# I nominate the INTJ as the 'feeler' of the thinking types.



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

We got the INTP, ISTP, ENTJ and ESTJ. They all got feeling as their fourth function. This leaves us with the extroverts ENTP and ESTP who are practically 'outward feelers', so just good for social situations. 

This leaves us with the ISTJ & INTJ who have Fi as their third function. Being the biased INTJ that I am, I'm going to discredit the ISTJ by telling you that the ISTJ is more grounded and is better at resonating with their enviourment (and other people) thanks to being a Si-dom.

This leaves us with you, INTJ. Admit it! You're a feely motherfucker :blushed:


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

I admit it. I'm totally emo.
:blushed:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

They're like the INFP of the NTs.


----------



## juilorain (Oct 29, 2013)

Too many of my INTJ friends feel so strongly but they hate expressing it. I've seen the biggest emotional outburst of anyone I have known from an INTJ. It was scary because I've never seen her that emotional before and I had no idea how to deal with it. She was also drunk, so dealing with it rationally was out of the question. Luckily, I had an INFJ around to help her. I want to help, but I lack the emotional capabilities to help [Fe speaking]. 


Though I know ENTPs also have an inner INFP, but usually we extravert these feelings and try desperately to filter them through Ti. We sometimes our overwhelmed with emotion by concealing it, but only if our Ti can't convert it into rational thought.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


Depends. Is the feeler being dismissed out of hand for being a feeler? If I'm not sure, I don't say anything against it. Other times, there is a blatant disregard for the feeler's input simply because they aren't a thinker. That's not okay. 



Anyway, thanks for the entertaining thread OP. I don't know how true it is or isn't.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

monemi said:


> Depends. Is the feeler being dismissed out of hand for being a feeler? If I'm not sure, I don't say anything against it. Other times, there is a blatant disregard for the feeler's input simply because they aren't a thinker. That's not okay.


The interesting part is figuring out why it's OK to point out some things but not others. It seems to be almost entirely accepted within western society to point out social faux pas, but not intellectual faux pas. Whether someone is being dismissed due to a label is rather unimportant to me, what's interesting to me is the underlying "logic" of it, the "why" if you will.

For example, I have an ESFJ aunt, who loves to criticize my lack of "tact" and "culture" when I use a certain brand of hyperbole mixed with imagery, or when I point out that how someone dresses is secondary to how they think or a range of other things. 

Now apparently, in her head it's not tactless for her to be a condescending bitch about it, but it would be tactless of me to point out what a condescending bitch she is. 

Hows that logic.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> The interesting part is figuring out why it's OK to point out some things but not others. It seems to be almost entirely accepted within western society to point out social faux pas, but not intellectual faux pas. Whether someone is being dismissed due to a label is rather unimportant to me, what's interesting to me is the underlying "logic" of it, the "why" if you will.
> 
> For example, I have an ESFJ aunt, who loves to criticize my lack of "tact" and "culture" when I use a certain brand of hyperbole mixed with imagery, or when I point out that how someone dresses is secondary to how they think or a range of other things.
> 
> ...


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> The interesting part is figuring out why it's OK to point out some things but not others. It seems to be almost entirely accepted within western society to point out social faux pas, but not intellectual faux pas. Whether someone is being dismissed due to a label is rather unimportant to me, what's interesting to me is the underlying "logic" of it, the "why" if you will.
> 
> For example, I have an ESFJ aunt, who loves to criticize my lack of "tact" and "culture" when I use a certain brand of hyperbole mixed with imagery, or when I point out that how someone dresses is secondary to how they think or a range of other things.
> 
> ...


