I only have one example but it's fitting. Azrael and I were talking about the three parts of an argument: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. He said that only Logos has any real impact on whether the argument works or not (I disagree). He agreed that Pathos (how the argument effects the lives of human beings) would be likely to help Fs agree with the argument but he also mentioned that in his ideal world, Logos would be all you needed.

Now this is not an attack on him. I don't want this thread to be interpreted that way. But I found it peculiar because I've never heard an F say "in an ideal world, Pathos would be all you need to see that the argument is true". Maybe I just haven't hung around them long enough but it still stood out in my mind because I've experienced it from Ts but not Fs.

So, this question is to every Thinker here. Do you think Thinking is just flat out better than Feeling? And after that, could you explain your answer? Don't be afraid to be brutally honest; I can handle it. :tongue:


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Pathos and Ethos only affect the strength of the argument in the eyes of the target audience.
Logos is the only portion that relates to whether the argument is actually true.

This simple fact has no bearing on which function I favor, as I don't think Logos is the same as T, nor is Pathos the same as F.
I don't think I favor either, really.

Frankly, I think that you are exploiting MBTI stereotypes to defend irrationality.


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

Stars said:


> Azrael and I were talking about the three parts of an argument: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. He said that only Logos has any real impact on whether the argument works or not (I disagree). He agreed that Pathos (how the argument effects the lives of human beings) would be likely to help Fs agree with the argument but he also mentioned that in his ideal world, Logos would be all you needed.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

the only reason someone would see another mindset as inferior is if they were afraid of it. neither thinking or feeling are better than each other, they are just better at the scenarios they are each appropriate for.

I feel it's best if you can use both. You'd be a jack of all trades, assuming you had control over which "mode" was dominant at any given time. I sure wish I could. I love being a feeler, but damn it gets frustrating sometimes, especially when I have to let go of somebody.


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

OmarFW said:


> the only reason someone would see another mindset as inferior is if they were afraid of it. neither thinking or feeling are better than each other, they are just better at the scenarios they are each appropriate for.
> 
> I feel it's best if you can use both. You'd be a jack of all trades, assuming you had control over which "mode" was dominant at any given time. I sure wish I could. I love being a feeler, but damn it gets frustrating sometimes, especially when I have to let go of somebody.


I just had a thought about this same exact nature. I started a thread about a switch from what I believe Thinking and feeling here:
http://personalitycafe.com/nfs-temperament-forum-dreamers/17956-am-i-nt-when-im-high.html


----------



## Stars (Jul 23, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Pathos and Ethos only affect the strength of the argument in the eyes of the target audience.
> Logos is the only portion that relates to whether the argument is actually true.
> 
> This simple fact has no bearing on which function I favor, as I don't think Logos is the same as T, nor is Pathos the same as F.
> ...



I have no hidden motives in asking the question that I did. I'm not interested in defending irrationality, which is not a good adjective to describe the Feeling function, by the way. All I want Thinkers to do is answer the question in itself.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

It would mostly depend on the individual, otherwise neither is better than the other.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

I seem to ALWAYS hurt Feeler people no matter how polite I was. They got hurt by my words, they don't care even when I'm actually have no bad intention towards them when I said it. And then they attacked me and hurt me. I was confused because I don't know what have I done wrong. Sometimes they give explanations, but I would still confused of why they got hurt by those things. 

They see me as too insensitive, and I see them as too sensitive.

Does that makes me superior above them? I don't think so.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm not going to vote on the poll, since I'm a Feeler, and it was designed to question Thinkers.

I think you make some good points, Stars. What you say is consistent with my experiences. I disagree with Azrael's post, where he says that you are trying to defend "irrationality."

I agree with Omar. Thinking and Feeling are equally valid, and problems can be caused by a deficit of either. 

In some arguments, the main issue is that someone is being too subjective, but in others, it can be that someone doesn't care enough, or is too detached. For example, in an argument about animal rights, the very core of the issue is that some people lack empathy and make unethical choices because of it. Pathos would be central to such a discussion. To eliminate feeling would be detrimental.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Keeping two things in mind

1) There is a difference between between feeling and being spineless.

2) I only find thinking to be superior when I need to use it. (taking tests, calculating things, deciphering information, reading Kurzweil, etc.)


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

I don't understand feeler values. Are my thinker values superior? No, but I do treat feeler logic as inferior, not because it's my intent, but because I can't understand why feelers value what they do and why they put so much value in it, because I put no value in those things. I can fake it, but then I'm being manipulative. If I attempt sincerity in it, then I'm horribly incompetent, which makes me feel vulnerable, and a feelers natural inability to understand my point of view, leaves them believing my "pathetic" but sincere attempts are inadequate anyway. My life is far easier when I keep no close associations with feeler types, with the possible exception of ENFP's. Otherwise, I'm forced to endlessly tax and compromise myself.


----------



## Nivia (Mar 25, 2010)

> Far from being an annoyance best dispensed with, feelings are the foundation on which a person is built. It is safe to say most of our recognizable ancestors basically felt their way through the world, and only recently did nature begin to add some basic thinking ability to our lives. In other words, we are guided much more by feeling than by thought. This is both a blessing and a curse.
> 
> The power of feelings cannot be overestimated — they are the engine that drives us, the part of our lives that is hardest to share with others, and the companion of last resort. Every noble cause — and every crazed mob — lies dormant in our feelings.
> 
> ...


From: 2. Delta (δ): Feelings
The whole article starts here: * The Levels of Human Experience

I think that feelings without reason would be much worse than reason devoid of feelings, but it's the combination of the two that can get us to the highest heights of human development.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

The only thing I think is that this is a useless question. How could T be superior to F? Superiority as a concept has nothing to do with the relationship between T and F.

Might as well ask if a river likes me for my personality.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

This thread is a bad idea.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Hehehehehehe.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

I think T is better than F. Especially during disagreements. But then again, I'm some weird sort of off shoot NF that has been known to unavoidably hurt other's feelings. Oh well. I didn't do the poll either. 

At the very least, would logos be more likely to allow for consensus to take place? 

Okay, I'll go back to my corner.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

Superior, no. I have no idea which one is 'better', nor I really care. But I do _prefer_ Thinking than Feeling, on myself and other people.


----------



## Eylrid (Jun 25, 2009)

Nivia said:


> From: 2. Delta (δ): Feelings
> The whole article starts here: * The Levels of Human Experience
> 
> I think that feelings without reason would be much worse than reason devoid of feelings, but it's the combination of the two that can get us to the highest heights of human development.


I completely agree that the two together are most empowering.

Feelings without logic: At best artistic*, at medium ditsy, at worst mob violence.

Logic without feeling: At best intelligent*, at worst psychopathic.

(*I'm not by any means saying that feelers aren't intelligent, or that thinkers aren't creative.)


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

NF here, would you rather not be able to have the capability of Pathos or Logos? The correlations between those and F and T aren't exact, they are strong though. So at it's extreme, would you rather be a robot with no emotion or a pure feeling person without logic? If I had to choose, I'd say I'd rather go without Pathos. Life would be bland, but I could still live quite comfortably.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Stars said:


> I have no hidden motives in asking the question that I did. I'm not interested in defending irrationality, which is not a good adjective to describe the Feeling function, by the way. All I want Thinkers to do is answer the question in itself.


I was *not *describing the Feeling function as irrational.
No, but I have actually always gotten the distinct impression from _you _that you thought being an F permitted you to be irrational.
Your comments in http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/15018-rationality-god-supernatural-3.html are a good example of this.
To me, it is something like saying, "Hey, I can be lazy all I want! I'm a P!"
Or, "I'm a T, so I can be heartless and insensitive!"


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

Damn, he's playing the hypocrite card.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

I do not think thinking is superior. If anything I rather be a feeler.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I was *not *describing the Feeling function as irrational.


If I had a nickel for every time someone on this message board has to clarify that..

It seems that no matter how careful you are with your language, its a messy situation when dealing with certain topics. I'm not even going to put my two cents in this thread because it won't change anything if I do.. just piss off a lot of people. roud:


----------



## Primus (Mar 22, 2010)

i consider myself to be a Balanced individual. I believe that neither thinking nor feeling is better than the other. To choose one and only one is to be incomplete, we as humans have a wide spectrum of personality traits, these traits tend to complement each other. For instance I use my thinking when logic seems to be the ruling power, and I use my feeling when I think empathy is most appropriate. It took me a week to convince myself it was ok to take the test and see what type I was, because I hate being stuffed into certain niche, The test concluded that I am a thinker, however feeling was a centimeter away. So really I don't see a point in this argument, trying to judge the superiority of different PT's is similar in its illogicality as arguing which emotions are superior, it all depends on the situation.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

No, they are equal and govern different mental realms. T governs facts while F governs values.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Eylrid said:


> I completely agree that the two together are most empowering.
> 
> Feelings without logic: At best artistic*, at medium ditsy, at worst mob violence.
> 
> ...


