# Sticky  Thinker Feeler Differences



## saffron

I'm not very "emotional" and I never have been. But everyone feels some way about most everything, e.g. positive or negative, neutral, reactive etc... I think feelers consider this information as relevant but don't necessarily exclude the logical considerations. They're just a bit more holistic. 

There's something to be gained and lost in considering it. It can move things forward in a more productive way, or it can get mired and lose focus of the goal attempting to please or validate everyone.


----------



## itsme45

saffron said:


> I'm not very "emotional" and I never have been. But everyone feels some way about most everything, e.g. positive or negative, neutral, reactive etc... I think feelers consider this information as relevant but don't necessarily exclude the logical considerations. They're just a bit more holistic.


Eh, the neutral state is feeling too?  That's a new one to me. Sure with this definition, we can say that everyone feels something about everything...

Why do you think Feelers are more holistic than Thinkers? Must thinkers necessarily exclude the feeling considerations? They would be robots if they did.


----------



## Laguna

I'm a feeler and a thinker. Fully needing and capable of both.
But feeling takes priority for me.
I have been learning some things about myself in this process of hanging out here.

Without thinkers in my life, I would shrivel up and die.
But without feelers in my life, I am empty. I am nothing.


----------



## saffron

itsme45 said:


> Eh, the neutral state is feeling too?  That's a new one to me. Sure with this definition, we can say that everyone feels something about everything...
> 
> Why do you think Feelers are more holistic than Thinkers? Must thinkers necessarily exclude the feeling considerations? They would be robots if they did.


You can substitute the words indifferent or apathetic for neutral (essentially the same, but more precise if splitting hairs is your thing).

And I don't think that Thinkers don't consider feelings etc... as at all relevant, to make that point clear. But in my anecdotal experience (that's all any of this is), Feelers tend to be a bit more holistic overall. You're free to conclude based on your own observations though.


----------



## itsme45

saffron said:


> And I don't think that Thinkers don't consider feelings etc... as at all relevant, to make that point clear. But in my anecdotal experience (that's all any of this is), Feelers tend to be a bit more holistic overall. You're free to conclude based on your own observations though.


Okay, but if T's consider feelings too, what makes the F's more holistic? I'm curious what you meant here exactly


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

At this point, I just wonder how much these things have nothing to do with anything at all. I mean, I know these rather cold, rational level-headed F and T types (in MBTI) alike, so it just leads me to believe that there is no reality here. It's funny that I have yet to ever really hear "feelers" explain their supposedly more egotistical experiences of the feeling function (I'm not picking on anyone, I just for years have been dying to hear what so-called upper level feeling is like, and when I do, it just sounds like something anyone might experience). I mean, considering the nature of feeling itself, I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't prioritize their feelings unless they had this horrible upbringing and have issues (and of course, there are a lot of natural reasons that people don't prioritize their feelings either from time to time, impacted by factors of self-esteem, etc.). The only thing that I find holds fast and true, generally speaking, with feeling is the Jungian concepts of dominant/inferior feeling, where evaluation is the go-to psychological tendency of the dominants and is rather repressed and poor in quality in the inferiors.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> At this point, I just wonder how much these things have nothing to do with anything at all. I mean, I know these rather cold, rational level-headed F and T types (in MBTI) alike, so it just leads me to believe that there is no reality here. It's funny that I have yet to ever really hear "feelers" explain their supposedly more egotistical experiences of the feeling function (I'm not picking on anyone, I just for years have been dying to hear what so-called upper level feeling is like, and when I do, it just sounds like something anyone might experience). I mean, considering the nature of feeling itself, I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't prioritize their feelings unless they had this horrible upbringing and have issues (and of course, there are a lot of natural reasons that people don't prioritize their feelings either from time to time, impacted by factors of self-esteem, etc.). The only thing that I find holds fast and true, generally speaking, with feeling is the Jungian concepts of dominant/inferior feeling, where evaluation is the go-to psychological tendency of the dominants and is rather repressed and poor in quality in the inferiors.


Well the question is prioritize feelings WHEN? Obviously everyone, T or F, has feelings for certain things. The difference is... Thinkers supposedly look at everything in an objective way by default. I notice myself doing this though I don't always look in a Judging way but when I do, it's usually the T way. This means, I judge the thing in an impersonal way. There are no feelings affecting this process or it will no longer be pure logic, this is what I notice at least, it works this way for some reason... I do look at some things in a subjective F way, that is, I look for feelings, intentions, whatnot, in a sentence from someone or in a happening or in whatever situation, if this someone is important to me in some way, or when I'm just in the mood for it  (Don't ask what the mood depends on!) I do that with people selectively though (that is, only if I *feel* that it is relevant), unless I'm really into the socializing mood. So that's why I think I mostly got a T and not a F preference. I suppose someone with a F preference, when judging, will first look at the feelings, intentions, social things, etc. Then logic if the Feeler finds logic important/relevant for the situation.

Example... An extreme Feeler friend told me that when a T person tells him something strictly of logical things, without any F "ornaments", he looks for arrogance and tries to handle that, sort that out, and the contents of the sentence will slip by him. That to me was a great insight to the workings of people with strong F preference. That means that a pure logical argument when there is disagreement about something (opinion on something, or what to do, etc.) or outright conflict, will simply not work on him. He needs F messages conveyed to him, which I do really suck at when there is a debate or other conflict. I just push a pure T message over to him and he will misunderstand and misinterpret this even though it is not out of a bad intention at all. I just naively forget about the F side of things, it stays in the background, doesn't come to my consciousness enough. I could perhaps try to handle things with this guy by sending him explicit F messages intertwined along with the logic. I can do that pretty well in some situations; It's just hard for me to sync it to the T when I'm so focused on problem solving. Perhaps one day I'll learn 

So yeah, I think there are differences between people...

Oh also... I'm not only talking about dom T and dom F people, my friend self identifies as ENFP, even though he very much underutilizes/represses the T approach in certain situations. Perhaps his self identification is wrong and he's really INFP but I'm not sure. Anyway, as I already said it to you before, I think it is very much possible that someone has aux T and a F that's weaker than aux T, though it doesn't have to be a law either. It's all a matter of emphasis differences. I run into some conflicts due to lacking conscious attention on the F function in some situations, but at times I scratch my head a lot when I see some T's behaving "arrogant". They prefer T more strongly and exclusively than me  In general I get along with these T people well, our communication is just fine, I don't get "hurt", I'm totally friends with some such T's, but some F friends of mine definitely perceive a difference between me and these Ti/Te-doms. (Is this enough proof for you that there can be differences in aux and tert function strengths?  )


----------



## saffron

@itsme45 Alright, scratch that. I live in a house with three other Ne/Fi users, my best friend is a Ne/Fi user and I work with several as well. I think the holistic thinking I was identifying is more of a Ne thing that i was erroneously identifying as an F thing.

I think I'll go back to Eric B's definition as F being more humane in focus and T being more technical in focus. I don't think I'm much more subjective than objective. I can be either depending on the demands, but I tend to gravitate more towards pursuits that are less technical and more humane.

As to the idea of "pure logic," I've said before that this exists only in the realm of math or formal logic. The rest is one's opinion of what they have perceived from a selected/selective amount of data. And my experience is that many thinkers are so (ego) invested in being seen as logical that they can't admit when the evidence is against their stance and become big babies throwing tantrums etc.. I'm not saying you do this. I've just seen it happen many times.


