# T-F axis flawed?



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

Umm.

okay, so the gist that I'm getting from the T/F axis is this (especially according to Keirsey): T people are 'mind over heart' folks and F people are 'heart over mind' folks.

But I don't think this is correct.

I would love to say that I know myself better than anyone else, so when I study the four letters in my personality type, I can safely say that I'm Introvert versus Extravert, Intuitive versus Sensor, Judging versus Perceiving...

when I first took an MBTI test on the net, my result was INTJ, not INFJ. So the I, N and J were consistent when I studied the letters in details. I'm clearly an Introvert over Extravert, clearly Intuitive more than a Sensor and clearly using Judgment function over Perceiving. So, what I was confused was the F of the INFJ. When you study the letters, almost all websites would point that F basically is all about "heart over mind". I mean, I am clearly mind over heart (?) more than I am a "heart over mind" but the INTJ descriptions don't fit me to a tee more than the INFJ descriptions do. Sooner it becomes apparent to me that the T-F axis doesn't refer to whether you're "mind over heart" / "heart over mind" - it refers more to whether you take in personal considerations or not when you make decisions, not whether you let your head/heart rule. So I can safely say that while I'm "mind over heart", I take personal feelings of other people when I make decisions which makes me an F in the MBTI/Keirsey lingo.

So for people wanting to know their true personality type or confused by this mere axis, I hope this clear things out or gives you an idea.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

> I take personal feelings of other people when I make decisions which makes me an F in the MBTI/Keirsey lingo.


Yeah, that's flawed. Everyone is both T and F. What makes your personality T or F is which one dominates or has the final say. I take people's feelings into account. I feel them. When making a decision, I take feeling into account often _because it is the rational thing to do._ 
I am a thinker, albeit, pretty close between T and F.


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

but wouldn't that make you an F in the MBTI/Keirsey lingo?

if you take personal feelings into account, then you'd be an F.

That was my point with my first post. The T-F axis doesn't seem to indicate whether you're rational or not (or "mind over heart" or "heart over mind"), it seems to really indicate whether you're T/F in whether you take personal feelings into account or not, in my observation. And because you said you do take personal feelings into account as it is a rational thing to do, wouldn't that make you an F more than a T?

I realize this may be confusing, but I hope you know what I mean.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Everyone has both. MBTI was not intended to make absolute pronouncements, only tendencies. Which is a more energizing, natural process, which do you feel more comfortable with, which sits better with you? I take personal feelings into account, but I tend to make decisions based on logic. Without thinking, the more pragmatic, rational approach is what I naturally favour. I make F judgments all the time to, but only under the aegis of logic. When thinking gives it leeway, basically. I will seldom run to it first, except in situations where I know it is just the only decent way to go about things.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> T people are 'mind over heart' folks and F people are 'heart over mind' folks.


this basically is just another way of saying that when making an decision, you usually put more weight on logical analysis(mind) or how you feel about it(heart).

i think the best short terms for F and T are:
T = what is it that is there?/what is it?
F = what is it worth?/is it worth or not?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> but wouldn't that make you an F in the MBTI/Keirsey lingo?
> 
> if you take personal feelings into account, then you'd be an F.
> 
> ...


Do you believe that thinkers are all heartless machines that do not care about people's feelings? 
:shocked:


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Terms like "heart over mind" are supposed to be shorthand, and not taken literally. Hence, they can become confusing.

T is "impersonal" considerations, or basically technical details about things and even people. 
F is "personal" considerations, or to make it less ambiguous, I call it "humane". It involves affects of things on people. By extension, "values". 

This is associated with "the heart", though technically, it occurs in the head as well. That's why that shorthand becomes ambiguous.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Its the I that can focus on relating to things, and the E that can focus on interacting with things.

Now, before I get to F and T, I want to say that we always have some sort of emotion and perception going on.

But how do they relate differently?

Obviously you can be in the middle. To be less ambiguous, I have to add E and I.

Fi relates to their ideals as if they are one with them. (for ex. My ideal is the universe)
Ti relates to whatever their ideal encompasses as if they are apart from it. (for ex. This is the universe)
Fe interacts and literally becomes one with their ideal that their self more relates to. (I move with the universe)
Te interacts and literally becomes one with their ideal that their self less relates to. (I am part of the universe)

T's will take personal feelings into account, actually, but they will do so objectively, since their purpose isn't identified by having those feelings, which not every F is either.

Some F's identify with and become one with an ideal that is a feeling, Fi's mainly, and therefore objectively choose to follow that feeling. I do this with Love somewhat.

Fe's won't do that, becuase they are becoming one with a group, not one with a feeling.

However, feelings and emotions are always a source of information, in ourselves and others.

I guess what I have to remember is that T and F are complex value judging functions.

If you think about, Perceiving functions still judge values, they are just simple things like "tastes" "Oh I want to go this way or think about that, haha" however when we get to Judging functions we are saying things like "do I want love more or honor more, is war ok?"