Gee, why don't you ask some of us on the autism spectrum how we actually think before you label us as psychopaths-lite. :angry: I have plenty of feeling and a rich inner life, thank you very much.


----------



## Stars (Jul 23, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I was *not *describing the Feeling function as irrational.
> No, but I have actually always gotten the distinct impression from _you _that you thought being an F permitted you to be irrational.
> Your comments in http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/15018-rationality-god-supernatural-3.html are a good example of this.
> To me, it is something like saying, "Hey, I can be lazy all I want! I'm a P!"
> Or, "I'm a T, so I can be heartless and insensitive!"


If you get this impression from me, you are mistaken. I place importance on rationality. I've known irrational Ts and irrational Fs and both of them rub me the wrong way. The only time when it's not important to be rational is when you're dealing with something that's irrational but still true (i.e. love). And I insist what was discussed in the Rationality, God and Supernatural thread falls under that category.


----------



## silverlined (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm not a T but I'm gonna jump in with my 2 cents.And that is that balance definitely is superior to both extreme thinking or extreme feeling.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Stars said:


> Ever since I discovered the MBTI, I've had the impression that at least a small percentage of Ts believe that their preference is better than the F preference. I only have one example but it's fitting. Azrael and I were talking about the three parts of an argument: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. He said that only Logos has any real impact on whether the argument works or not (I disagree). He agreed that Pathos (how the argument effects the lives of human beings) would be likely to help Fs agree with the argument but he also mentioned that in his ideal world, Logos would be all you needed.
> 
> Now this is not an attack on him. I don't want this thread to be interpreted that way. But I found it peculiar because I've never heard an F say "in an ideal world, Pathos would be all you need to see that the argument is true". Maybe I just haven't hung around them long enough but it still stood out in my mind because I've experienced it from Ts but not Fs.
> 
> So, this question is to every Thinker here. Do you think Thinking is just flat out better than Feeling? And after that, could you explain your answer? Don't be afraid to be brutally honest; I can handle it. :tongue:


Can you really? :tongue:

I'm an INTJ with a very strong T. My rational side tells me that F and T are just preferences and that both just as capable of the other function. But at the same time,... it is a preference and thus will be applied more often and thus also sometimes in the wrong situations.


I am a partner in a business and one of my 2 business partners is an ENFJ. There are some F things that I absolutely do not like. Examples are:

having different rules for employees depending on how close he works with them. I think this is absolutely wrong. 

in stead of basing decisions on the facts, waiting until knowing the opinions of others and then make the decision that's the favorite of most. This slows things down and can result in plain wrong decisions. The popular decision is often the wrong decision.

after a conflict, making decisions that are to compensate and make up for the conflict before.


I'm using my experiences with him as an example. I actually do have a good working relationship with him. But I do spend time on preventing problems caused by F stuff like described above.


So I'm not a big fan of F's that have not developped their T sufficiently. I think that in most situations an underveloped T is more of a problem than an underdeveloped F. F's seem to focus more on the effect that situations have on them selves than T's do. But T's can sometimes be too ignorant of the human side of situations and that can make things more difficult than necessary.


----------



## R2-D2 (Mar 6, 2010)

Stars said:


> Ever since I discovered the MBTI, I've had the impression that at least a small percentage of Ts believe that their preference is better than the F preference. I only have one example but it's fitting. Azrael and I were talking about the three parts of an argument: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. He said that only Logos has any real impact on whether the argument works or not (I disagree). He agreed that Pathos (how the argument effects the lives of human beings) would be likely to help Fs agree with the argument but he also mentioned that in his ideal world, Logos would be all you needed.
> 
> Now this is not an attack on him. I don't want this thread to be interpreted that way. But I found it peculiar because I've never heard an F say "in an ideal world, Pathos would be all you need to see that the argument is true". Maybe I just haven't hung around them long enough but it still stood out in my mind because I've experienced it from Ts but not Fs.
> 
> So, this question is to every Thinker here. Do you think Thinking is just flat out better than Feeling? And after that, could you explain your answer? Don't be afraid to be brutally honest; I can handle it. :tongue:


actually, i do tend to think that T's are more susceptible to arrogance than F's... to be honest, about 15 years ago when i first took the MBTI, i was pretty much 100% T--and back then, yeah...i definitely believed that thinking was just flat out better than feeling. i remember, at the time, seeing feelers as foolish, frivolous, and even.......pathetic. which i'm now ashamed to admit. 

but boy, have i come a LONG way since then... dating F's in particular has helped me to develop my feeling function, and i now have TREMENDOUS appreciation for feelers. in fact, i can't imagine now how i could ever possibly live without you guys. :laughing:


----------



## SeekJess (Nov 1, 2009)

You need both. I don't believe one is superior over the other. But too much of either can result negatively.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Different tools for different situations.

But I believe one has to have an accurate knowledge of the world to make value judgements.
And I believe T does a better job than F in this regards.

It's always best to balance these aspects though, I've always seeked to keep my F side well nourished.


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

It's a bit appalling that 20% of the sample actually believe that T's are superior. Makes me wonder just how many people understand what T and F means...or how many trolls are lurking around salivating at this opportunity.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

This is becoming a very sensitive subject. I don't really think we should talk about it.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I personally don't understand this topic in the least. Why would someone take their brain and cut out half of it? That sounds pretty retarded to me. When either feeling or thinking is disregarded then the person is living on a half a brain. I want to use both sides of my brain. And each side has its own purpose. One side is not superior to the other one.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I wanted to add a bit more to this topic. As a feeler with a strong ability in the logical department, I have found that if one combines both the feeling with the logical thinking they can have amazing insights. When one gets past the superficial logical thinking (math) and the superficial feelings (basic emotions), then there is a new dimension be explored. I call it the logical emotion stage. That is where one can start to learn wisdom's that are truly life changing. In that stage one can feel the emotions and know logically why they are having or reacting to these emotions. From this stage one can use the logical thinking to correct behaviors and attitudes that will change your and others lives. It is an awesome and rich place to be in! And the complexity of the feeling and local algorithms can go as for as your mind will allow. And so for I have not found a stopping limit. So I am going to encourage everyone to work on developing both sides of your brain and not consider one inferior to the other.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Game Master Near said:


> This is becoming a very sensitive subject. I don't really think we should talk about it.


sensitive subjects should be discussed MORE. just because we discuss them doesn't mean argument is inevitable. it's just that discussions like this one tend to bring out peoples insecurities.

you can talk about this kind of thing and disagree with people without making it into a negative argument


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> I personally don't understand this topic in the least. Why would someone take their brain and cut out half of it? That sounds pretty retarded to me. When either feeling or thinking is disregarded then the person is living on a half a brain. I want to use both sides of my brain. And each side has its own purpose. One side is not superior to the other one.


Do you mean you think that F sits in one half of the brain and T in the other half? If you mean it that literally you need to do some research. This is not how it works.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

The literal illustration is meant to lead one to the figurative.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Arioche said:


> It's a bit appalling that 20% of the sample actually believe that T's are superior. Makes me wonder just how many people understand what T and F means...or how many trolls are lurking around salivating at this opportunity.


There are a lot of NTs that think the Subjective side of life is frightening, evil, and dangerous. It is always amusing telling my fellow Atheists that happen to be Ts that I am both an Atheist AND a spiritual person, they look at me like I'm crazy! :laughing:


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Didn't we agree to stereotype each other mindlessly? After all, Ts have no direction, don't make life worth living, while Fs are the source of all things spiritual, all they not?



I have met some very spiritual T's in my lifetime. What it comes down to is neither thinking or feeling is better than the other. As I keep repeating is we need both. Just like we need our N and S. I know I would not want to go through life without my 5 senses. I like my ability to taste food.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> I am an F and I can write software that performs faster than my T peers. So F's can master technology. So your explanation is not logical since F's can master technology just as Ts do.


I didn't say that F's can't master technology. Got to pay attention. I said that NT's are involved in technology.


Here's a logic lesson:

group A is involved in activity B,... does that mean that group A ONLY is involved in activity B?

It doesn't.