Because many feelers are sensitive and many thinkers lack sensitivity. My feelings aren't hurt when they point out my lack of tact. But their feelings are hurt if I point out their lack of logic. Besides that, intelligence is highly valued in society. Pay for more nurturing positions are traditionally lower because society lacks respect for people who lack logic/intelligence. Idiot, moron, fool, retard, dimwit, numb nuts, dipstick, cretin, wanker, dunce, caveman, nitwit, twit, dumbbell, imbecile, ignoramous, blond, pinhead, ninny, birdbrain, clown, buffoon, dope, clown, buffoon, stooge, sucker, chucklehead, mouth breather, window licker, muppet, 

The list of insults for people who lack logic or otherwise unintelligent is extremely long. Insults for stupidity, lacking logic, failing to think are probably as old as oral communication. It's the easiest way to devalue a person. I'm not surprised feelers would be insulted when someone points out their lack of logic. It's closely connected to a common and effective insult.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


The answer is simple. It's cool and acceptable to "suck" at emotions, or otherwise be emotionally reserved. It's uncool to be illogical and un-smart. Being called un-smart is an insult. Being called unemotional is cool. *Puts on sunglasses and takes off human flesh, steps into a robotic suit of stoicism and poops out a cyber turd of apathy*


----------



## WinterFox (Sep 19, 2013)

I don't know why, but I find ENTP much more feelerish than INTJ. 
ENTPs have this fluffiness in them that makes them seem very feelerish at times.


Or is it, INTJs are the most emo thinker, while ENTP is the most empathetic thinker? (Fi vs Fe)
Funny but whenever I am interacting with ENTPs and INTJs, I noticed something.
INTJs gives off a feelerish vibes because they have deep emotions though they often have difficulty expressing their deep emotions, while ENTPs also gives off a feelerish vibes because they are empathetic to people's feelings and they are also very polite (ENTPs aren't as empathetic as NFs but they are the most empathetic thinkers)
I noticed that ENTPs often get mistyped as ENFPs because they confused their Fe with being a feeler. Did anyone else notice this?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

WinterFox said:


> I don't know why, but I find ENTP much more feelerish than INTJ.
> ENTPs have this fluffiness in them that makes them seem very feelerish at times.


In theory, this would be because the form of Feeling your type gives a higher validity is Fe, not Fi.

I see this topic is in Myers-Briggs, though I don't know why as I would suspect it to have more to do with functional preference, so you could also consider it from the standpoint of E vs. I.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Is this a "I am the xxTx with the deepest capability for feelings, all the other thinkers are cold and heartless robots" thread? No better than "I am the xxFx, but I think that my type is the most logical of all the feelers".

Anyone can feel, and anyone can think. In MBTI theory, the difference is that the thinkers and feelers use different judging processes, and favour different problem solving methods. Feelers focus on the person itself, or anything that affects the person, while thinkers prefer to deal with the problem that affects the person. Just in case somebody takes this out of context, the emphasis is on *prefer*, and *favour*.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Gore Motel said:


> The answer is simple. It's cool and acceptable to "suck" at emotions, or otherwise be emotionally reserved. It's uncool to be illogical and un-smart. Being called un-smart is an insult. Being called unemotional is cool. *Puts on sunglasses and takes off human flesh, steps into a robotic suit of stoicism and poops out a cyber turd of apathy*


Your post and society contradict each other. It's not logical that if being smart and logical is a good thing, why did the fox and gangnam style get like 100 million views? Also, if it's "cool and acceptable" to suck at emotions, why is it being criticized in the first place? 



monemi said:


> Because many feelers are sensitive and many thinkers lack sensitivity. My feelings aren't hurt when they point out my lack of tact. But their feelings are hurt if I point out their lack of logic. Besides that, intelligence is highly valued in society. Pay for more nurturing positions are traditionally lower because society lacks respect for people who lack logic/intelligence. Idiot, moron, fool, retard, dimwit, numb nuts, dipstick, cretin, wanker, dunce, caveman, nitwit, twit, dumbbell, imbecile, ignoramous,
> blond, pinhead, ninny, birdbrain, clown, buffoon, dope, clown, buffoon, stooge, sucker, chucklehead, mouth breather, window licker, muppet,
> 
> The list of insults for people who lack logic or otherwise unintelligent is extremely long. Insults for stupidity, lacking logic, failing to think are probably as old as oral communication. It's the easiest way to devalue a person. I'm not surprised feelers would be insulted when someone points out their lack of logic. It's closely connected to a common and effective insult.


Logically speaking, if society values logic, then society needs to discourage that which is not logic. I think the contradiction here is obvious.