----------



## itsme45

saffron said:


> Alright, scratch that. I live in a house with three other Ne/Fi users, my best friend is a Ne/Fi user and I work with several as well. I think the holistic thinking I was identifying is more of a Ne thing that i was erroneously identifying as an F thing.


Yeah could be Ne.




> I think I'll go back to Eric B's definition as F being more humane in focus and T being more technical in focus. I don't think I'm much more subjective than objective. I can be either depending on the demands, but I tend to gravitate more towards pursuits that are less technical and more humane.


That's not a bad definition, F is definitely the humane things, social things. Have you seen my wondering about about how there are actually three main evaluation/judging systems, not two as T/F would indicate, of which two are emotion related and one isn't? 1) instinctual emotions (based in the limbic system) 2) social emotions/feelings (prefrontal cortex filtering the primitive emotions etc) 3) analytical logic. So um, which is the F of the first two? One? Both? The T can be the 3rd one no problem with that one  I think that 3) can work together with 1) but can also be antagonist to both 1) and 2) on a conscious level. There can also be mixed activation of the systems going on, either with just different emphasis on each one or fully in sync with regard to goals (then no need to repress anything either).




> As to the idea of "pure logic," I've said before that this exists only in the realm of math or formal logic. The rest is one's opinion of what they have perceived from a selected/selective amount of data. And my experience is that many thinkers are so (ego) invested in being seen as logical that they can't admit when the evidence is against their stance and become big babies throwing tantrums etc.. I'm not saying you do this. I've just seen it happen many times.


By pure logic I just meant fully focused on that third system, analysing without any feeling influencing it, being impartial. (The feelings may not influence anything here because they are not antagonist to the goal or just simply because they are not needed at all.) You could say it uses the same principles as formal logic but it's more like strategies built into the brain. This is really useful in problem solving in general but can also be very useful in communication especially in debates when there is either a problem solving focus or a focus on getting to know more and understanding more (being open to another viewpoint, essentially). As for limited opinion from limited amount of data, that can still be the result of such a pure analytical approach, nothing to do with it being limited, every human being is limited after all.

Tantrums can be thrown by Feelers just as much as by Thinkers... I've been seen getting annoyed in such a subjective way, but to me this has nothing to do with analytical logic  At least I'm not doing it because I think that I'm such a totally logical person (I am not )... I just don't like to try and see another viewpoint at that moment because I like my own viewpoint for some reason. I'm invested in my own idea in a way. See where I talk about it in the first sections of that long post of mine above  (post #100)


----------



## saffron

itsme45 said:


> Yeah could be Ne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a bad definition, F is definitely the humane things, social things. Have you seen my wondering about about how there are actually three main evaluation/judging systems, not two as T/F would indicate, of which two are emotion related and one isn't? 1) instinctual emotions (based in the limbic system) 2) social emotions/feelings (prefrontal cortex filtering the primitive emotions etc) 3) analytical logic. So um, which is the F of the first two? One? Both? The T can be the 3rd one no problem with that one  I think that 3) can work together with 1) but can also be antagonist to both 1) and 2) on a conscious level. There can also be mixed activation of the systems going on, either with just different emphasis on each one or fully in sync with regard to goals (then no need to repress anything either).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By pure logic I just meant fully focused on that third system, analysing without any feeling influencing it, being impartial. (The feelings may not influence anything here because they are not antagonist to the goal or just simply because they are not needed at all.) You could say it uses the same principles as formal logic but it's more like strategies built into the brain. This is really useful in problem solving in general but can also be very useful in communication especially in debates when there is either a problem solving focus or a focus on getting to know more and understanding more (being open to another viewpoint, essentially). As for limited opinion from limited amount of data, that can still be the result of such a pure analytical approach, nothing to do with it being limited, every human being is limited after all.
> 
> Tantrums can be thrown by Feelers just as much as by Thinkers... I've been seen getting annoyed in such a subjective way, but to me this has nothing to do with analytical logic  At least I'm not doing it because I think that I'm such a totally logical person (I am not )... I just don't like to try and see another viewpoint at that moment because I like my own viewpoint for some reason. I'm invested in my own idea in a way. See where I talk about it in the first sections of that long post of mine above  (post #100)


I'm very analytical, I just use the data to support my sense of right or wrong (or true or false as I see it). My feeling preference is really very slight honestly. But I relate strongly to the combo of Fi/Te as opposed to Fe/Ti. That difference I can discern more.


----------



## itsme45

saffron said:


> I'm very analytical, I just use the data to support my sense of right or wrong (or true or false as I see it). My feeling preference is really very slight honestly. But I relate strongly to the combo of Fi/Te as opposed to Fe/Ti. That difference I can discern more.


I see what you mean by using analysis to support Fi views. I don't really do that myself. How do you discern Fi/Te vs Fe/Ti so easily? I'm curious how you do it.


----------



## saffron

itsme45 said:


> I see what you mean by using analysis to support Fi views. I don't really do that myself. How do you discern Fi/Te vs Fe/Ti so easily? I'm curious how you do it.


No doubt it does get dicey in some regards because several functions or perspectives used conjointly can end up looking similar to a different function (and I am also of the belief that we use many if not all of them either consciously or unconsciously). For example, Ne>Fi>Te can sometimes look like some Fe is at work since Ne may read a person with a sincere interest and note that something is really important to her and Fi may consider the internal value of say, "it's important for people to feel validated in their perspective within reason" and Te makes an attempt to convey it since it's logical to do what will work best. But it doesn't really come close to a strong Fe perspective if you observe it over time. It's not as warm or emotionally sincere. 

Likewise Ne>Fi>Te may sometimes look like Ti since Ne sees many possibilities and Fi seeks internal validation of the ideas and Te often (in my case) looks at the data and finds some reason to find it lacking, so I may come up with my own construct of what is true. But Ti would be much more detail oriented and consumed with building an alternative system than I am in this regard. 

Besides that sort of analysis, I'm pretty obviously Fi since I don't derive my values based on outside influence and this has just shown up throughout my life since I was old enough to be self aware. And I do tend to apply logic more in a what works in the world or system sort of way.

ETA: I get really repulsed buy strong Fe expressions and bored by Ti type analysis, so that's a bit of a clue as well.


----------



## LibertyPrime

I can be highly empathetic and seem to ooze Fi according to other people and myself, I can be caring, supportive, romantic, idealistic, my sense of morality is very strong and I follow my superego conscience all the time, etc.. however I am also cutting, logical, have a keen eye for breaks in logic and follow what evidence says. My approach to things is almost always based on conclusions derived from evidence (facts) and I'm not afraid to hurt someone's emotions, break down their worldview when they got the facts wrong, and spout logical fallacies left and right. Cynicism is something I do because imo it is imperative that we face truth and not suffer delusions for whatever reason.

How do you guys explain this?


----------



## itsme45

Rim said:


> I can be highly empathetic and seem to ooze Fi according to other people and myself, I can be caring, supportive, romantic, idealistic, my sense of morality is very strong and I follow my superego conscience all the time, etc.. however I am also cutting, logical, have a keen eye for breaks in logic and follow what evidence says. My approach to things is almost always based on conclusions derived from evidence (facts) and I'm not afraid to hurt someone's emotions, break down their worldview when they got the facts wrong, and spout logical fallacies left and right. Cynicism is something I do because imo it is imperative that we face truth and not suffer delusions for whatever reason.
> 
> How do you guys explain this?