How many F's do you know of that created new technology? (you know, things like computers (practical version of it), operating systems, search engines, cars, E=MC^2, etc. etc. etc.)

Don't get me wrong. This does not mean F's are inferior. Technology alone doesn't keep this world going.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> I have met some very spiritual T's in my lifetime. What it comes down to is neither thinking or feeling is better than the other. As I keep repeating is we need both. Just like we need our N and S. I know I would not want to go through life without my 5 senses. I like my ability to taste food.


S has nothing to do with your 5 senses. You've got to study a bit more of the MBTI I think.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Peter said:


> I didn't say that F's can't master technology. Got to pay attention. I said that NT's are involved in technology.
> 
> 
> Here's a logic lesson:
> ...



Good question Peter, you as a T let me ask you what technology have you created? What new mathematical formulas have you invented?


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Cake said:


> I am an F and I can write software that performs faster than my T peers. So F's can master technology. So your explanation is not logical since F's can master technology just as Ts do.


I find it funny that many Ts seem to think us Fs are stupid and irrational. I'm a frakking ATHEIST (though I have Buddhist sympathies) and a Transhumanist, and I value reason and logic, it's just not the source of my motivation and think that they are means to an end (making the world a better place), not an end unto themselves. I'm also a science buff and there have been many brilliant NF scientists (such as Stephen J. Gould, Jane Goodall, and Lynn Margulis).


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

android654 said:


> Which is why I admire people like *Kurzweil* and Dawkins so much, but there is a reason why we use our Technological advances (T) to preserve our symbols, art, literature (F) from the past and protect its future.


Well, this F is an ardent Kurzweil fan and is very into Transhumanism. :happy:


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

TaylorS said:


> *I find it funny that many Ts seem to think us Fs are stupid and irrational. *I'm a frakking ATHEIST (though I have Buddhist sympathies) and a Transhumanist, and I value reason and logic, it's just not the source of my motivation and think that they are means to an end (making the world a better place), not an end unto themselves. I'm also a science buff and there have been many brilliant NF scientists (such as Stephen J. Gould, Jane Goodall, and Lynn Margulis).



Taylor, you hit it right on the head why threads like this one piss me off big time. These T's think they are so much better than an F when they are not. They treat is like we are mindless and totally ignore the fact that we can be and are very intelligent. We just make decision based on feelings.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

lirulin said:


> And each individual _has_ both.


not necessarily. having the capacity to use the other opposite function doesn't equal having the ability to do so

F's are quick to say that F is more necessary than T and T's are quick to say that F is irrational and unnecessary

neither one is better then the other, just misunderstood by the opposite party. they do need each other to survive though

could males survive without females and vice versa? not a chance in hell


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> Taylor, you hit it right on the head why threads like this one piss me off big time. These T's think they are so much better than an F when they are not. They treat is like we are mindless and totally ignore the fact that we can be and are very intelligent. We just make decision based on feelings.


Not this T. My first post in this thread said that depending on the situation, one of the 2 is better. In that post I also mentioned that decisions based on Feelings annoy me, mostly because depending on how the F feels, the decisions for the same situations can be different. An example I used was different rules for employees depending on how close they work with the F. (which is just plain wrong!)


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Peter said:


> Not this T. My first post in this thread said that depending on the situation, one of the 2 is better. In that post I also mentioned that decisions based on Feelings annoy me, mostly because depending on how the F feels, the decisions for the same situations can be different. An example I used was different rules for employees depending on how close they work with the F. (which is just plain wrong!)



I have met a lot of T's that do think F's are mindless illogical idiots. Itesterenly I can get them in a logical debate then often they switch the subject to something else when they see they can't come back with a logical comeback. I can see right through that. Why can some people not see that we all need both N and F to balance as closely as possible to be a fully functional person? And the T does not mean more intelligent than F.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> Good question Peter, you as a T let me ask you what technology have you created? What new mathematical formulas have you invented?


:laughing:

You do realize that what I have or have not done has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, right? Or are you going to consider my opinions more valuable if you would find out I did create technology? (You´re an F so that might actually be the case, but I hope you won't because my past achievements should not change your opinion. My words are of course based also on my experiences, but you should always judge what's said, not who said it. I know, that's a very INTJ way of thinking.)

What did I create? Here's some of it, and no, I did not create things like Google or Windows. :happy:

Jitter meter. Equipment to measure Jitter (fase variations in digital audio signals that are passed on into the analog audio produced.)

CMS (Content Management System) + virtual store for websites. Specific focus on Search Engine Optimization to make the websites search engine friendly and naturally rank higher in search engines. Also a specific focus on conversion optimization, though that is less technological and more statistical. But it requires technology to make it more efficient. (I did not program this system, I developed it, Programmers implemented it. And yes, they also have their part in some of the development, but more on a lower detail level.)

I like solving problems but I love developing solutions. This can be in technology but also in business processes. Not all problems are purely technical, but almost all require technology to make things possible.

Keep in mind that nobody creates complete solutions all by himself. This is always done together with other people. The CMS for example, benefits from having F's comment on where the problems are in the use of the system. That kind of feedback is very important.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Cake said:


> I have met a lot of T's that do think F's are mindless illogical idiots. Itesterenly I can get them in a logical debate then often they switch the subject to something else when they see they can't come back with a logical comeback. I can see right through that. Why can some people not see that we all need both N and F to balance as closely as possible to be a fully functional person? And the T does not mean more intelligent than F.


Those T's have underdeveloped F's. The same can be said for F's that think that T's think that everything is logical and have no heart. That's a sign of an underdeveloped T.

I have mentioned in another thread, but don't remember exactly which, that the letters of the MBTI are preferences, not qualities. So I agree that T and F have nothing to do with intelligence. If that would be true you would find that most intelligent people are T's and most dumb people are F's and that makes no sense what so ever.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Cake said:


> Why can some people not see that we all need both N and F to balance as closely as possible to be a fully functional person? And the T does not mean more intelligent than F.


because insecure people exist


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Peter said:


> Those T's have underdeveloped F's. The same can be said for F's that think that T's think that everything is logical and have no heart. That's a sign of an underdeveloped T.
> 
> I have mentioned in another thread, but don't remember exactly which, that the letters of the MBTI are preferences, not qualities. So I agree that T and F have nothing to do with intelligence. If that would be true you would find that most intelligent people are T's and most dumb people are F's and that makes no sense what so ever.



I agree with you. And I am sure we both have known some dumb F's and heartless T's. But that does not make everyone of that type either dumb or heartless. Instead of debating whether T or F is superior we should be saying how can I develop my T and F so I can be a more loving and intelligent person.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> because insecure people exist



Perfectly stated!


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

The internal inconsistency here is amazing.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Ya know, as someone who has made efforts to develop his T side because of the potential faults he see's in his F side, i would like to state my opinion on people who are hardcore F or T and think that their side of the pond is superior.

you are losing to yourself in a pointless battle.

It isn't natural for me but I can tell people to get lost without feeling bad for them; at the same time I can also have extremely deep relationships with people and fend for the people i care about in the name of protecting their emotions.

I don't spend time defending either side on a forum and getting pissy in a debate that will never end.

By that analysis, I am much happier than all of you hardcore immature radical T's and F's.

last I checked, happy=good. maybe something to think about? :dry:

would you rather be happy or would you rather be right? cuz you can't have both in a debate like this.

again i bring up the same metaphor. could females or males survive without the other gender? no they could not.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> Ya know, as someone who has made efforts to develop his T side because of the potential faults he see's in his F side, i would like to state my opinion on people who are hardcore F or T and think that their side of the pond is superior.
> 
> you are losing to yourself in a pointless battle.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, you are correct,. This is a debate that will never end. But the good that will come out of it is some of the higher functioning people will grasp the point of not judging the superiority of T over F and see that they both are valuable. So the debate is not completely a waste. Some people will never grasp that concept but there will be some. And those are the ones I am after.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I agree...I think it's amazingly biased to say that either function is superior...Either that, or the person really doesn't know the definition or 'thinker' and 'feeler'


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

A few months ago I did a little experiment on another forum. In my profile I appeared as an INFJ for two weeks and in the following 2 weeks as an INTJ. Than I did the same thing for the INFP/INTP Guess what happened? My reputation rating got a lot more feedback appearing as an INTJ/INTP than being an INFJ/INFP based on my responses for some posts and got comments such as "your posts are so helpful, it must be because your are an NT", while being an INFJ, I rarely got any feedback. 