*Warning*
I'm drunk while writing so my posts make be embarrassing and problematic.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

Fi as tertiary is gonna be scarily bipolar. Wannabe-robots don't know how to handle emotions that only truly surface when intense as hell.


----------



## Olde Irish (Apr 5, 2013)

I like the phrase "INTJs do not feel broadly, they feel specifically and intensely." That seems to me to be the most accurate way to explain an INTJs feelings. We do not express them often but when we do, take cover.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Moonrise said:


> Fi as tertiary is gonna be scarily bipolar. Wannabe-robots don't know how to handle emotions that only truly surface when intense as hell.


I don't agree completely with this, as Fi is related to subjective values, not emotions per se, so considering only emotions leave out an important part of the real dimension of feeling. The point is that normally an INTJ would tend to analyze problems from a logical standpoint than from an ethical one, plus Fi would act as a support for the Te reasoning. Maybe the emotions wouldn't be shown on an expressive way like a Fe user, but they're still under the surface.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

@Blue Flare Yeah but when the Fi values are crossed, surely the INTJ who's so used to being controlled and measured will be uncertain how to handle these new intense emotions? Feel free to correct me, because honestly the judging functions, especially feeling functions, don't make a lot of sense to me sometimes.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Moonrise said:


> Yeah but when the Fi values are crossed, surely the INTJ who's so used to being controlled and measured will be uncertain how to handle these new intense emotions? Feel free to correct me, because honestly the judging functions, especially feeling functions, don't make a lot of sense to me sometimes.


Hm, depends a lot of the circumstances. I'm used to get my values confronted, so I don't explode as much as I would do when I was younger. But yeah, some emotions are difficult to process, specially when you aren't aware if you would scare other people in the process. I know that I get really pissed off when people don't do their work properly or when they show no integrity as a person, specially when those people lie to me and I find out that later.

About the judging functions, I know that some definitions are rather messy, so don't worry if you're confused by them.


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

monemi said:


> Because many feelers are sensitive and many thinkers lack sensitivity. My feelings aren't hurt when they point out my lack of tact. But their feelings are hurt if I point out their lack of logic. Besides that, intelligence is highly valued in society. Pay for more nurturing positions are traditionally lower because society lacks respect for people who lack logic/intelligence. Idiot, moron, fool, retard, dimwit, numb nuts, dipstick, cretin, wanker, dunce, caveman, nitwit, twit, dumbbell, imbecile, ignoramous, blond, pinhead, ninny, birdbrain, clown, buffoon, dope, clown, buffoon, stooge, sucker, chucklehead, mouth breather, window licker, muppet,
> The list of insults for people who lack logic or otherwise unintelligent is extremely long. Insults for stupidity, lacking logic, failing to think are probably as old as oral communication. It's the easiest way to devalue a person. I'm not surprised feelers would be insulted when someone points out their lack of logic. It's closely connected to a common and effective insult.


But there was also once a time where being socially expelled from your community was far worse than any of the insults you've listed. Feelers are not above criticizing others for their lack of social smarts or lack of tact. Rational females especially are both rejected by the male-dominated society for not being born male (and thus not even innately valued) and treated as defective by other women for not being more outwardly emotional. I hate being around feelers all the time and hate feeling like I had to walk on egg-shells in order to express myself. I'd either give up the discussion or just gingerly explain my point, but to no avail. I rarely feel comfortable expressing true emotions around them (ironically) if it conflicts with their deeply held values or opinions. Feelers get offending all to easily, while if an INTJ for example gets offended it is a problem because we're supposed to be 'robots'. It's unfair.

Oh and the nurturing jobs are usually service jobs. Plenty of hardcore 'thinkers' who've not cultivated their social skills well enough end in these positions while receiving less pay than their more friendly counterparts. The same holds for the highly technical academic positions. If your brilliant but  don't know how to network, you're screwed.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

Fi equates to subjective values, not emotions. Out of all the NTs INTJ is most likely to reference (subjective) values for judgement, not have emotional outbursts reminiscent of INFPs during disney movie climaxes, which is where this theme seems to be trying to go. 