How did you decide you preferred Fi over Te? Or is this just that you are Ne-dom and Te/Fi preference over Ti/Fe preference?


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> How did you decide you preferred Fi over Te? Or is this just that you are Ne-dom and Te/Fi preference over Ti/Fe preference?





> Contingency planning, *scheduling, and quantifying *utilize the process of extraverted Thinking.
> 
> Extraverted Thinking helps us *organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on.*
> 
> *At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively.*
> 
> Empirical thinking is at the core of extraverted Thinking when we challenge someone's ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made, often trying to establish order in someone else's thought process.
> 
> In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization.
> 
> It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three.
> 
> *In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives..*


*I am very bad at what I bolded and very good at what I did not.*



> It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words.
> 
> As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in.
> 
> There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life's situations.
> 
> We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, "Sometimes, some things just have to be said."
> 
> On the other hand, most of the time this process works "in private" and is expressed through actions.
> 
> It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the "essence" of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.


o.o that is why. Idk what my type is. All I know is that I seem to use the following functions better then the others: Fi, Ne, Te, Si.


----------



## itsme45

Rim said:


> and I'm not afraid to hurt someone's emotions, break down their worldview when they got the facts wrong, and spout logical fallacies left and right.


Another thing... When you are doing that, are you acutely aware that it will hurt them yet you do it anyway because it's important for some reason?


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> Another thing... When you are doing that, are you acutely aware that it will hurt them yet you do it anyway because it's important for some reason?


Fully aware of hurting others yes. In the long run its more beneficial for them and if they dislike me for a while, its no problem. What good does it do if I say something they'd love to hear, which doesn't help anyone in any way?


----------



## Adasta

itsme45 said:


> I see what you mean by using analysis to support Fi views. I don't really do that myself. How do you discern Fi/Te vs Fe/Ti so easily? I'm curious how you do it.


Fi/Te is resolute - "Take it or leave it."

Fe/Ti is wooly - "You could be right..but he could be right too...or maybe she's right."


----------



## itsme45

Rim said:


> Fully aware of hurting others yes. In the long run its more beneficial for them and if they dislike me for a while, its no problem. What good does it do if I say something they'd love to hear, which doesn't help anyone in any way?


Ah I see. I'm often not aware that it may hurt the other person when I say my views on something. Maybe if I was F > T, I would be aware?




Adasta said:


> Fi/Te is resolute - "Take it or leave it."
> 
> Fe/Ti is wooly - "You could be right..but he could be right too...or maybe she's right."


Hmm... I'm often pretty resolute in stating my opinions but even then I'm usually open to a logical argument supporting/proving a different view. The way I see it, when I state what I think I do think I'm probably right as I do it mostly when I already feel knowledgeable enough in the subject. But of course I know it's just my own way of seeing the thing and often all I want with stating my opinion is that the other party consider it. I only expect them to think it through and only accept it if it makes sense to them on their own terms. 

Of course when it's about practical problem solving with a clear way of seeing what works and what doesn't, then I'm 100% resolute. It would make no sense not to be sure if it is so easy to see how things are in an empirical way.

So I'm not sure it is as simple as that distinction.


----------



## mirrorghost

Rim said:


> The difference is simple: Do you base decisions more on feelings or on objecting thinking? Feeling can be as simple as not trusting someone because every cell in your body gives you that feeling and you will listen even if the objective truth may say otherwise. Or someone saying something insensitive and your internal balance gets thrown off by that. Or wanting to take care of someone else because you see they got emotionally hurt...and so on.


THIS. so much this. i don't care how nice someone acts on the surface, if i get a bad "vibe" from them i am wary of them and don't trust them, and i usually find out i was right about them.


----------



## mr neurotic

As a scientist, an introvert and extraverted feeler I don't see big contradiction. It is very easy to apply logic when the subject is impersonal. Around people... not nearly as much. :tongue:
Yes, it might not be the most optimal solution but there is life outside of the immediate working environment.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I don't think the feeling depictions can be more mythological on the internet (as well as the thinking depictions to a great extent). After all, they're pretty much defined stereotypes - an attempt to define the undefinable (so, instead, you get an even more indirect derivative of the stereotype and original concept, which makes everything an inevitably preponderant mess). I don't really think looking for differences between the two is the way to go (because everyone is a thinker and feeler, so what, MBTI?). Frankly, where "differences" arise in anything that can be remotely called a type construct would probably be found in how much a person can "abstract" reality through the functions. So, if you're a dominant thinker, you probably naturally are able to "abstract" reality enough to your advantage so that you are ALWAYS able to defend your ego (or enough to make your ego invincible enough to do it's job, naturally), regardless of circumstantial correctness/incorrectness of the reasoning, it will still find a way to be applicable to the situation anyway. But then, you're an inferior feeler, which means that you can't defend your ego through feeling (to your liking), unless you can manipulate circumstances outside of yourself in a relatively concrete fashion (it's too concrete to "abstract" toward your identity conceptions - that's why it might seem "other" - like something beyond you). So basically, the inferior function looks primitive (e.g. def.:• (of behavior, thought, or emotion) apparently originating inunconscious needs or desires and unaffected by objective reasoning _ because it makes a person look like a slave to what's out of their control, so that truer inner nature is forced to come out a bit (at least when the inferior isn't successfully rationalized toward the dom.)._


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

What I'm seeing as a pattern suggested in this thread is that function order doesn't actually "exist." Yes!


----------



## itsme45

mr neurotic said:


> As a scientist, an introvert and extraverted feeler I don't see big contradiction. It is very easy to apply logic when the subject is impersonal. Around people... not nearly as much. :tongue:
> Yes, it might not be the most optimal solution but there is life outside of the immediate working environment.


I do apply logic when around people too... but not TO people, I feel and tell myself that the way people work is not so accessible via Thinking. But with problem solving with people in relationships, I'll be T even when someone with stronger F expects F way of handling things.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> I don't really think looking for differences between the two is the way to go (because everyone is a thinker and feeler, so what, MBTI?).


The difference I find to be most valid is that a Thinker will first think of Thinking things before Feeling things. Lower access time so to speak. Yes sure they can access the other mode too, just slower, less deliberately, in a less controlled way etc.

Now depending on how strong that T pref is over F, it's possible that in certain situations the F mode can have the lower access time and easier access even if the person otherwise is more T than F. I think this depends on experience, conditioning, responses in situation from situational factors (factors incl. people), natural tendencies, hormonal status etc..... This is where I find the reality diverges from theory.




> Frankly, where "differences" arise in anything that can be remotely called a type construct would probably be found in how much a person can "abstract" reality through the functions.


Oh... I didn't find much use to that idea of capability of abstracting reality through the functions, because of above variability of listed factors. Example, I find I can be really strong N under certain conditions/in certain things even if weak N in many other situations. And by "strong" I mean it's working well!