I'm not saying that there's T/F discrimination, but there seems to be a correlation between what type you are and the amount of respect you get from your peers.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lirulin said:


> _Way_ to right-wing, appallingly sexist, creepily insular.
> Again though, some awesome people.
> 
> Not Gestapo at all though.
> ...


I understand that. Some of them seem very sexist, I've noticed that too. I don't like that either. More right wing makes sense. When logic is very important to you, you kind of have no choice but to end up on the right side of the spectrum. Though many INTJ's are in the middle as well. I personally think that right wing and left wing need each other to make the whole function properly. The insular part I don't get, INTJ's in general are open minded, but that doesn't mean they change their minds very easily :happy:


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

OmarFW said:


> true but when it comes to scenarios like family deaths, i think that kind of thing would bring out the F in anybody.
> i know from experience that when my ENTJ friend had a death in the family, they acted completely like an F. albeit a very clumsy F, but still an F.


ENTJ's are the coldest of all types, much worse than an INTJ. If you look at their cognitive functions, the F is in 4th position. (INTJ in third position). + they have the problem that they use their Ni and Te in the wrong order... (This is suppose to be a little joke :happy




OmarFW said:


> lol well it was just a joke but for some reason i picture a bunch of INTJ's in a forum stomping around like nazi's yelling in german 24/7 xD


Yeah I thought you were trying to be funny, not a problem. Just wanted to make sure.

Why don't you visit that forum too, just to read around a bit. It's fun to emerge yourself into worlds you don't know. And it's amazing how much you can learn from it, mostly about your self.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Peter said:


> I understand that. Some of them seem very sexist, I've noticed that too. I don't like that either. More right wing makes sense. When logic is very important to you, you kind of have no choice but to end up on the right side of the spectrum. Though many INTJ's are in the middle as well. I personally think that right wing and left wing need each other to make the whole function properly. The insular part I don't get, INTJ's in general are open minded, but that doesn't mean they change their minds very easily :happy:


Insular more in terms of the intj mentality. Not necessarily other things.

I don't see how logic leads one right. Most of their POVs are based on very faulty premises and emotion. Especially in the States. I think a large problem is that a great number of the forumites were American, and their politics...they are so warped it freaks me out. With that kind of reference point I don't know how anyone grows up sane. That sounds insulting, but it wasn't meant that way.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Peter said:


> This is true for 100% of the population of course. Everybody has access to just part of the information. Different points of view always exist.


I was implying that it was a misuse of the term. I don't call something "logical" merely because it makes sense to me; I call it "logical" when it actually has some relation to logic.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Peter said:


> ENTJ's are the coldest of all types, much worse than an INTJ. If you look at their cognitive functions, the F is in 4th position. (INTJ in third position). + they have the problem that they use their Ni and Te in the wrong order... (This is suppose to be a little joke :happy


in that case, that would be their inferior function which would DEFINITELY come out in times of high anxiety. so that makes sense that it would come out after a family death, but since it's their inferior function they just aren't good at it.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Insular more in terms of the intj mentality. Not necessarily other things.
> 
> I don't see how logic leads one right. Most of their POVs are based on very faulty premises and emotion. Especially in the States. I think a large problem is that a great number of the forumites were American, and their politics...they are so warped it freaks me out. With that kind of reference point I don't know how anyone grows up sane. That sounds insulting, but it wasn't meant that way.


I understand what you mean. I guess FOX news is an excellent example. But from my (Dutch) point of view, logic tends to move towards long term solutions which is usually more a right wing focus than a left wing focus.

but lets leave it at that, not interested in a political debate now. Besides that, american politics are different from what I am used to. We call the right wing liberal as where in the usa the left is called liberal. Something I still don't really understand what the difference is. Could simply be a language problem though.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Peter said:


> I understand what you mean. I guess FOX news is an excellent example. But from my (Dutch) point of view, logic tends to move towards long term solutions which is usually more a right wing focus than a left wing focus.
> 
> but lets leave it at that, not interested in a political debate now. Besides that, american politics are different from what I am used to. We call the right wing liberal as where in the usa the left is called liberal. Something I still don't really understand what the difference is. Could simply be a language problem though.


It's possible. I'm used to right wing being "put more children in prison instead of investing in social programs because we like punishment, even though the latter is proven to reduce crime" and suchlike. Claiming to be sensible whilst denying genuine statistics and avoiding the stuff that works because it's "bleeding-heart." But right-wing, from my reference point, is warped. I'll accept the possibility that right-wing can be rational, though in a different form than I am used, but I reject _utterly_ that it has exclusive, or primary domain over it. The main difference is values, and though in my neighbour country and sadly in my own these days, values and emotion are trumping logic for the right, that is not the way the right has to be - nor the left either.


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the poll would be more meaningful and interesting if there were an option that said feeling is superior to thinking. I personally chose "it always is or it usually is" because thinking is the function I prefer to use. If we had the same option for feeling, it might show that we're not as egotistical about it as the poll makes it seem. Or maybe we are egotistical :laughing:


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lirulin said:


> It's possible. I'm used to right wing being "put more children in prison instead of investing in social programs because we like punishment, even though the latter is proven to reduce crime" and suchlike. Claiming to be sensible whilst denying genuine statistics and avoiding the stuff that works because it's "bleeding-heart." But right-wing, from my reference point, is warped. I'll accept the possibility that right-wing can be rational, though in a different form than I am used, but I reject _utterly_ that it has exclusive, or primary domain over it. The main difference is values, and though in my neighbour country and sadly in my own these days, values and emotion are trumping logic for the right, that is not the way the right has to be - nor the left either.


I didn't want to say that logic is exclusive to right-wing. I think any extreme way of thinking lacks logic. That applies to both the right and the left. What you describe as right wing logic is from my point of view, pretty extreme.

Left-wing though is more the F side approach while right-wing is more the T side approach. (if we want to make the analogy, this is the correct one.)

But these things are very mixed anyway. If you look at the example of a manager having to keep a distance from his/her subordinates then there is the logic that it prevents problems, but it's F types of problems that it prevents. In the same way, the F approach can prevent T types of problems.

Luckily, most situations are best suited for only one of the 2. Rarely you'll see situations where both are equally important and that makes it easier to put the right people in the right place because few people are that balanced. (which is good because having F and T exactly balanced results in few decisions. That is actually a very interesting idea. Maybe the F's that annoy me most are the ones that have low percentages on the MBTI test for their F's. Something to think about when I have some more time.)


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Peter said:


> I didn't want to say that logic is exclusive to right-wing. I think any extreme way of thinking lacks logic. That applies to both the right and the left. What you describe as right wing logic is from my point of view, pretty extreme.
> 
> Left-wing though is more the F side approach while right-wing is more the T side approach. (if we want to make the analogy, this is the correct one.)


No it is not the correct analogy.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lirulin said:


> No it is not the correct analogy.


That's fine, but just stating that, doesn't mean anything. Got to explain it. :happy:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Peter said:


> That's fine, but just stating that, doesn't mean anything. Got to explain it. :happy:


It's just a stupid stereotype. Like, for example, social programs do reduce crime much more than increased sentencing. It is stereotyped as touchy-feely, but in terms of effectiveness, it is more functional. The drive for punishment is the emotional one. Social conservatism is totally emotional: I don't want gay people to have rights because it makes me feel bad and offends my moral standards? That's obviously not T. Then there's the studies that show that higher levels of fear are associated with conservative views. 
Fiscal conservatism maybe is T. There's the blindness that thinks rational self-interest is real and ignores all of the studies in psychology and sociology that prove the contrary - I've seen that single mindedness, I want my theory to be pretty and perfect in Ts before. 
Again though, it's perhaps a matter of vocabulary as well?

Honestly though, I wouldn't want to put T or F at either end of the spectrum because that would seem a little too pat and reductionist. I think you can be left either through understanding studies and consequences or through respect and compassion - and conservative either through some other studies, I'm sure there must be some and I guess, family values? I would make it sound more believeable for the right if I heard more sensible arguments for it. I've just found them hard to find. But I know I'm left-leaning and it's nothing to do with F.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lirulin said:


> It's just a stupid stereotype. Like, for example, social programs do reduce crime much more than increased sentencing. It is stereotyped as touchy-feely, but in terms of effectiveness, it is more functional. The drive for punishment is the emotional one. Social conservatism is totally emotional: I don't want gay people to have rights because it makes me feel bad and offends my moral standards? That's obviously not T. Then there's the studies that show that higher levels of fear are associated with conservative views.
> Fiscal conservatism maybe is T. There's the blindness that thinks rational self-interest is real and ignores all of the studies in psychology and sociology that prove the contrary - I've seen that single mindedness, I want my theory to be pretty and perfect in Ts before.
> Again though, it's perhaps a matter of vocabulary as well?
> 
> Honestly though, I wouldn't want to put T or F at either end of the spectrum because that would seem a little too pat and reductionist. I think you can be left either through understanding studies and consequences or through respect and compassion - and conservative either through some other studies, I'm sure there must be some and I guess, family values? I would make it sound more believeable for the right if I heard more sensible arguments for it. I've just found them hard to find. But I know I'm left-leaning and it's nothing to do with F.