The tertiary function tends to justify actions / perceptions of the dom/aux function while acting as a sort of finger pointer.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

Lol it's so true. They are feely in the inside they just refuse to show it.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> *Warning*
> I'm drunk while writing so my posts make be embarrassing and problematic.


Drunk or not, the points you made in this thread are valid.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Logically speaking, if society values logic, then society needs to discourage that which is not logic. I think the contradiction here is obvious.


Define logic as what you think it is without sources or anything.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> Define logic as what you think it is without sources or anything.



Why without sources? In this case, I was using "logic" instead of "thinking" because I think the socionics names are better.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

Thank you you, it's almost memetic how "robotic" INTJ are, when, aside from being more emotional, are doubtlessly the least rational T type (repressed extraverted perception, intuitive dominant). I secretly think INTJ who constantly boast about how rational and cold they are are either misanthropic entjs or organized intps.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


Because logic is far more valuable.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> *Warning*
> I'm drunk while writing so my posts make be embarrassing and problematic.


Good to know I'm not the only one who's not sober while posting on PerC.

It's a fair point, though. Even if logic seems to be valued higher, I've also been looked down on for not being very socially adept. So now I'm not sure... I guess people just tend to be weird and contradictory. :S


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Drats! My plans get once again spoiled by the power of "feels"!... 



Nonsense said:


> Good to know I'm not the only one who's not sober while posting on PerC.
> 
> It's a fair point, though. Even if logic seems to be valued higher, I've also been looked down on for not being very socially adept. So now I'm not sure... I guess people just tend to be weird and contradictory. :S


There will be always an amplitude in our history when people values more logic and feelings alternately. Maybe we are living in time when logic shifts towards feelings. That's why we have to be logical but in the same time more easy going and "feeling" to be accepted.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

WinterFox said:


> I don't know why, but I find ENTP much more feelerish than INTJ.
> ENTPs have this fluffiness in them that makes them seem very feelerish at times.
> (...)
> I noticed that ENTPs often get mistyped as ENFPs because they confused their Fe with being a feeler. Did anyone else notice this?


I noticed it when I started dating an ENTP back in the day. At first, I typed him as ENFP because he was so emotionally expressive. However, it was just the combination of Ne+Fe giving off the impression of ENFP. He was expressing a ton of emotion (his big sister called him a "sheep" because of it :laughing but the emotion wasn't... well, I can't say it wasn't genuine, because it was, but... it wasn't such an integral part of his personality. His emotions were all over the place, and they were genuine, but also a bit exaggerated.

I have also dated an xNTJ who seemed very cold and unemotional on the surface, but who had really deep and intense emotions, to the point of me feeling like I was digging inside his head and uncovering all these super intense, super genuine feelings that weren't visible to a casual observer... like, whenever I encountered these feelings, I felt like I was observing a rare treasure and should tread with care. His feelings felt so fragile and genuine, whereas the ENTP's feelings felt more intense and dramatic (not to say they weren't genuine, though).

In general, the ENTP felt more "feely" and "soft" and "sheepish" on the outside, but more "cold" and "principled" on the inside. The xNTJ felt "harder" and "tougher" on the outside but more "fragile" and "tender" on the inside.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Why without sources? In this case, I was using "logic" instead of "thinking" because I think the socionics names are better.


I wanted you to try to verbalize your understanding of what logic is, hence the "no sources" because then you could just copy paste. Switching it with another word was hardly my intention but w.e.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


ESFJ: "Did you just call me stupid? RANT RANT RANT". Hasn't happened to me in real life, but I've seen it on the internet.
It's the same with "feminists" who demand that men get in touch with their feelings but refuse to get in touch with their own thinking.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Wonszu said:


> There will be always an amplitude in our history when people values more logic and feelings alternately. Maybe we are living in time when logic shifts towards feelings. That's why we have to be logical but in the same time more easy going and "feeling" to be accepted.


I guess the only solution is to become perfect.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that it seems totally accepted to bring up how much NTs suck with emotions, repress their emotions etc, but somehow it's a faux-pas when one points out the same thing about feelers and logic.


It's the same as saying black people are better runners but whites are doing better at IQ tests.

For some reason, no one gets upset when they're pointed out blacks tend to be better runners, but if you point out whites do better on IQ tests, all kinds of uproar will ensue. Why is that?