These thoughts can be split up therefore into simple and complex, as in, a simple thought is, that is the color red, and if you combine two of those simple thoughts, you have a slightly more complex thought, or an idea of what the general color of red is. Its more complex then to associate red with blood, etc.. 

Judging functions judge more complex associations, and Perceiving functions judge more simple associations.

It would seem then that we could say, so people are more relaxed while perceiving simple values?

Not at all, because they can both give positive emotions that are enjoyable.

By the way, as an MBTI INFP, I am J dominant, even though the last letter is P, since I use Fi dominantely. MBTI just labels which one is extraverted, probably because it is focused on solving interactions with people, rather than helping people understand themselves (not sure).

So T and F are dealing with complex thoughts, or fitting simple new thoughts into complex thoughts.

N and S keep it more simple, though, there might be many simple thoughts weaving around, and also less complex thoughts.

So the most complex thoughts have to do with, for example, the words in language we have the most trouble defining.

*Moral*
*Love*
*War*
*Evil*
*God*
*Justice*

N and S will solve these riddles in a more simple way, but F and T will use one of those words to solve another one of those words (add words if necessary).

Okay this has gotten me no where, lol.

To explain F and T I will first say that yes T can use F associated skills, and F can use T associated skills, but that is not usually the case.

F can form their ideal and interact with rocks, and T can form their ideal and interact with people, even so far as to become a psychologist.

Okay I think I got it.

T's and F's both want to connect to their ideal, and keep doing it.

How then do they differ?

Well we really can't compare T and F without some context.

They might equally care about the same things, but we need to give an example of how they might both look at something complex.

*Now, people, can be simple objects, and therefore only perceived, therefore confusing the definitions of T and F because we are adding in the definitions of J and P.*

*Here is a definition using the word "connection" which is intentionally ambiguous so it can adapt to both T and F. This might imply J functioning with P at the same time. I suppose it depends.*

*T's tend to connect with processes Te or theories Ti more than people or themself*
*F's tend to connect with people Fe or themselves Fi more than processes or a theory*

*In short, T's focus/ connect on what they consider is not similar to themselves more than what F's focus/ connect to which is what they consider more similar to themselves.*

*Not similar to self T-------------------------------F similar to self*

*Those are generalities, but seriously, when we say Fi likes some inner ideal, no they don't, that is Ti. Fi likes to learn from that inner ideal, sure, but does so to find a sense of identity, to connect to themselves more, to use the term love, to love themselves more.*

This piece of shit here deserves a hug! Woot!


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

Nitou said:


> Do you believe that thinkers are all heartless machines that do not care about people's feelings?
> :shocked:


Um. Nevermind. I just don't think you got what I meant.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> Um. Nevermind. I just don't think you got what I meant.


They did. You said take feelings into account makes you an F. No, that just makes you an immature T if you dont haha, just like an F would be immature if they don't look at things other than feelings. Also, feelings isn't the right word that makes the difference, its what we are having our feelings towards. Sure, the feelings themselves might have correlations, such as T's having a feeling of "flow more" and maybe F a certain type of "love" however, there are enough exceptions to those correlations to make it more confusing than helpful.

Considering people's feelings, doesn't make you heartlful though Nitou, lol.
Empathy in fact, just means awareness of feelings, it doesn't mean we care about the people.
There might be a correlation about how much T's and F's focus on empathy, though, there are enough exceptions to make it more confusing than helpful.


----------



## blu (May 13, 2011)

You're not arguing with the actual T-F axis, just with the stereotype of it. The actual T-F axis is just about decision-making. I'm not aware about whether it has to do with taking other people's feelings into account or not. Also, you have to remember that we all have both, it's just which one you use _most often._


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

blu said:


> You're not arguing with the actual T-F axis, just with the stereotype of it. The actual T-F axis is just about decision-making. I'm not aware about whether it has to do with taking other people's feelings into account or not. Also, you have to remember that we all have both, it's just which one you use _most often._


If we go deeper though, decision making is based on T and F criteria, so teh T and F criteria isn't just decision making material, it is just mateerial that T and F focuses on.

Actually, I think J is just a more complex version of P, and P a more simple version of J.

Otherwise, how can T and F make decisions without any criteria, and tastes of their own?


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

blu said:


> You're not arguing with the actual T-F axis, just with the stereotype of it. The actual T-F axis is just about decision-making. I'm not aware about whether it has to do with taking other people's feelings into account or not. Also, you have to remember that we all have both, it's just which one you use _most often._


I actually never intended that if you're a T, you don't have any F and that if you're an F, you don't have any T in you.

what I'm just saying is the basic T-F axis description seems flawed.

It seems to focus on whether you're objective (T) or subjective (F) when perhaps it isn't about that. When perhaps it's all about...whether you take in the personal feelings (F) or not and strict to your principles (T) when making decisions which don't have anything to do with being "objective" or "subjective" OR "mind over heart" or "heart over mind".