Yes, it is very simplified, but then again, analogies usually are.

Would you say that F and Socialism go better together than F and Capitalism? In the same way that T and Capitalism go better together than F and Capitalism.

It will always be simplified I guess. :happy:

I consider myself a social capitalist which basically means I'm nowhere specifically, also not in the middle. To me the system has to work. Lower classes having good salaries is good for capitalism because somebody has to buy the products. Capitalism is good for socialism because somebody has to pay for all the social rights. So they have to work together.

In the USA I think the issue is more about how much the government should be involved which is something I never understood. It's pretty simple: The government has to set the rules but shouldn't be the one to execute. (except in some cases obviously.)


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Peter said:


> Yes, it is very simplified, but then again, analogies usually are.
> 
> Would you say that F and Socialism go better together than F and Capitalism? In the same way that T and Capitalism go better together than F and Capitalism.
> 
> ...


Not really, because I think avoiding the excesses of extreme wealth distribution is logical as much as it is based on morals, just in terms of the negative effects it has on everyone. That association is mostly a form the right uses as mud-slinging to claim they're the sensible ones, and the left to claim that they at least have souls. I believe the association exists, but only in terms of public perception and media pandering. I don't think it has much to do with reality.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

lirulin said:


> It's just a stupid stereotype. Like, for example, social programs do reduce crime much more than increased sentencing. It is stereotyped as touchy-feely, but in terms of effectiveness, it is more functional. The drive for punishment is the emotional one. Social conservatism is totally emotional: I don't want gay people to have rights because it makes me feel bad and offends my moral standards? That's obviously not T. Then there's the studies that show that higher levels of fear are associated with conservative views.
> Fiscal conservatism maybe is T. There's the blindness that thinks rational self-interest is real and ignores all of the studies in psychology and sociology that prove the contrary - I've seen that single mindedness, I want my theory to be pretty and perfect in Ts before.
> Again though, it's perhaps a matter of vocabulary as well?
> 
> Honestly though, I wouldn't want to put T or F at either end of the spectrum because that would seem a little too pat and reductionist. I think you can be left either through understanding studies and consequences or through respect and compassion - and conservative either through some other studies, I'm sure there must be some and I guess, family values? I would make it sound more believeable for the right if I heard more sensible arguments for it. I've just found them hard to find. But I know I'm left-leaning and it's nothing to do with F.


The only assocation between T and being right-wing is that a lot of INTJs seem to be Libertarian nuts, at least in the US.

Social Conservatism is SJ more than it is T or F.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Thinking is definitely not superior to feeling, but thinking should be making all of the decisions.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

marked174 said:


> Thinking is definitely not superior to feeling, but thinking should be making all of the decisions.


What do you mean by this? Feeling is a decision-making function. You just implied that thinking IS superior to feeling.


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

If I did I would alter my personality to that of an INFJ.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Seeker of Truth said:


> What do you mean by this? Feeling is a decision-making function. You just implied that thinking IS superior to feeling.


 Everything has it's place, and feeling should be an action driving function, while thinking should be a decision making function. Feeling is like the acceleration and brake pedals, thinking id like the steering wheel. When the roles are reversed, many tragic accidents occur. The superiority comes from productivity. You can have movement without steering, but you can't have movement without acceleration.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

My sister is an NT pretty high on the T...I must add that her logical decisions usually don't do well for me...I use my F and it usually doesn't fail me


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

marked174 said:


> Everything has it's place, and feeling should be an action driving function, while thinking should be a decision making function. Feeling is like the acceleration and brake pedals, thinking id like the steering wheel. When the roles are reversed, many tragic accidents occur. The superiority comes from productivity. You can have movement without steering, but you can't have movement without acceleration.


Both feeling and thinking, by definition, are judging function. Feeling = cannot be a drive because feeling in this sense is not defined as emotion/passion/etc. but a preference to make a decision based on values. So if you're saying all judging should be made by T, yes you're effectively saying only T should be used.

Unless, of course, you meant that decision to make an effort should be value based (using F)...which wont make much sense because the same decision can be made based on efficiency base (using T). I don't see why it has to be one way or another.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Thinking is definitely not superior to feeling, but thinking should be making all of the decisions.


That brings to mind the biggest decision a lot of us make. Marriage


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> That brings to mind the biggest decision a lot of us make. Marriage


 
I think a lot of people get married for one of two reasons.

1) Convenience. They find someone whith howm they make a "home" and wait out death together.

or

2) Companionship. A person clings to another, or two people cling to each other because they fear separation from their current partners would leave them in a world where they'd find no one.

As for those who marry for love, I think they're entirely fictitious. When and if love happens, it has to be unbriddled. If you strangle it, it wil die, like most married people do before they're deceased.


----------



## Lady K (Oct 13, 2009)

My favorite thing about a lot of Ts is that they think all their arguments are better than an Fs because they think they're only operating on logic. I've seen quite a few Ts get seriously butthurt over stuff and at some point they just stop using logic, but feel that they still are. If you call them out on it they say the Feeler is being sensitive and projecting emotion. You do realize that lots of us feelers can _read_ the emotion waves you're throwing out there, right? I know you think that this sort of emotional intelligence has no bearing in life, or doesn't even exist (because we're irrational and make shit up) or apply to you, but if that were the case, don't you think that Thinkers would have biologically edged out Feelers until we didn't exist any more?


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Lady K said:


> I know you think that this sort of emotional intelligence has no bearing in life, or doesn't even exist (because we're irrational and make shit up) or apply to you, but if that were the case, don't you think that Thinkers would have biologically edged out Feelers until we didn't exist any more?


Maybe Feelers get it *on* more.


----------



## Lady K (Oct 13, 2009)

I suppose that depends on the Feeler. Personally, "getting it on" is pretty tricky for me. Not because the act itself is difficult, but because I want to have sex for love. This can be an interesting issue, because I prefer to be loved back as well. These are requirements that are a little harder to come by than "he's a clean, intelligent, consenting adult."


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Only to the degree that I think walking on two legs is better than 4. 

Which of course, is pretty debatable.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

android654 said:


> I think a lot of people get married for one of two reasons.
> 
> 1) Convenience. They find someone whith howm they make a "home" and wait out death together.
> 
> ...


Really? I thought the notion of romance was big in Western Society. Marriages of convenience seems to be a pretty cynical view...I never married but I lived with someone out of love...it didn't work because I stopped loving....that wasn't because he strangled it either....it's because he was a bit sexist underneath it all. (yes us T are capable of love, pick your jaws up)


Now I come to think of it...your post doesn't make that much sense unless you have some kind of telepathic insight into everyone who chooses to get married minds.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> Really? I thought the notion of romance was big in Western Society. Marriages of convenience seems to be a pretty cynical view...I never married but I lived with someone out of love...it didn't work because I stopped loving....that wasn't because he strangled it either....it's because he was a bit sexist underneath it all. (yes us T are capable of love, pick your jaws up)
> 
> 
> Now I come to think of it...your post doesn't make that much sense unless you have some kind of telepathic insight into everyone who chooses to get married minds.


Which is why I said I think. Meaning it was my personal opinion. Its been my understanding my opinion comes from me, meaning the most important reference i need to site is myself. But in a way you reiterrated what I said with your own personal annecdote. Sad truth is love is extremely rare, which is what makes it most desireable.

Again thats an opinion.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

android654 said:


> Which is why I said I think. Meaning it was my personal opinion. Its been my understanding my opinion comes from me, meaning the most important reference i need to site is myself. But in a way you reiterrated what I said with your own personal annecdote. Sad truth is love is extremely rare, which is what makes it most desireable.
> 
> Again thats an opinion.


How do you figure I reiterated what you said? I said your post didn't make sense and you told me it was your opinion....I understood before that it wasn't fact or data you were saying.....so ok....your opinion doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to be rude. I also can't see why love is so rare either....but then again that's my opinion....