(I am aware this was not a politically correct remark. However, before you get upset - and I'm not talking about you Scelerat, I mean anyone who's reading this - consider why you would get upset. Why is it so bad stating some people _in general_ do better on certain tasks than others?)


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Magic Mirror said:


> It's the same as saying black people are better runners but whites are doing better at IQ tests.
> 
> For some reason, no one gets upset when they're pointed out blacks tend to be better runners, but if you point out whites do better on IQ tests, all kinds of uproar will ensue. Why is that?
> 
> (I am aware this was not a politically correct remark. However, before you get upset - and I'm not talking about you Scelerat, I mean anyone who's reading this - consider why you would get upset. Why is it so bad stating some people _in general_ do better on certain tasks than others?)


'And Asians are smarter!' Word Dispenser piped in enthusiastically.

... Too much NaNoWriMo. Carry on.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

monemi said:


> Idiot, moron, fool, retard, dimwit, numb nuts, dipstick, cretin, wanker, dunce, caveman, nitwit, twit, dumbbell, imbecile, ignoramous, blond, pinhead, ninny, birdbrain, *clown*, buffoon, dope, *clown*, buffoon, stooge, sucker, chucklehead, mouth breather, window licker, muppet


There's a reason you mentioned *clown* twice. This is the reason:
:shocked::crazy:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Brel said:


> But there was also once a time where being socially expelled from your community was far worse than any of the insults you've listed. Feelers are not above criticizing others for their lack of social smarts or lack of tact. Rational females especially are both rejected by the male-dominated society for not being born male (and thus not even innately valued) and treated as defective by other women for not being more outwardly emotional. I hate being around feelers all the time and hate feeling like I had to walk on egg-shells in order to express myself. I'd either give up the discussion or just gingerly explain my point, but to no avail. I rarely feel comfortable expressing true emotions around them (ironically) if it conflicts with their deeply held values or opinions. Feelers get offending all to easily, while if an INTJ for example gets offended it is a problem because we're supposed to be 'robots'. It's unfair.
> 
> Oh and the nurturing jobs are usually service jobs. Plenty of hardcore 'thinkers' who've not cultivated their social skills well enough end in these positions while receiving less pay than their more friendly counterparts. The same holds for the highly technical academic positions. If your brilliant but  don't know how to network, you're screwed.


I'm not a feeler, but I adapt. Put my overblown ego to one side, learn social cues and get shit done without ruffling too many feathers in process. Just play the game and everyone gets what they want. I get it wrong sometimes, but I see it on their face and remedy it asap and the mistake is swept away like it never even happened. 

If you're smart, you adapt. Watch them. Social cues are just another puzzle with more variables.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Judson Joist said:


> There's a reason you mentioned *clown* twice. This is the reason:
> :crazy::shocked:


You got me. I've got a deep seated fear of clowns that I thought I had oh so cleverly hidden from the world.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Magic Mirror said:


> It's the same as saying black people are better runners but whites are doing better at IQ tests.
> 
> For some reason, no one gets upset when they're pointed out blacks tend to be better runners, but if you point out whites do better on IQ tests, all kinds of uproar will ensue. Why is that?
> 
> (I am aware this was not a politically correct remark. However, before you get upset - and I'm not talking about you Scelerat, I mean anyone who's reading this - consider why you would get upset. Why is it so bad stating some people _in general_ do better on certain tasks than others?)


Because power:

http://cogito.ucdc.ro/nr_2v2/M. FOUCAULT'S VIEW ON POWER RELATIONS.pdf

For the same reason it's "wrong" to be homosexual or men wearing dresses but it's all right for women to wear pants. It deals with how transgressing the normative is seen as wrong and dangerous to current society:

http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/ha...d=2A993EE052FDD6BBE7AFEDC1199054F3?sequence=1

And is is because discourses are built on who is in possession of power:

http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/2i/16_rivers.pdf

I only skimmed the articles because I couldn't find any good sources I really wanted so I hope they are somewhat relevant to what I am trying to express.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> The interesting part is figuring out why it's OK to point out some things but not others. It seems to be almost entirely accepted within western society to point out social faux pas, but not intellectual faux pas. Whether someone is being dismissed due to a label is rather unimportant to me, what's interesting to me is the underlying "logic" of it, the "why" if you will.
> 
> For example, I have an ESFJ aunt, who loves to criticize my lack of "tact" and "culture" when I use a certain brand of hyperbole mixed with imagery, or when I point out that how someone dresses is secondary to how they think or a range of other things.
> 
> ...