> So, if you're a dominant thinker, you probably naturally are able to "abstract" reality enough to your advantage so that you are ALWAYS able to defend your ego (or enough to make your ego invincible enough to do it's job, naturally), regardless of circumstantial correctness/incorrectness of the reasoning, it will still find a way to be applicable to the situation anyway.


How about some people don't have such a dominant function always trying to defend the ego in one single way/strategy? And then others may have an auxiliary that's nearly as good at this as their dominant?



> What I'm seeing as a pattern suggested in this thread is that function order doesn't actually "exist." Yes!


If you want to forget about auxiliary then forget about necessity of a dominant function too.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> The difference I find to be most valid is that a Thinker will first think of Thinking things before Feeling things.


Well, anyone can basically think and feel about anything, so unless someone is extremely caught up in some type persona, I don't think what they're talking about would reflect this at all (I mean, I know tons of thinkers who talk mostly about people and quite a few feelers who talk about abstract ideas over people). Again, I don't think the stereotypes about feeling being "people-oriented" are accurate (I mean, I can see where people make a good outlet for feeling, but it's no psychological imperative. It's perfectly possible to get shy, loner F dominants who might just like to evaluate god knows what - I know quite a few of the Fe and Fi varieties. If this were the case, the F dominants would easily lose themselves in their shadow side when forced to face math problems and whatnot, which is absolutely idiotic reasoning (in fact, I've known more than a few who love doing math/are great at it (and I know tons of T doms who are terrible with this kind of stuff) and technical things as a side-hobby - some have careers out of this stuff).


----------



## jdbullet23

I haven't been following all the posts in all 12 pages of this forum, obviously. But I have a question that may have been asked before: what is the difference between Ti/Fe and Fi/Te?


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, anyone can basically think and feel about anything


Sorry I was not describing it in a clear way. I meant by Thinking things = Thinking attitude. -.- Not the subject of the judgment.




> Again, I don't think the stereotypes about feeling being "people-oriented" are accurate (I mean, I can see where people make a good outlet for feeling, but it's no psychological imperative. It's perfectly possible to get shy, loner F dominants who might just like to evaluate god knows what - I know quite a few of the Fe and Fi varieties.


Shyness is some factor outside MBTI.....




> If this were the case, the F dominants would easily lose themselves in their shadow side when forced to face math problems and whatnot


Well the functions are actually somewhat* cognitive skills too and as such, there needs to be no principle of dominant and inferior skills so yes it's possible for an F to be good at math.

*: somewhat because it's part cognitive skills and strength of skills and subskills as associated with tasks, part actual use and preference of these skills

Also the math thing, it's often associated with Intuition as well and me as S type should not have access to math through Intuition, yet I do, and very strongly. Again, skill... strong in math but I don't prefer to use it in many other areas of life. That would be a good question as to what determines such preferences then because that Ego/Shadow explanation is not satisfying to me. I talked about a more cognitive/neurological/biochemical approach above...


PS. You didn't respond to the rest


----------



## openmode

*after reading some of the responses*

Ugh...these all seem so subjective in that everyone has their own perception of what a "thinker" and a "feeler" is like. What is it we are trying to describe exactly, posters? Name that and then we'll decide on what we should call it because "Thinker" and "Feeler" don't seem to be doing very good jobs as terms for all of the different experiences and opinions described.

In my mind it's phenomena first, then assigned terms, not the other way around.

If two people, one a "thinker" and the other a "feeler," are good at math and consistently score at the same level on math tests, the thinking and feeling terms can obviously explain nothing with regard to mathematical aptitude. Obviously, these terms are not used then to explain differences between people with and without numerical reasoning skills, compassion, etc... Other terms are employed for such phenomena.

So, what do they explain?

All I can say in an attempt to answer such a question is that my psychology professor describes the primary difference between T and F as being related to informational processing.

So, an analogy to illustrate such a difference might be as follows: while a feeler might be more likely to study human anatomy with the goal of one day becoming a doctor for the predominate purpose of seeing healed people smiling, a thinker might be more likely to study human anatomy with the goal of one day becoming a doctor for the predominate purpose of logically analyzing a "fascinating" system and/or to simply watch as the application of their logic unfolds and results in the healing of "patients." 

Both experience the other individual's feelings and thoughts to a certain degree because no one is solely a T or F (just a predominate T or F), and both aim for the same end result, but process the information differently. Is an F "wrong" for having such a predominantly personal motive due to slightly different informational processing? Is the T "wrong" for having such a predominantly cerebral motive due to slightly different informational processing? 

Ts and Fs exist and operate in the same physical universe. The differences are slights after they've wrapped their heads around and agreed upon the same factual concepts.


----------



## itsme45

openmode said:


> So, an analogy to illustrate such a difference might be as follows: while a feeler might be more likely to study human anatomy with the goal of one day becoming a doctor for the predominate purpose of seeing healed people smiling, a thinker might be more likely to study human anatomy with the goal of one day becoming a doctor for the predominate purpose of logically analyzing a "fascinating" system and/or to simply watch as the application of their logic unfolds and results in the healing of "patients."


Pretty good example.  This is what I was trying to describe myself...

Also, what do you think about instinctual system of more primitive emotions vs higher level social version of feelings? Which is more related to "F" and why?


----------



## Rainman

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


----------



## Rainman

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

you should see field guide to earthlings is eerily identical just from the point of feeler vs thinker rather than neurotypical vs autistic.


----------



## openmode

itsme45 said:


> Pretty good example.  This is what I was trying to describe myself...
> 
> Also, what do you think about instinctual system of more primitive emotions vs higher level social version of feelings? Which is more related to "F" and why?


That is a good question. Social behaviors are regulated by the forebrain's frontal lobe, with "primitive emotions" arising in the the evolutionarily older limbic system (a.k.a the "reptilian brain"). So, I do find it interesting that some may consider emotions arising during social situations, which are regulated by a more recently evolved part of the brain (a part of the forebrain), as being more sophisticated or of a "higher level." However, I don't know how one could relate these "higher level" feelings to Feelers only, as both Thinkers and Feelers, being human, possess a frontal lobe and limbic system. So, perhaps any difference between the two types would arise in the ways in which they regulated, interpreted, etc... their (and other individuals') emotions? Such differences, of course, might eventually be traced back to unique or distinct structures and functions of these parts of the brain in people, perhaps, thereby giving rise to differences in personality, etc...


----------



## itsme45

openmode said:


> That is a good question. Social behaviors are regulated by the forebrain's frontal lobe, with "primitive emotions" arising in the the evolutionarily older limbic system (a.k.a the "reptilian brain"). So, I do find it interesting that some may consider emotions arising during social situations, which are regulated by a more recently evolved part of the brain (a part of the forebrain), as being more sophisticated or of a "higher level." However, I don't know how one could relate these "higher level" feelings to Feelers only, as both Thinkers and Feelers, being human, possess a frontal lobe and limbic system. So, perhaps any difference between the two types would arise in the ways in which they regulated, interpreted, etc... their (and other individuals') emotions? Such differences, of course, might eventually be traced back to unique or distinct structures and functions of these parts of the brain in people, perhaps, thereby giving rise to differences in personality, etc...


Ohh so someone finally answered that post of mine.  Glad you're interested in this issue yourself.