----------



## Thorgar (Apr 3, 2010)

I happen to be a manager in a large corporation, and they send us manager types to all sorts of "leadership training." I was joking with my boss (who is also *NTJ) that the whole purpose of this leadership training is to beat some F into the Ts. It's true though. Almost all of the managers are Ts (mostly TJs). While this is great for making the kind of decisions they want us to make, it's not so great for leading people. So I can definitely see the advantages and disadvantages to each, and the benefits of stretching the non-preferred one. You really need both.

Then again, I'm not going to start making decisions based on feelings. That just feels too random and scary.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Thorgar said:


> I happen to be a manager in a large corporation, and they send us manager types to all sorts of "leadership training." I was joking with my boss (who is also *NTJ) that the whole purpose of this leadership training is to beat some F into the Ts. It's true though. Almost all of the managers are Ts (mostly TJs). While this is great for making the kind of decisions they want us to make, it's not so great for leading people. So I can definitely see the advantages and disadvantages to each, and the benefits of stretching the non-preferred one. You really need both.
> 
> Then again, I'm not going to start making decisions based on feelings. That just feels too random and scary.


Is it true that in those leadership trainings they always teach what to do but never teach how? (or at least not in a way that people can translate it to their own situations.)


----------



## Thorgar (Apr 3, 2010)

Peter said:


> Is it true that in those leadership trainings they always teach what to do but never teach how? (or at least not in a way that people can translate it to their own situations.)


Actually, the ones I get sent to are quite practical with lots of role playing of real or near real situations.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

All other functions are meaningless without goals, and any goal with meaning will only come from Fi. Not that that makes feelers superior, mind you. Goals are like gravity, how little you have isn't as important as if you have them at all. Te compared with Fi is a trade-off from spending more time thinking about your goals, to actually working towards them.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> All other functions are meaningless without goals


Why would you say that?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> All other functions are meaningless without goals, and any goal with meaning will only come from Fi. Not that that makes feelers superior, mind you. Goals are like gravity, how little you have isn't as important as if you have them at all. Te compared with Fi is a trade-off from spending more time thinking about your goals, to actually working towards them.


Doesn't that depend on the order of the functions? If Fi is your first function it's used differently than if it would be your third function. Can you explain in more detail what you mean?


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

thewindlistens said:


> Why would you say that?


T is good at getting things done, but would be useless without a goal. There'd be nothing to get done. N and S are good at collecting data but all of that data would be pretty useless without something to do with it.



> Doesn't that depend on the order of the functions? If Fi is your first function it's used differently than if it would be your third function. Can you explain in more detail what you mean?


The difference is that an INFP would continually evaluate their goals based on new data being collected and constantly reconsider what is important, and might do this so much that there is little work actually done towards their goals. 

an INTJ on the other hand, might come to a decision on what their goals are with Tetriary Fi and with help lended from Ni for evaluating hypothetical situations, then stop after they've decided what their goal is and use Te and Ni to work towards their goal.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> The difference is that an INFP would continually evaluate their goals based on new data being collected and constantly reconsider what is important, and might do this so much that there is little work actually done towards their goals.
> 
> an INTJ on the other hand, might come to a decision on what their goals are with Tetriary Fi and with help lended from Ni for evaluating hypothetical situations, then stop after they've decided what their goal is and use Te and Ni to work towards their goal.


I think all types use their first function for deciding what the goals are. You make it look like it's Fi that's doing that, independent of the position in the order. I don't agree with that.

It's my Ni that decides what the goals are. Not my Fi. My Fi will just say if the goal set by Ni is morally correct. If not, the goal is not considered to be worthy of persuing. That's all it does.

Also, consider types that have Fi as their last function. They don't have goals?

Your explanation on how Fi works in an INFP I think is closer to reality. They often seem to be in constant doubt indeed and that results in no actions or series of actions that never get finished.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Peter said:


> I think all types use their first function for deciding what the goals are. You make it look like it's Fi that's doing that, independent of the position in the order. I don't agree with that.
> 
> It's my Ni that decides what the goals are. Not my Fi. My Fi will just say if the goal set by Ni is morally correct. If not, the goal is not considered to be worthy of persuing. That's all it does.
> 
> ...


N and S don't decide anything (at least not in a balanced person) as they are perceiving functions. They play a part in the process, yes, but ultimately T or F must make the decision.

For me it works something like this.
Ni: Gets an idea
Te: Decides if it is possible. if not, tosses it aside. if so, proceeds to Fi.
Fi: Decides whether the idea is desirable, not just morally, but if it is worth it. If it will truly meet my needs. It's hard to put into words exactly what Fi does because its so subjective, but without Fi, I'd just have all these ideas from Ni and ways to accomplish them from Te, without knowing what I _should_ do. Think like, how the Joker is who almost completely lacks Fi. He doesn't just have no morals, he has no real goals either, so he just does things.

There are goals that come from other functions such as Si, but if they aren't supported by Fi, what they amount to is insanity.


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

*Well....*

To me they are equal because neither really trumps the other all the time. Sometimes it is better to use Feeling and sometimes it is better to use Thinking, with hindsight being the secret weapon to knowing which was better way after the fact.


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

I put I wish that I was a feeler. I don't know if that is really the case, given who I am. But I believe it would be easier to be a feeler if you are female.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> N and S don't decide anything (at least not in a balanced person) as they are perceiving functions. They play a part in the process, yes, but ultimately T or F must make the decision.
> 
> For me it works something like this.
> Ni: Gets an idea
> ...


Ok, that makes more sense. You´re right that Ni doesn't make the decisions. I meant it more in a way that Ni is the source of the idea. But as Ni is pretty much already coming to a conclusion, to me there's never a real decision process, only a figuring out how to, (Te) process. Then and only then Fi will consider the moral implications which is a very quick thing most of the time.

Since Ni usually outputs the best option already, it "feels" like it's making the decision. I think this is why INTJ's seem so sure of them selves.


----------



## IllBeBach (Jun 11, 2010)

I am a feeler, but I will go ahead and post anyway 

Thinking and Feeling are two completely necessary functions in terms with human survival.

Thinking is for Analysis (making sure an idea will work logically)

Feeling is for Creativity (coming up with ideas, plans, etc)

Both of which are needed for humans to survive. A human without creativity/emotion is just as useless as a human without logic.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

IllBeBach said:


> I am a feeler, but I will go ahead and post anyway
> 
> Thinking and Feeling are two completely necessary functions in terms with human survival.
> 
> ...


Though that sounds good, I don't agree with it. The cognitive functions don't work like that at all. What makes a function creative is its position in the order of the type. For an example, in an ENTJ it's Te that comes up with ideas while in an ENFJ, it's Fe that comes up with the ideas.

If you look at what's actually happening in the brain, it's physically the same structures that do all the work. What makes the functions different is what the brain prioritizes. So for an ENFJ it's the information that's based on emotions that has the priority while in an ENTJ it's factual information.

I'm using the words emotions and factual, because it makes sense in our world, but inside the brain, it's all the same stuff: Just patterns. The origin of the patterns don't matter to the brain. Only on a higher level where our awareness comes into play, we put labels on the information.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Peter said:


> Though that sounds good, I don't agree with it. The cognitive functions don't work like that at all. What makes a function creative is its position in the order of the type. For an example, in an ENTJ it's Te that comes up with ideas while in an ENFJ, it's Fe that comes up with the ideas.
> 
> If you look at what's actually happening in the brain, it's physically the same structures that do all the work. What makes the functions different is what the brain prioritizes. So for an ENFJ it's the information that's based on emotions that has the priority while in an ENTJ it's factual information.
> 
> I'm using the words emotions and factual, because it makes sense in our world, but inside the brain, it's all the same stuff: Just patterns. The origin of the patterns don't matter to the brain. Only on a higher level where our awareness comes into play, we put labels on the information.


I was about to say that feeling has little to do with creativity, that intuition is behind it, but I think your explanation is better... yes, now a lot makes sense to me about dominant judgers. cudos.


----------



## IllBeBach (Jun 11, 2010)

Peter said:


> Though that sounds good, I don't agree with it. The cognitive functions don't work like that at all. What makes a function creative is its position in the order of the type. For an example, in an ENTJ it's Te that comes up with ideas while in an ENFJ, it's Fe that comes up with the ideas.
> 
> If you look at what's actually happening in the brain, it's physically the same structures that do all the work. What makes the functions different is what the brain prioritizes. So for an ENFJ it's the information that's based on emotions that has the priority while in an ENTJ it's factual information.
> 
> I'm using the words emotions and factual, because it makes sense in our world, but inside the brain, it's all the same stuff: Just patterns. The origin of the patterns don't matter to the brain. Only on a higher level where our awareness comes into play, we put labels on the information.