The fact that you used your ESFJ aunt as a representative of society at large is interesting to me. It might just be that demographically, the percentage of people with your aunt's cognitive preferences (Fe/Si: group harmony, social norms, tact etc) heavily outweighs those with your preferences, hence Fe/Si may be more widely accepted. A per being "condescending", you are both condescending, both assign more value to your respective comfort zones. I think you might just be outnumbered.

On the other hand, supposedly, there are just as many STJs as there are SFJs, so society at large must value reason as well.


----------



## Lemxn (Aug 17, 2013)

I have to luck to know how INTJs are when they get very very emotional. They have this deep feelings inside them beyond my understanding. I always like "Shit...thank gog they're thinkers":laughing: They feel so much, it's actually crazy and beautiful. And they freak out everytime it happens. At least the two INTJs I know.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temperament-forum-intellects/37767-nts-coldest-emotionally.html

The polls don't support that notion. INTJ is considered the coldest type, actually.

If they develop Fi, they could be strong at feeling... but there are probably plenty of INTJs who go through most of their lives relying on Te.

But either way, they're still interesting people.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> The polls don't support that notion. INTJ is considered the coldest type, actually.


Considered, yes. That doesn't make us cold, it just means we come across as cold. We are introverts and we don't have Fe, so our emotions don't come out easily except to our close friends. In my experience, those friends usually drown in our emotion.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

If the logic here is true, then why is the ISTJ not considered a part of this as well? I'm honestly sort of interested in the sort of rational that would separate the two of them feeling wise. Considering that I consider Si to be a more ~emotional~ function to begin with, what with all the ritualistic crap that goes on with that function and the idols. Along with the whole "What I see is the truth and nothing more outside of that" dealio.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

In the end, no matter who you're, only your loved ones who can help you, not your awesome logic.


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temperament-forum-intellects/37767-nts-coldest-emotionally.html
> 
> The polls don't support that notion. INTJ is considered the coldest type, actually.
> 
> ...


In my experience, INTJs give off a frigid outside persona, but inside they are really feelings-y. It's like a hollow ice cube that you've somehow filled with melted chocolate, haha. Oh, or fried ice cream! But, like, reversed...
I disagree with the poll is what I'm trying to say, and agree with the OP. Definitely the feeler of the NTs at least.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Fried Eggz said:


> Considered, yes. That doesn't make us cold, it just means we come across as cold.


What's the difference between coming across as cold and being cold? I thought it was just a behavioral issue... 



eleventhheart said:


> In my experience, INTJs give off a frigid outside persona, but inside they are really feelings-y. It's like a hollow ice cube that you've somehow filled with melted chocolate, haha. Oh, or fried ice cream! But, like, reversed...
> I disagree with the poll is what I'm trying to say, and agree with the OP. Definitely the feeler of the NTs at least.


Yeah, some of them do show idealistic tendencies, now that you mention it... maybe a somewhat Ayn Rand-esque idealism... but idealism nonetheless. I suppose you can't really have a philosophy like that without some Fi in the background.

It's hard to see the feelings without probing, though.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Yeah? Well too bad, because this statement is discriminative to ISTJ's, ENTP's and ESTP's.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Well how come they're voted the coldest NT then?


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> They're like the INFP of the NTs.


I assumed INFJ's were the thinking feelers... INFP's seem uber-sensitive to pass off as an NT.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

I assume this picture relies on the logic of the function stack. Because the Feeling function (Fi) of the INTJ is tertiary, and the Feeling function (Fe) of the INTP is inferior, the INTJ would have a more natural capability in using it - hence, appearing more 'human' than 'mechanical', despite applying the cold logic of their auxiliary (Te). 