Maybe it is all just about preference or priority differences in these neurological system uses. There are people who have parts of their brain more active compared to other people, that's a fact. No idea if it is to do with how regulation works or something else; communication regulation between the different centers in the brain is very complex. It's not something you can just randomly mess with on the low level. So my guess would be that the difference in preferences comes from somewhere else. E.g. differences in frontal lobe as in the conscious control system. But it could be many other things and I don't want to brainstorm about this.

Btw the social emotions are indeed more sophisticated, more primitive animals lack that functionality.


----------



## Rainman

itsme45 said:


> Ohh so someone finally answered that post of mine.  Glad you're interested in this issue yourself.
> 
> Maybe it is all just about preference or priority differences in these neurological system uses. There are people who have parts of their brain more active compared to other people, that's a fact. No idea if it is to do with how regulation works or something else; communication regulation between the different centers in the brain is very complex. It's not something you can just randomly mess with on the low level. So my guess would be that the difference in preferences comes from somewhere else. E.g. differences in frontal lobe as in the conscious control system. But it could be many other things and I don't want to brainstorm about this.
> 
> Btw the social emotions are indeed more sophisticated, more primitive animals lack that functionality.


i'd hierarchise emotions as basic emotions (primitive): sexual, fear (of physical harm), anxiety/nervousness, anger, sad (ie they're generally all triggered by people attacking you in some form or the other - sadness is from when something is gone forever a personality gone forever or you know like a long series ended and now is the past ie the end of lost and thus the characters in it - lol i just got a bit of sad a swell in my heart area of my chest picturing remembering watching the first episodes when i was 14 or whatever with sawyer and all them round the fire). relational emotions (social emotions) which i don't really have and that's like pride and shame and sadness could go in here because you only feel sad over other people/related to people (that's what i'm terming anyway). last stage could be called sensational emotions: everything you see is personified, a colour has a feel of a personality to it or like music does etc and also feeling someone elses emotion by looking/hearing them. 

i think both thinker types and feeler types have the same basic emotions and whether they accept them or ignore them is a different matter that both could equally decide to do or not. relational emotions i'm not too sure again i think the feelers could see them as quite primitive also and not be bound by them just as the thinker may not care for them either. in fact relational emotions may indicate an even more primitive like brain ie a very social brain not a cognitively developed on just the machiovelian exploit the tribe to be leader of the pack and not starve type of thing. about sensational emotion or feeling i'd say that's what defines the feelers they get indescribable feelings of things whereas the thinker has the amazing understanding of things. 

i also think the feeler state which i've been in quite a bit ie sensational emotions; like when you're in it it's like euphoria so i wonder whether that's simply the right way to think/be and therefore there aren't different personality types just a lot of bad variations of the one correct great mind. 

i don't think there's the happy/sad emotion when people say sometimes i'm happy sometimes i'm sad etc. i don't get that most of the time i don't feel nothing bad or good so it's just normal if anything could say content but i wouldn't describe it as an emotional state it's just normal baseline. i really have little clue what people actually are referring to when they talk about whether they're happy or sad (it sounds quite robotic/bipolar surely there's causes for their ups and downs and surely they should be significant causes).


----------



## itsme45

Rainman said:


> (...) i think both thinker types and feeler types have the same basic emotions


Interesting thoughts on that hierarchy. 

But I disagree that the basic emotions are all exactly the same for everyone. Same basic selection, sure, but there are differences in distribution of the different emotions, intensity of emotions, frequency of feeling them, threshold for triggering the emotions, etc. Not saying anything about whether this is related to the MBTI T/F dichotomy or not.




> relational emotions i'm not too sure again i think the feelers could see them as quite primitive also and not be bound by them just as the thinker may not care for them either. in fact relational emotions may indicate an even more primitive like brain ie a very social brain not a cognitively developed on just the machiovelian exploit the tribe to be leader of the pack and not starve type of thing.


A social brain entails a lot of cognition too. Just think about the necessity of communication. And socially adjusted emotions are not primitive at all, they get through additional processing, are modified to be socially acceptable. Having to care about a social organization is much harder cognitively too than just bothering to take care of yourself alone somehow to survive.




> about sensational emotion or feeling i'd say that's what defines the feelers they get indescribable feelings of things whereas the thinker has the amazing understanding of things.


The person with a Thinker preference only has an amazing understanding of things if they are intelligent enough too 

Not sure about the idea of personification of objects vs T/F dichotomy, someone else can chime in here?




> i don't think there's the happy/sad emotion when people say sometimes i'm happy sometimes i'm sad etc. i don't get that most of the time i don't feel nothing bad or good so it's just normal if anything could say content but i wouldn't describe it as an emotional state it's just normal baseline. i really have little clue what people actually are referring to when they talk about whether they're happy or sad (it sounds quite robotic/bipolar surely there's causes for their ups and downs and surely they should be significant causes).


Um yeah my baseline is not emotional either, I get what you mean. Not sure why you doubt it though when someone claims they are happy or sad. They do feel it (unless lying for some weird reason?!) and the cause doesn't have to be that significant... Are you someone with Asperger or similar? I notice your forum nick is Rainman too.


----------



## Rainman

itsme45 said:


> Interesting thoughts on that hierarchy.
> 
> But I disagree that the basic emotions are all exactly the same for everyone. Same basic selection, sure, but there are differences in distribution of the different emotions, intensity of emotions, frequency of feeling them, threshold for triggering the emotions, etc. Not saying anything about whether this is related to the MBTI T/F dichotomy or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A social brain entails a lot of cognition too. Just think about the necessity of communication. And socially adjusted emotions are not primitive at all, they get through additional processing, are modified to be socially acceptable. Having to care about a social organization is much harder cognitively too than just bothering to take care of yourself alone somehow to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person with a Thinker preference only has an amazing understanding of things if they are intelligent enough too
> 
> Not sure about the idea of personification of objects vs T/F dichotomy, someone else can chime in here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um yeah my baseline is not emotional either, I get what you mean. Not sure why you doubt it though when someone claims they are happy or sad. They do feel it (unless lying for some weird reason?!) and the cause doesn't have to be that significant... Are you someone with Asperger or similar? I notice your forum nick is Rainman too.


I possibly have Asperger's or perhaps just a bit of it but I am seriously weary of learning anything from psychiatry etc because they don't know how it actually works they literally just diagnose based on surface behaviour without knowing the neuroscience behind it and as you can see i'm thinking deep about what goes on under the surface. and if you can't understand you can't accept a diagnosis - also the label aspergers is gone in the next dsm. 

oh btw the basic emotions those are the ones i listed from my experience they're kind of the only ones i know of so i was just getting the ball rolling if you wanted to add any etc. and i think you're right about the relational emotions being higher up in the brain structure ie closer to the neo cortex or something but i'm pretty sure monkeys and apes have relational emotions maybe even some other mammals like a lion. and also in my personal reflection of them it still appears as if they're simply negative like the basic emotions they all are 'negative', also forgot to add i think jealousy (rage mixed with fear perhaps) is a relational emotion though to be honest i can't remember when/if i had that emotion, but anyway they're all technically unpleasant to feel and are there by nature to kick start you into some action (i don't think there's many rewarding emotions - one i can think of is the feeling after doing lots of exercise in one go this was probably nature's reward for persistance hunting to encourage them to do it again). 