I have been hearing that the different sides of the cerebral cortex in the brain are usually responsible for logical/feeling orientation. People who are right brained are feeling and the left is for logical. Brain scans show that most of our logical functioning is focused on the left side of the brain, and the emotional is on the right, where the most brain activity is taking place during artistic practice, so there is some kind of correlation that feelers tend to have higher creativity

This isn't the exact article I read this from, but it kind of points out the basic idea of what I'm trying to say better than I can lol
http://painting.about.com/od/rightleftbrain/a/Right_Brain.htm


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

IllBeBach said:


> I have been hearing that the different sides of the cerebral cortex in the brain are usually responsible for logical/feeling orientation. People who are right brained are feeling and the left is for logical. Brain scans show that most of our logical functioning is focused on the left side of the brain, and the emotional is on the right, where the most brain activity is taking place during artistic practice, so there is some kind of correlation that feelers tend to have higher creativity
> 
> This isn't the exact article I read this from, but it kind of points out the basic idea of what I'm trying to say better than I can lol
> What Right Brain Left Brain Is About -- Why Right Brain Left Brain is Relevant to Painters


You´re talking about a special type of creativity. Namely: Art.

But creativity is much more than just art. Technology is also the result of creativity. That usually requires a T rather than an F.


----------



## IllBeBach (Jun 11, 2010)

Peter said:


> You´re talking about a special type of creativity. Namely: Art.
> 
> But creativity is much more than just art. Technology is also the result of creativity. That usually requires a T rather than an F.


The creativity part of technology is coming up with the idea for the device, what it does, how it would be useful, etc. The logical part would be how it could be done and put together. Right brain is mainly about emotion and abstract "out of the box" ideas and left brain is for logical "in the box" ideas.


----------



## Who (Jan 2, 2010)

IllBeBach, you seem to be misunderstanding the functions a little, unless I'm reading your posts wrong and if that's the case, I apologize.

For one, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think right brain vs left brain as well as your point about creativity doesn't have much to do with T vs F. Instead, it has more to do with N vs S.

Creativity is actually more of an N vs S thing anyway. After all, NTs and NFs are both known for being able to "think outside the box" and come up with new ways of thinking.

The difference is that NTs tend to use that thinking for more "practical" purposes like science and technology. This is because thinkers tend to dislike tasks that involve emotions. As a whole, computers, technology, and other "nerdy" things like that are enjoyable by NTs because it allows them to exercise their imagination without having to make too much of an emotional involvement.

On the other hand, NFs tend to be more drawn to writing, music, and things that are either "creative" or things that they feel will better society and humanity as a whole, such as charity work. NFs in general tend to get bored of doing the computer work NTs can enjoy because it doesn't let them express their emotions.

So what you're describing isn't so much a feeler thing as it is an intuitive thing. Again, if I misunderstood your post, just ignore this, though.


----------



## IllBeBach (Jun 11, 2010)

Who said:


> IllBeBach, you seem to be misunderstanding the functions a little, unless I'm reading your posts wrong and if that's the case, I apologize.
> 
> For one, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think right brain vs left brain as well as your point about creativity doesn't have much to do with T vs F. Instead, it has more to do with N vs S.
> 
> ...


Ahhh I see what you mean now, yeah I am wrong, I thought the T/F functions were mainly concerning left and right brain functioning, (haven't done much homework on the HBTI test frankly lol)


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

IllBeBach said:


> The creativity part of technology is coming up with the idea for the device, what it does, how it would be useful, etc. The logical part would be how it could be done and put together. Right brain is mainly about emotion and abstract "out of the box" ideas and left brain is for logical "in the box" ideas.


Same process for art, no? For example, if you´re a painter, there is the creative part and the skill part. If you don't have the skills to paint, your creativity doesn't matter.

Having said that, there have been attempts to reduce the importance of the skill part. Very succesful attempts even, considering the crap that has been produced which was called modern art (throw 5 buckets of paint against a piece of canvas and come up with some emotional story about how it represents your emotions and all the sudden it was considered art.)

And still there are Picasso types that lack the skills and still manage to call it art. But there can be only 1 picasso.


This right brain - left brain idea is partially correct, but seems to apply more to men than to women. Women tend to use both sides of their brains for most things.


----------



## pansy (Apr 28, 2010)

yes thinking is a Superior Fuction to Feeling


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

pansy said:


> yes thinking is a Superior Fuction to Feeling


Then why weren't you using your T when you wrote that comment?


----------



## Logically Creative (May 16, 2010)

I don't have time to go back and read 11 pages worth of postings so I will go forward with my answer. I have seen many "feeler" friends go thru so much unnecessary drama that I know I would never go thru because "feelings" don't effect me. My life is much easier because of that. They always have such a puzzled face when I give them a simple answer to get rid of their problems. To say it is superior is pretty extreme, but I would definitely say it is preferred. Definitely.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Logically Creative said:


> I don't have time to go back and read 11 pages worth of postings so I will go forward with my answer. I have seen many "feeler" friends go thru so much unnecessary drama that I know I would never go thru because "feelings" don't effect me. My life is much easier because of that. They always have such a puzzled face when I give them a simple answer to get rid of their problems. To say it is superior is pretty extreme, but I would definitely say it is preferred. Definitely.


That is very true. Same thing for me. But we have to recognize that being an F and being emotional are not the same thing. Besides that, there are things that being an F is better. There are jobs in which being an F is preferred.

But in general, we T's have easier lives I think. Actually, I should say NT's because most ST's I know can also be pretty emotional and complicate things more than necessary.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Who said:


> IllBeBach, you seem to be misunderstanding the functions a little, unless I'm reading your posts wrong and if that's the case, I apologize.
> 
> For one, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think right brain vs left brain as well as your point about creativity doesn't have much to do with T vs F. Instead, it has more to do with N vs S.
> 
> ...


The idea of the right brain being creative and the left brain being logical is considered outdated and oversimplified (or even bs) by neurologists. 'Right Brain' or 'Left Brain' - Myth Or Reality?

also the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. this is something that old split-brain experiments ignored.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Logically Creative said:


> I don't have time to go back and read 11 pages worth of postings so I will go forward with my answer. I have seen many "feeler" friends go thru so much unnecessary drama that I know I would never go thru because "feelings" don't effect me. My life is much easier because of that. They always have such a puzzled face when I give them a simple answer to get rid of their problems. To say it is superior is pretty extreme, but I would definitely say it is preferred. Definitely.


Completely agree, that's all I can say.


----------



## Lestroe (May 7, 2010)

I think both functions have an equal ability to screw an individual over.


----------



## touched (Nov 18, 2009)

Tbh I'm envious of feelers because they understand the inner workings of people more than thinkers ever will. I love learning about psychology and people's motivations etc. but since I'm an NT I'll only be able to grasp human behaviour in a laboratory context, through forming theoretical models in my head etc. Which is rather contrived and laborious, as opposed to empathy which seems to give you instant, in-the-moment, _real_ access to another person's emotions and motivations. It's a different form of understanding than understanding through logical deduction, and they're both useful in their respective contexts. 

Human personality can't just be dragged into a laboratory and dissected and understood, but I think understanding people is just as important/fascinating as science or maths, and this type of understanding can be better attained through intuition+empathy rather than intuition+logic.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

I am a true "Thinker" but I am NOT without feeling. I just do not let them influence my decisions MORE THAN THEY should.
I feel that lack of F is not as bad as lack of T in an individual.

The thing is, feelings are but one factor to consider when making a decision. The "right" decision can be to disregard feeling. Very seldom the right decision (for the common good) is to disregard logic. Someone used Animals rights as an example. That T had no empathy and therefore F was better here. I disagree (and argue in favor of T). As stated, F is but ONE factor in the logical decision making.

Besides, if I understand MBTIcorrectly, F is not really Feeling or Empathy. F is that you have your OWN agenda of what is right in any given moment, and that is how you make decisions. No one else has the same rules, in contrast to logical thinkers where (if the same "facts" are considered) the results would be more similar.