The INTP cannot use his/her inferior function properly, therefore causing them to appear more 'mechanical' (with a fascination noticeable by most, drawn from the Ne auxiliary function); however, as the inferior function is a 'magnet of desire' function, it makes sense that INTPs would want the sort of emotional warmth implied by this picture.

But that's just one interpretation.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

googoodoll said:


> I assumed INFJ's were the thinking feelers... INFP's seem uber-sensitive to pass off as an NT.


It's not _about_ being a thinking-feeler.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's not _about_ being a thinking-feeler.


I meant the least sensitive or least openly emotional, i was just trying to sound politically correct, when i said 'thinking-feeler'.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

googoodoll said:


> I meant the least sensitive or least openly emotional, i was just trying to sound politically correct, when i said 'thinking-feeler'.


Well, for one thing... INFPs are not, generally, openly expressive. Though they may be feeling deeply. INFJs are far more expressive. 

For another-- It's really not about emotions or being emotional: It's about logical and ethical tints. Emotion can come into either arena, but neither is mutually exclusive to it. An emotional reaction needs to have a cognitive causation.

An INTJ, like an INFP, may have an emotional reaction when one of their subjective values is being trod on. But, it may be unseen to the naked eye. One requires a cognitive microscope. :kitteh:


----------



## FX (Sep 30, 2013)

So I decided to revisit this topic, and realized that the idea of having a "Feeler" of the Thinking types is subject to additional factors beyond the standard MBTI definitions. More specifically, it depends on which model of MBTI one subscribes to. If we go with an 8-function model, then the definition of an INTJ does not account for Fe's position in the stack. However, Fe is implied to be weaker than Te; otherwise, the result would be an INFJ. Similarly, the definition of INTP implies that Fi must be less than Ti, but does not specify its position in the stack. This makes it harder to overgeneralize any given MBTI of function X as being the most "non-X," because it may not hold true on a case-by-case basis. I say this as an INTP who scores appreciably higher on Fi than Fe, perhaps roughly comparable to that of an INTJ's. Now, I acknowledge that my case may not be the norm for INTPs, but I figured I might as well mention it anyway.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Foxical Paradox said:


> So I decided to revisit this topic, and realized that the idea of having a "Feeler" of the Thinking types is subject to additional factors beyond the standard MBTI definitions. More specifically, it depends on which model of MBTI one subscribes to. If we go with an 8-function model, then the definition of an INTJ does not account for Fe's position in the stack. However, Fe is implied to be weaker than Te; otherwise, the result would be an INFJ. Similarly, the definition of INTP implies that Fi must be less than Ti, but does not specify its position in the stack. This makes it harder to overgeneralize any given MBTI of function X as being the most "non-X," because it may not hold true on a case-by-case basis. I say this as an INTP who scores appreciably higher on Fi than Fe, perhaps roughly comparable to that of an INTJ's. Now, I acknowledge that my case may not be the norm for INTPs, but I figured I might as well mention it anyway.


If you're interested in some established views on preference ordering/styles for cognitive functions not in the main stacking, look up Beebe's archetypes or the systematic viewpoint in Socionics.


----------



## FX (Sep 30, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> If you're interested in some established views on preference ordering/styles for cognitive functions not in the main stacking, look up Beebe's archetypes or the systematic viewpoint in Socionics.


Oh, I know about socionics to some extent. A friend of mine typed me as an LII-INTj. Haven't heard about Beebe's archetypes, though... I'll be sure to look into that.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Foxical Paradox said:


> Oh, I know about socionics to some extent. A friend of mine typed me as an LII-INTj. Haven't heard about Beebe's archetypes, though... I'll be sure to look into that.


Cognitive Processes and Type Dynamics

You should take a look at this page. It has an overview of the process roles, and of the proposed function order of each type at the bottom. It should clear things up a bit.


----------



## FX (Sep 30, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Cognitive Processes and Type Dynamics
> 
> You should take a look at this page. It has an overview of the process roles, and of the proposed function order of each type at the bottom. It should clear things up a bit.


Ooh, thank you. Reading up on this now.


----------



## Enoch (Feb 5, 2017)

@Mr Castelo wholeheartedly approves.


----------