i said i don't get what people mean by whether they're happy or sad. is it just a phrase or is the word referring to some emotion i don't know of. they definately seem to be using sad differently to the way i use the word because when i feel sad eg at the end of lost it feels quite good and happy like what a great thing that was same with nostalgia it's just bitter sweet so definately not what they're referring to. another emotion i forgot to add is stress i think that could possibly be a relational emotion namely because i'm not very social and i rarely get it and i only get it when forced to do something and do it by a certain time. so i hypothesised that the people who say happy sad are just referring to stress happy = no/negligible stress. sad = stress a lot of it. also the irritating thing is they definately don't mean 'happiness' when they refer to happy/sad. an example i remember is 'do you eat to make yourself happy' that's way different to 'happiness' when people talk about how to pursue happiness by choosing the right career or making a difference on the world etc. 

the personification of objects, ie sensational feeling of objects and vicarious experiencing of others that's most likely something i've stumbled upon similar to mindfullness, meditation and artisticness - when people talk about being in the present and right brained etc that's what i'm referring to - it's like a baseline state - you've just become thoughtless and thus sensing a lot more. i find mbti very confusing ( i understand all of it but i don't think it's realistic or adds up - that's something i've written loads on in my other posts if you're interested). 

about the thinker only if they're intelligent... i used to think that but now i'm seeing a lot of people who just seem really logical even if their thought isn't realistic or effective because after all they're so abstracting and in their own heads a lot they still have like extreme problem solving ability just perhaps not raw creativity. also everyone seems to use the word intelligent but what IS intelligence (neurologically) - if thinking is intellectualising rather than feeling that makes them 'intellegent'. if you measure intelligence by iq tests then that's pure thinking - little creativity i think.


----------



## Rainman

also 'love' while we're at it - i've never felt in love. is it an actual emotion etc or what? platonic family type thing or proper friendship i can't remember when/if i've felt that as an emotion. but like i say i'd get sad if certain people were to be just gone or when remembering stuff that is gone now ie the people have changed ie being a child.


----------



## itsme45

Rainman said:


> I possibly have Asperger's or perhaps just a bit of it but I am seriously weary of learning anything from psychiatry etc because they don't know how it actually works they literally just diagnose based on surface behaviour without knowing the neuroscience behind it and as you can see i'm thinking deep about what goes on under the surface. and if you can't understand you can't accept a diagnosis - also the label aspergers is gone in the next dsm.


Yeah well I wanted to say Autism first but whatever, so you do recognise yourself being somewhere on that scale, ok, I understand. As for neuroscience, it's got a lot to learn still. So don't be surprised if psychiatry practice works this way. It's not a trivial thing at all. If you want, we can discuss more about psychiatry, neurology, whatnot, in some other thread or private message etc. But it would be off topic here in this thread.




> oh btw the basic emotions those are the ones i listed from my experience they're kind of the only ones i know of so i was just getting the ball rolling if you wanted to add any etc.


Er, if you look up Ekman's research about basic emotions, that should be an interesting topic for you.




> and i think you're right about the relational emotions being higher up in the brain structure ie closer to the neo cortex or something


Lots of social stuff is actually done in the neocortex. 




> but i'm pretty sure monkeys and apes have relational emotions maybe even some other mammals like a lion.


Afaik (you should look this up to be sure if you want), anything higher up the "ladder" than reptiles will have some kind of relational emotions.




> Yes, of course and also in my personal reflection of them it still appears as if they're simply negative like the basic emotions they all are 'negative', also forgot to add i think jealousy (rage mixed with fear perhaps) is a relational emotion though to be honest i can't remember when/if i had that emotion, but anyway they're all technically unpleasant to feel and are there by nature to kick start you into some action (i don't think there's many rewarding emotions - one i can think of is the feeling after doing lots of exercise in one go this was probably nature's reward for persistance hunting to encourage them to do it again).


Oh the endorphins...  True, many emotions are negative but it's not as simple as that perhaps... E.g. for me anger can be a pretty rewarding emotion. Mechanism of feeling of reward is a complex topic anyway. We're way past MBTI again...




> i said i don't get what people mean by whether they're happy or sad. is it just a phrase or is the word referring to some emotion i don't know of.


 Of course it refers to emotions. Why wouldn't it?




> they definately seem to be using sad differently to the way i use the word because when i feel sad eg at the end of lost it feels quite good and happy like what a great thing that was same with nostalgia it's just bitter sweet so definately not what they're referring to.


Yes there is nostalgic sadness and then there is other sadness, but why are you so sure that those people you are talking about here don't experience sad nostalgia?




> another emotion i forgot to add is stress i think that could possibly be a relational emotion namely because i'm not very social and i rarely get it and i only get it when forced to do something and do it by a certain time. so i hypothesised that the people who say happy sad are just referring to stress happy = no/negligible stress. sad = stress a lot of it. also the irritating thing is they definately don't mean 'happiness' when they refer to happy/sad. an example i remember is 'do you eat to make yourself happy' that's way different to 'happiness' when people talk about how to pursue happiness by choosing the right career or making a difference on the world etc.


Stress is not just an emotion, let alone relational emotion, stress is something completely different. If you want to know more about the topic, wikipedia isn't a bad place to start at.




> the personification of objects, ie sensational feeling of objects and vicarious experiencing of others that's most likely something i've stumbled upon similar to mindfullness, meditation and artisticness - when people talk about being in the present and right brained etc that's what i'm referring to - it's like a baseline state - you've just become thoughtless and thus sensing a lot more. i find mbti very confusing ( i understand all of it but i don't think it's realistic or adds up - that's something i've written loads on in my other posts if you're interested).


MBTI is just a simple theory originally, see myersbriggs.org on what it is... yes it can be confusing because it's a pseudo scientific theory. It's also subjective enough for everyone to try and add their own viewpoint into it...




> about the thinker only if they're intelligent... i used to think that but now i'm seeing a lot of people who just seem really logical even if their thought isn't realistic or effective because after all they're so abstracting and in their own heads a lot they still have like extreme problem solving ability just perhaps not raw creativity. also everyone seems to use the word intelligent but what IS intelligence (neurologically) - if thinking is intellectualising rather than feeling that makes them 'intellegent'. if you measure intelligence by iq tests then that's pure thinking - little creativity i think.


I did not try to connect creative abilities with Thinking dichotomy at all. It's not supposed to be related. By intelligent I did largely mean IQ, yes. Neurologically, low level properties of the brain's structure can be of better quality depending on how good genes someone got and my guess would be that this is correlated with IQ but I have not read up much on this topic yet. 

It's true that creativity and IQ are unrelated to each other beyond a certain level of IQ. Until that level, they are correlated because clearly one needs some basic intelligence (IQ) to be able to be creative and vice versa. But beyond that point, they are about two different things 

Now as for correlating IQ with Thinking preference, supposedly there is correlation but I do not know how strong it is, I just read a statement somewhere, not even very official information perhaps. I could also easily imagine that the correlation is weak, because preference of Thinking really does not have to entail that this works in a quality way. That is, someone with preference for Thinking will be able to process things objectively but it does not mean the person can handle and solve hard problems. That depends on more than just Thinking preference and is way past the context of this little simple MBTI theory. Hope I managed to explain this in a clear way.. let me know.