Did I make myself clearer?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Yeah, you made yourself clear. You're just wrong, still, which multiple people have explained already.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

hziegel said:


> Yeah, you made yourself clear. You're just wrong, still, which multiple people have explained already.


Lol you two totally switched avatars and I'm the first to tell I think!!!!!!! 

Woot woot!

ok ok I'll settle down.. haha.







IDontReallyKnow said:


> It seems to focus on whether you're objective (T) or subjective (F) when perhaps it isn't about that. When perhaps it's all about...whether you take in the personal feelings (F) or not and strict to your principles (T) when making decisions which don't have anything to do with being "objective" or "subjective" OR "mind over heart" or "heart over mind".



Sometimes T is referred to as seeing the things they like as "objects" and F as seeing things as if they relate to the F and are "subjects." Its often more confusing than helpful, but that is where it comes from.

Heart is used just to replace the word emotions, but is just as confusing. Often it is said within the mind, instead of mind heart mind, that it goes from the objective center to the emotional center back to the objective center. Just a way of helping understand it, but not nearly the best definition.

T's and F's can experience the same emotions, interact in the same way, like the same things, but they do all those things in different ways.

And there are two main ways each do them, through E and I, and because of our imperfect language, explaining T and F without giving two definitions of each, therefore, makes it absolutely necessary to agree on the exact terms being used. 

What would be your say of saying it?

Feelings vs. Principals?

What if those principals revolve around feelings?

Or what if the feelings enjoy becoming one with or creating principals?

Why do people care about themselves? 

Why do people care about other people?

What do they care about, if they don't care about themselves or other people?

If we all care about ourselves, then how is it that extraverts exist?

Just some questions to keep it interesting.


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

hziegel said:


> Yeah, you made yourself clear. You're just wrong, still, which multiple people have explained already.


I don't think so but whatever.


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

Haven't read all in detail so forgive me if I am going over anything again. But the is a difference between taking the feelings of others into account intellectually, as one of the factors that you need to consider when making a decision, and.....I don't know, I am not a feeler.....kind of wading in a soup of your and other people's emotions and having this instinctively guide your decision. The degree to which you make allowances for not hurting people can depend on the moral framework within which you were raised as much as cognitive processing.

iNFJ and INTJ have their f and their t attributes at aux and tertiary respectively so they can be hard to differentiate. However from the way you have worded it I would put you in the INTJ camp.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

The T/F divide is the easiest for me to relate to, perhaps because I am so extreme in my F preference. I think part of the problem is in how one interprets the test questions. For example, if a person were to read them as though every mention of feelings referred to immediate random emotional states and temporary whims rather than being about the conscience and value system, then naturally most of us would test as T types. I am definitely heart-over-head because my heart is more rational than my head. By heart, I mean that which defines what is important to me. It is what determines what I consider personally meaningful and valuable, which is a feeling of being pleased or displeased in varying degrees by things either fitting or not fitting into the pattern of what I perceive as real, true, and good. It is a rational system for organizing things by their worth.


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

alfreda said:


> iNFJ and INTJ have their f and their t attributes at aux and tertiary respectively so they can be hard to differentiate. However from the way you have worded it I would put you in the INTJ camp.


Interesting.

That, or I'm really an F and "changed" and became T while I was growing up. I remember being really purely emotional in my younger years before I suddenly realized I had to be objective.

Or....I am really T all along and just suddenly realized that it's what I naturally prefer as I mature.

Keirsey/MBTI remember has the rule that "your type/temperament doesn't change" - I'd say right now that I'm more objective than subjective naturally... so like what I've said above, either A.) I made myself believe I'm a T but I'm really F since I remember my younger years being purely emotional, "feeler" or B.) I am really T and just recently started to realize it as my natural preference while I was growing up.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> Interesting.
> 
> That, or I'm really an F and "changed" and became T while I was growing up. I remember being really purely emotional in my younger years before I suddenly realized I had to be objective.
> 
> ...


Man you all over the place haha. Well again watch the usage of the words subjective and objective, since they could mean 3 different things F/T, E/I, J/P. When you say subjective, it might seem like you don't know what you are talking about, even though you might in fact be talking about F. They might think you are just confused and are talking about I. Its very ambiguous. Thats not the point here though. Hey I wanted to comment on the functions changing. Shit you know what. Its passed my bed time. I'll be back. Typical answer for change is, mature slowly and develop use of other functions and only change preference if we were in the middle, Or, Trauma, which can change everything fast. Usually lesser trauma that forces us into the awakened states of other functions, isn't forceful enough to make us stick in it, but we do gain the skills from doing so.

The rest of the time, jsut because we are driving, oesn't mean we are using Se. Often times we do function associated activities while "going through the motions," which is why, often times, Se fighters will just destroy other fighters immediately.

That being said, heres something else for you.

Most F males (excluding ones that have been on these forums for a bit) act objective when interacting with others more of the time than not.

Can you guess why?


----------