Another interesting fact is that in EQ testing only two out the top five personality types are F, and T types were no 1 and 2. Important factors also seem to be E and P.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

touched said:


> Tbh I'm envious of feelers because they understand the inner workings of people more than thinkers ever will. I love learning about psychology and people's motivations etc. but since I'm an NT I'll only be able to grasp human behaviour in a laboratory context, through forming theoretical models in my head etc. Which is rather contrived and laborious, as opposed to empathy which seems to give you instant, in-the-moment, _real_ access to another person's emotions and motivations. It's a different form of understanding than understanding through logical deduction, and they're both useful in their respective contexts.
> 
> Human personality can't just be dragged into a laboratory and dissected and understood, but I think understanding people is just as important/fascinating as science or maths, and this type of understanding can be better attained through intuition+empathy rather than intuition+logic.


I also do the model thing. But it is the mirror neurons that make up Empathy/Feeling and also the ability to put yourself in others´shoes. Something that for example us ENTPs are good at.

I do not think that Feelers have deeper insights into humans, only that their mirror neurons fire harder, and thus they put more importance to those aspects but still makes logical decisions BASED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE LOGIC.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't see how it's possible to say that one is superior. Using 'thinking' only is limited. But so is 'feeling'. The only reason thinking might take the higher spot is because it is emphasized in society today. 

Other factors would be whether it's Fe, Fi, Te, or Ti. I notice people seem to be switching between those. And some people seem to define 'feeling' as emotion and 'thinking' as logic. And really, Fi is a lot more than just values or personal feelings. And it is used with Te. Fi is knowing what's important for yourself and for your life. I went to school in ninth grade and decided that I was gonna start getting better grades in school and that I was gonna start pushing myself. This wasn't a fully 'thinking' decision or even primarily a thinking decision. It was because I realized that the only way to get some of the things I want in life was to do that. Fi is important because it gives me direction and importance in life. What's inferior about that? Te just helps me carry that out...it's just an aid. Both of them are important, but if I was to pick one, it'd be Fi. 

But the whole point of all that blabbing is that it all depends on the person. It's to be expected that a thinker might see thinking as the superior function. And I'm not saying that feeling is superior, just that it seems kinda pointless to try and label either as superior since it all depends on how the person uses them.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

If a person doesn't makes decisions without feeling then that is a problem. 
If a person doesn't makes decisions without thinking then that also is a problem.

Some have more than the other because we need each other.


----------



## touched (Nov 18, 2009)

ENTPreneur said:


> I also do the model thing. But it is the mirror neurons that make up Empathy/Feeling and also the ability to put yourself in others´shoes. Something that for example us ENTPs are good at.
> 
> I do not think that Feelers have deeper insights into humans, only that their mirror neurons fire harder, and thus they put more importance to those aspects but still makes logical decisions BASED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE LOGIC.


Yeah I know entps/intps/intjs who are plenty good at reading people. The method of forming theoretical models seems quite useful provided your intuition is well developed enough. Just that say we have an NF and an NT who have equally developed levels of intuition... I'm conjecturing that the NF would beat the NT at understanding people. Nf's take on the other person's feelings, whereas Nt's can theoretically put ourselves in the other person's shoes but we'd get a less clear read of the person because Nf's grasp nuances of behaviour and emotion that we don't.

Could be wrong though, maybe an NF could step in to clarify this?

Anyway I wasn't talking about how feelers make decisions, or that they make decisions better than thinkers or anything.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Honestly, it depends. A lot of NFs I know are *terrible* at reading other people's feelings because their _own_ get in the way. Too much projection. Way, way too much projection, over-complication...they try to read an NT and _boy_ do they get confused....
We're probably better at reading our own kinds as a general rule. I doubt NFs are better at reading people, generally. They just think they are. Most of them have a lot of theories, certainly...but many dissolve in the light of reality.


----------



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

No., it is not.


----------



## Karot (Jun 25, 2010)

Lefthanded people, do you think your right hand is superior ?

Weell, to drive a car you pretty much need both, that's for shure, and otherwise, well, you'll still find a way to get to your destination, anyway


----------



## Daveman (May 16, 2010)

At one time or another, I have heard N, F, and P described as "irrational" or "inferior". If you see them that way, I would say that it is because you don't understand the mindsets.

If you see yourself as superior, because you are a "realist", then you are thinking subjectivley and are thus contradicting your own values. Any person who considers themselves to be a realist and wants to throw everything that is even remotley abstract out the window, because their mind can't handle any answers that are not packaged in an absolute, concrete fashion aren't being realistic at all, and they are probably more delusional than any "idealist", if they expect human beings to be vulcans or robots.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

As a thinker I can understand the value of feeling and can even decide to "feel", at least at some rational level. I can enter this mindset at my discretion dispassionately as I determine that doing so benefits me.

Of course, that's not being a feeler. That's just playing one on TV. Real feelers can tell the difference.

Still, I think it's easier for a thinker to fake being a feeler than the other way around.

The real answer I think is to be at neither extreme. Those who are extreme tend to have a hard time in life one way or another. . . . I have found . . . .


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Feeling function is far from irrational. It is an equally rational method of solving problems, and should be employed whenever necessary. Feeling function is _subjective_. It's exactly what it means; it deals with the subject. In the statement, "x does y", the feeler focuses on the subject and how the whole experience affects x. An objective person deals with y, regardless of who or what x is. The objective way of thinking would be: "John stole cookie. John broke rules. Rules say slap John on the wrist". A subjective way of thinking would be: "John stole cookie. John was starving. Let John go this once." These are overly simplified, but my purpose is to illustrate how, when determining the value of an action, the subject is intricately intertwined with the action itself, and therefore impossible to separate from the entire event. To give a fair assessment of the event, both the subject and the object must be considered.

I was asked to describe my ideal man yesterday. I described him as a feeler, but he must be _reasonable_ and _rational_. I don't think that's too far fetched.


----------



## Monte (Feb 17, 2010)

Karot said:


> Lefthanded people, do you think your right hand is superior ?
> 
> Weell, to drive a car you pretty much need both, that's for shure, and otherwise, well, you'll still find a way to get to your destination, anyway


I drive with one hand...

But anyway, to be honest, there have been times when I've though that, but it was never about feelers all together, it was always in specific scenarios.

Take government class for instance, there were some people who would get so wrapped up in the debate emotionally that it was impossible to talk to them, it was fucking annoying.


----------



## Karot (Jun 25, 2010)

There you are making feeler judgement.(it's annoying, it's wrong to get emotionally involved)

Why wouldn't the emotionally involved person be right, have a very good point, and make a great contribution to the debate ?


----------



## EJunior (Jan 12, 2009)

I guess Thinking is Superior than Feeling because 
Thinking People" are more able to understand Process, Rational or Not (Logos or Pathos). It takes more time to understand, but I guess we reach.

In the other hand, Felling people hardly try to understand both process due lack of focus and persistence.

Making a analogy: Fs see how "beutiful/ugly, satisfying/not-satisfying" is the eggshell while the Ts try to see (in order) how Useful is (in many ranks) the egg yolk. and After we see if are satisfying or not, etc.


----------



## Monte (Feb 17, 2010)

Because they would ignore the facts and instead focus on how they felt about the situation, which is illogical, irrelevant, and just flat out annoying.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

T is not superior to F, neither is it inferior. They're not equal either.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

EJunior said:


> I guess Thinking is Superior than Feeling because
> Thinking People" are more able to understand Process, Rational or Not (Logos or Pathos). It takes more time to understand, but I guess we reach.
> 
> In the other hand, Felling people hardly try to understand both process due lack of focus and persistence.
> ...


Your argument is simplistic but not completely wrong except for one thing. This is not about people but about Thinking and Feeling. Everybody has both. It may sound strange, but an F can actually think and a T can actually feel. So you should remove the s's from the F and T and your analogy is correct.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

thewindlistens said:


> T is not superior to F, neither is it inferior. They're not equal either.


Interesting, what you said didn't change anything.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

Peter said:


> Interesting, what you said didn't change anything.


Really? Damn, I was trying to start the revolution...


----------



## Ming (Apr 7, 2010)

Why would you compare superiority? You know that you only 'compare' because you are insecure. It's okay you know, 'cause I believe T is a good thing as well.

It doesn't matter which one is superior, because they both do good to us..


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Ming said:


> Why would you compare superiority? You know that you only 'compare' because you are insecure. It's okay you know, 'cause I believe T is a good thing as well.
> 
> It doesn't matter which one is superior, because they both do good to us..


Is that why you compare? Perhaps it's because a discussion on a subject like this leads to higher understanding of the both. That is why you should always compare and discuss.

Your comment is a typical F comment that prevents progress. I see it happen often in work related situations and it's one of the reasons I have a problem with too much F in management and development.


----------