Rainman said:


> also 'love' while we're at it - i've never felt in love. is it an actual emotion etc or what? platonic family type thing or proper friendship i can't remember when/if i've felt that as an emotion. but like i say i'd get sad if certain people were to be just gone or when remembering stuff that is gone now ie the people have changed ie being a child.


Yes it's actually several emotions. There is hormonal support (PEA stuff etc) when falling in love and then there is another kind of love and uh, ... maybe ask wikipedia? I'm lazy to type more on this and it would not be as good an article as the one over there


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Well, it's important to keep in mind that people largely connect to each other through, I would assume, Fi or Ti (the subjective sense of identity functions that sort of keep tab on your thoughts about your own subjective content or your "feelings" about your own subjective content). Perception has nothing to do with connections, other than seeing where another person's rationale is coming from (I mean, honestly, who really cares how someone is perceiving something, unless there is some kind of judgment or implied judgment behind it) - the only real connections I can see here would come from the people just having a more similar range of interests or topics of discussion (e.g. sensation types and intuition types tend to clash, because the realms of life they tend to focus on are just downright oppositional - referencing points from the metaphysical perspective is just totally different from referencing points from a perspective of concrete experience - it's not that these types can't do either, but they might often have a hard time following each other on topics that concern more than their personal lives or just might feel too inferior around their inferior to really try to engage with the person intellectually - doesn't mean they can't, but it often takes them in directions they would rather not go or just not relate enough to how they're used to viewing things, so it might feel kind of irrelevant to them, and they might kind of end up "making up" stuff just to get through a conversation). I'm not so sure Fe and Te have all that much to do with personal connections with others - I mean, these would largely be ways that people merge their judgments against the environment, but not necessarily representative of personal content (which is where I can see these types clashing to death, honestly, because through the Ti of Fe types and the Fi of Te types, they might end up projecting personal concerns onto each other's Je functions where there really are none, just because the feelings of Te types are more personal and not just an act of accommodation, while the thoughts of Fe types are more personally-informed and not just a way of directing a conversation, event, goal, etc. or what have you). It's all truly quite interesting to look for this kind of stuff IRL - the thinking and feeling functions are largely not what people think they are at all - I mean, duh, if you're being analytical, you're just being analytical, it probably says nothing about your type, or if you're being emotive or considerate, you're being emotive or considerate, it probably says nothing about your type as well (most of the stuff people talk about with reference to T and F is probably an enneagram head/heart thing, not so much type). Type is specifically how you rationalize thoughts and feelings toward your identity and away from your identity - same goes for perception.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

It's really the Ji functions that judge from how you "feel" about stuff (in a non-Jungian sense of the word) - you either deal with this with conceptual motives derived from ideals about factual reality (more Ti-ish) or with personal motives derived from ideals about self experience of factual reality (more Fi-ish). Some people may do both, but one perspective is favored over the other. It's one of those phenomena that occurs very much as a kind of rationalization phenomenon, not something that necessarily has an intellectual end goal (anything focused on a pure intellectual end goal would probably be coming more from the influence of extraversion on introversion, or just the individual's own goals on any functions). That's the way I read into Psychological Types on these functions anyhow - it's truly extremely hard to explain these as anything other than heuristics that sort of manifest in various ways IRL.


----------



## Deewone

T = Preference for Absolute truth (Te = Black or white thinking in general/ Ti = Mathematical logic/morals in general)
F = Preference for Relative Truth (Fe = Relative to the group in general / Fi = Relative to the individual in general)

So to answer the question should A hit B. 

Te will answer Yes or NO based on a current belief system (Example it is wrong to hit people, period) . 
Ti will answer Yes or No based on some carefully examined/calculated morals (It is wrong of people like A to hit people like B).
Fe would answer I need to know more about the circumstances - how does A hitting B affect the group (If A hit B to save a group then Yes if only out of personal gain then No) . 
Fi will answer it depends on the circumstances both Yes and No are valid because both A and B are individuals who's point of view need to be considered.

Is my general understanding


----------



## Deewone

N/S in this question will show up in the way T and F are displayed. Example

INTP argues A is not exactly equal to B. B is not considered such and such. (Intuitive gets deeper into the problem)
(INTP Pi is not exactly 3.14 so therefore ....)
ISTP argues A generally = B so therefore what is thought of A applies to B. (Sensors stay at face value) 
(ISTP Pi is 3.14 is good enough for the argument)


Again just my understanding


----------



## itsme45

Deewone said:


> N/S in this question will show up in the way T and F are displayed. Example
> 
> INTP argues A is not exactly equal to B. B is not considered such and such. (Intuitive gets deeper into the problem)
> (INTP Pi is not exactly 3.14 so therefore ....)
> ISTP argues A generally = B so therefore what is thought of A applies to B. (Sensors stay at face value)
> (ISTP Pi is 3.14 is good enough for the argument)
> 
> 
> Again just my understanding


I thought N was general (like the ISTP here) and S was focused on details (like the INTP here)


----------



## Deewone

itsme45 said:


> I thought N was general (like the ISTP here) and S was focused on details (like the INTP here)


Except that happened one page up so ... not unless those individuals are confused. N has philosophical tendencies and as such both exclusive and inclusive. We can do surface but for the sakes of arguing a point we will keep digging until all angles of a thing has been explored. S like yourself will probably just see the face value as in the statement N is general and S is detail. (It depends on what we are discussing. In this case the different expressions of Ti in relation to S or N)

As an INFP I will add those are just my thoughts since I don't have strong thinking I am probably wrong. Right?


----------



## itsme45

Deewone said:


> Except that happened one page up so ... not unless those individuals are confused.


Where exactly, post #?




> N has philosophical tendencies and as such both exclusive and inclusive. We can do surface but for the sakes of arguing a point we will keep digging until all angles of a thing has been explored. S like yourself will probably just see the face value as in the statement N is general and S is detail. (It depends on what we are discussing. In this case the different expressions of Ti in relation to S or N)


If I only cared about face value why would I even be asking you about this?

Well I ask because the two statements together don't make sense: S is detail oriented *and* yet discards details in your example? And yeah in the Ti example, I don't relate to the ISTP there.




> As an INFP I will add those are just my thoughts since I don't have strong thinking I am probably wrong. Right?


Gee. That was a crappy joke


----------



## Deewone

Like I said just my understanding I would love to hear yours. They are just thoughts and honestly there was no sarcasm intended although the last part was a play on words - which I do enjoy 

But just to clarify face value is not referred to as a bad thing or shallow in the sense it is often referred to. I simply mean that what is apparent is often accepted. Ti is interested in the mathematical correctness of a statement and Se in the physical manifestations of those. Where as in the Ne case it is more of the endless extended possibilities of a statement. Neither is more or less detail oriented it is 'what' kind of detail they focus on. 

Mine as a Ne is more often all the possible angles where as Se seems to be just the one apparent view.D id that make more sense in terms of what I was trying to say? But like I said would love to hear your thoughts on that. They really are just my current understanding nothing more... I'm happy to update.


----------



## itsme45

Deewone said:


> Like I said just my understanding I would love to hear yours. They are just thoughts and honestly there was no sarcasm intended although the last part was a play on words - which I do enjoy
> 
> But just to clarify face value is not referred to as a bad thing or shallow in the sense it is often referred to. I simply mean that what is apparent is often accepted. Ti is interested in the mathematical correctness of a statement and Se in the physical manifestations of those. Where as in the Ne case it is more of the endless extended possibilities of a statement. Neither is more or less detail oriented it is 'what' kind of detail they focus on.
> 
> Mine as a Ne is more often all the possible angles where as Se seems to be just the one apparent view.D id that make more sense in terms of what I was trying to say? But like I said would love to hear your thoughts on that. They really are just my current understanding nothing more... I'm happy to update.


Yeah, that I agree with, about Ne vs Se.  The Pi example though to me seems like the INTP gets stuck on a little detail of how Pi is not exactly 3.14, I don't see possibility generating there. Of course I don't know what exactly they were discussing about Pi. 

PS: I think I get the play on words hahah  So my answer is, no, wrong! (==> you're right  )


----------



## Entropic

I think it's wrong to consider sensing more detail-oriented and intuition general, because in relation to what? I like the broadness of Se and how things just are more compared to the irrelevant options of Ne for example. Talk about not even having a detail-focus. I find Si to be the worst in terms of details, especially if you pair it with Ti. That thinking seems so meaningless and focusing on the wrong details. See? It's too complicated to draw a golden standard. 

One can however argue argue that sensation is concrete because it deals with the senses, so sensors always want to ground back to the immediate physical experience. 

Also that example before to showcase how sensation is detail-oriented just sounded like Te to me. Of course to the Fi type, Te seems detail-oriented because it doesn't see personal value.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Osprey said:


> The death penalty is not justice, it's *a cost saver when compared to housing inmates indefinitely and paying for their meals*.


fixed

@SuperSoaker


> Vengeance is justice


hell yeah


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> I think it's wrong to consider sensing more detail-oriented and intuition general, because in relation to what? I like the broadness of Se and how things just are more compared to the irrelevant options of Ne for example. Talk about not even having a detail-focus.


You're right, depends on what kind of data it is lol, Se is definitely not detail oriented like Si with regard to physical environment.




> Also that example before to showcase how sensation is detail-oriented just sounded like Te to me. Of course to the Fi type, Te seems detail-oriented because it doesn't see personal value.


The ISTP one? Heh would make sense


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> You're right, depends on what kind of data it is lol, Se is definitely not detail oriented like Si with regard to physical environment.


Yes, I find Si so extremely detail-oriented in all the wrong ways like how they can get hung up on how someone smiles and how that means such and such in an Si sense. I don't get it at all. I don't even care. A person smiled. Leave it at that?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Osprey said:


> The death penalty is not justice, it's vengeance.


Keeping people locked up costs resources. If they can not be reformed feeding and keeping them locked up makes no sense. Most ppl on death row can not be reformed or put to use.

Imo its convenient, justice or vengeance doesen't matter, the latter only to those affected.

Objectively speaking even if we forgive the offender and somehow move on, the offender is dangerous and must be either locked up or killed. Public safety. Killing is more resource efficient.


----------



## infamous

I hate being a feeler if I'm honest. If I was a thinker I might have had more of a chance at excelling in biology at school. Psychology is and always will be my greatest interest and I am academically unable to do a credible degree in this subject. 
Sorry if this reply was a bit random I just wanted to get it off my chest, haha.


----------



## Word Dispenser

infamous said:


> I hate being a feeler if I'm honest. If I was a thinker I might have had more of a chance at excelling in biology at school. Psychology is and always will be my greatest interest and I am academically unable to do a credible degree in this subject.
> Sorry if this reply was a bit random I just wanted to get it off my chest, haha.


Don't blame that on your personality type. 

There is no ceiling to what you can achieve, if you apply yourself, and spend a lot of time putting in the effort. If you have trouble, you have to get help and ask questions. You write down plans, and if the plans don't work, you change them.

Being a feeler makes you ethically oriented. That's it. It doesn't mean you can't do better than a thinker at scientific subjects, and in fact, your unique qualities may give you an edge.

The labels confuse newbies to personality psychology. 'Feeler' doesn't mean more emotional, and 'thinker' doesn't mean smarter.


----------



## Choice

infamous said:


> I hate being a feeler if I'm honest. If I was a thinker I might have had more of a chance at excelling in biology at school. Psychology is and always will be my greatest interest and I am academically unable to do a credible degree in this subject.
> Sorry if this reply was a bit random I just wanted to get it off my chest, haha.


How does being a thinker help with biology? Wasn't high school biology just about remembering a ton of shit?


----------



## CharmingINTJ

We all have feelings and we all have a brain. Thinkers choose to rely on the brain well feelers seem to prefer to only rely on the heart. It does not mean either is incapable of the other function.


----------



## Word Dispenser

CharmingINTJ said:


> We all have feelings and we all have a brain. Thinkers choose to rely on the brain well feelers seem to prefer to only rely on the heart. It does not mean either is incapable of the other function.












No, that is not it _at all. _

Thinkers do not rely on their brain more than feelers. Where did you get that idea? It's ridiculous. All personality types use their brains, they can all have identical behaviours and actions. It's just that the consequences of the cognition will have a foundation in ethical, or logical principles. That's all.


----------



## CharmingINTJ

Like I said we all have brains and we all have emotions but one chooses to rely more on one. Foundation of logical or ethical principles. Emotional/ethical and Logical/thinker. My MBTI Personality Type - MBTI Basics - Thinking or Feeling Thinking vs. Feeling Are You a Thinker who Feels or a Feeler Who Thinks?** Anne Murray Myers Briggs Part 3 - Thinking versus Feeling - Mom In Management Thinkers vs Feelers | Between Associates ... Contact: 218.940.2469 The Myers-Briggs test measures your personality prefrences in 4 areas <==== This all says the same thing.


----------



## CharmingINTJ

Not sure how I keep posting twice


----------



## Word Dispenser

CharmingINTJ said:


> Like I said we all have brains and we all have emotions but one chooses to rely more on one. Foundation of logical or ethical principles. Emotional/ethical and Logical/thinker. My MBTI Personality Type - MBTI Basics - Thinking or Feeling Thinking vs. Feeling Are You a Thinker who Feels or a Feeler Who Thinks?** Anne Murray Myers Briggs Part 3 - Thinking versus Feeling - Mom In Management Thinkers vs Feelers | Between Associates ... Contact: 218.940.2469 The Myers-Briggs test measures your personality prefrences in 4 areas <==== This all says the same thing.


Not really. It's _not_ about relying more on 'emotions' or more on 'thinking'. And any articles you find which support that, don't really have an understanding of the theory.

An ethical type has the potential to logically reason and give a better, more coherent argument than a logical type can. And a logical type has the potential to be emotional, and more irrational than an ethical type.

The difference is in the cognitive causation of the type-- _Why _they behave a certain way. Not the behaviour in itself.


----------



## bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

kdm1984 said:


> I actually love justice and support the death penalty.


Since most heinous crimes are sexually motivated, I support castration instead of death penalty.


----------



## exciting fisherman

Kohtumine said:


> Ewwww!! ehhm, can't agree with that one, justice is mainly a relative term, not an universal one, we can even argue that there isn't something as justice to begin with, this is one of another "quality values" that feelers have, not to be put with thinking types I think.
> 
> 👅


What makes me think whether I am INTP ot ENTP,
note: Im very psyhically aware.


----------

