# Why are women often feelers?



## Archibases (Mar 10, 2013)

I think it's mostly nurture.

Simone Beauvoir wrote about how men mistified women, so they became the complementar of their "dirty, agressive human" behavior. Women in this way became the angels, the pure ones, the muses, and they had these expectations. You can read about it in The Second Sex, it's quite interesting.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I think it's the other way around in reality.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I think that biologically, women are more inclined to care-taking and social management, to keep morale and group support. Men tend to be geared more practically, being biologically stronger, they make good protectors, and need to be able to consider practical and/or theoretical problems.

A lot of our 'roles' are cultural, that's true, but there are clear biological differences between sexes.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

You don't really need to be a 'feeler' to provide that. It just takes a particular set of skills.


----------



## Sophia1 (Oct 7, 2014)

Perhaps biologically when girls turn into women and gain more estrogen and progesterone hormonally, their function to nurture and care may increase. However when little girls are born, their mom are already women, and after pregnancy experience a transition and are nurturing to them. as little people they* may* associate nurturing and care taking with mom (or female), however now with gender roles changing, and dads being "socially" allowed to be nurturing, they may not make that association, but rather the association that*Parents* are nurturing.

I would not say that feeling/sensing is soley based on your sex, especially with now the "rules" of gender turning into a grey area, I would imagine if you assessed data from say year 2000 to now, the range of F's would be close to 50-50 for men and women. I know a lot of Feeler men. My parents did not impose "rules" of gender on myself or my sister, I gravitated towards blocks and building (turns out I am an engineer) as well as creative outlets for drawing painting creating things, and my sister loved dolls and helping others and "playing pretend". we were also active kids playing a variety of things, I just enjoyed more independent sports and my sister liked teams... my parents also didn't necessarily abide by gender roles either. we were always taught, that skill sets are per *individual* and assessed on individual basis, but that anyone can learn to do anything. they both shoveled in the winter, they both cut grass, when work was to be done, if you were able to help, they'd find a job for you. Work got done by who ever could.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I don't see much of a correlation between nurturing and feeling, either. I care for animals and I feel nuthin'.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Sorry for being boring, but here's an evolutionary theory;

The current historical paradigm we have of stone age societies is that in general men were hunters and women gatherers. If you as a man were always put with the other group of hunters to kill, scout and make survivalistic decisions, you would have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing as a thinker. 
Women were gathering foods, taking care of kids and formed harmony in the group. They (and their kids and the entirety of the tribe) had a higher chance of survival if they were feelers.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I fail to see how feeling type have anything to do with femininity. Perhaps some weird misperception of what feeling is and feminine/masculine are can lead that conclusion.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

Women aren't biologically better at giving care. It's a social role that women learn. 

People who grow up in abusive households are more likely to become abusers (this applies to women and men. But there are actually MORE women who are child abusers than men statistically, in the united states.)

People who grow up in healthy families are more likely to become healthy caring parents themselves.

It's what you learn. Women are taught to develop people skills, men are taught to be competitive. And so people internalize these things even if it doesn't come naturally and even if it's detrimental to them. 

Humans are social animals- we have empathy for one another. It's a matter of how we learn to behave.


And example of this: "While women are often characterized as the more emotionally sensitive of the sexes, new research published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior suggests that, when it comes to the heartache following a failed romance, men may actually suffer more than women. [...] when relationships fail it tends to have a greater impact on men’s own sense of self worth, and because men are less likely to confide in other male friends, this feeling is compounded by a sense of isolation." (Source) 

Men actually feel more hurt than women when relationships end, they just don't talk about it (and that's part of why they feel hurt). Men are taught to hide their emotions (behavior) and women are taught to talk about it (behavior). This might make it seem like women are more "feely" than men, when really women have less of an emotional response in this situation. It's all learned behavior.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

Also something to take into account- the thinking/feeling dichotomy is probably the least accurate of the dichotomies in the meyers briggs. A vestigial organ left over from an outdate time. 

Modern neuroscience now sees thinking and feeling as being very much entwined. (Everyone's decisions come from feeling even if they don't know it.) 

Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Big Think


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

And I do think that the notion that women are more "feeler" than men is detrimental. 
Too many women are pushed into situations that they don't want to be in or _shouldn't _be in (like becoming mothers, when that is not what they want and not what they're good at.) 

And that explains in part why more women are child abusers than men- women who are not good at taking care of others are still pushed into the position of the nurturer and it there are damaging consequences.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

spylass said:


> Also something to take into account- the thinking/feeling dichotomy is probably the least accurate of the dichotomies in the meyers briggs. A vestigial organ left over from an outdate time.
> 
> Modern neuroscience now sees thinking and feeling as being very much entwined. (Everyone's decisions come from feeling even if they don't know it.)
> 
> Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Big Think


I think emotion is the first responds. ;p And then judge based on feeling or thinking objective or subjective. Mix of it all.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I think emotion is the first responds. ;p And then judge based on feeling or thinking objective or subjective. Mix of it all.


Yeah that's about what it is. To weigh decisions you have to know how you feel about each consequence and from there you can further strategize. 
When people get brain damage to the emotional processing part of their brain, their decision making skills/strategy/planning skills go out the window.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

spylass said:


> Also something to take into account- the thinking/feeling dichotomy is probably the least accurate of the dichotomies in the meyers briggs. A vestigial organ left over from an outdate time.
> 
> Modern neuroscience now sees thinking and feeling as being very much entwined. (Everyone's decisions come from feeling even if they don't know it.)
> 
> Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Big Think


Solipsism proves this before it even existed.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

To all those who think the T/F difference in gender is caused by culture instead of biology;
While that theory does explain why there is a gender difference in feeling and thinking, I think upbringing doesn't seem to explain other MBTI functions very satisfactorily. To me it seems more like parents control how _well_ a child develops rather than what it develops into. Is a child whose parents are very Fe towards it more likely to become an FJ? Less likely to be a TP? I just don't see any reason to think so. Most families seem to have very different types with no obvious correlations, so upbringing is unlikely to be capable of changing/creating a type. Perhaps F and T is a special exception to this, but if it applies to no other functions then probably there is a different explanation for the asymmetry.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

For what it is worth, I am quite of the opinion that the gender split on feeling and thinking is actually pretty much negligible. Effectively 50/50.

What makes women more often come across as feelers is mainly societal/cultural roles and, probably much more significantly, genetic/hormonal (and tied to instinctual roles). That is to say, they are predisposed by a number of factors to 'hysterics' or the ability or tendency to be emotionally expressive or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't make them feelers, in a typology sense. Rather that when they are feeling something, they express it differently due to all those factors. 

There is also an aspect on the male side, with hormones and instincts and societal/cultural influences affecting how we might express ourselves internally and externally. These things have thus hugely affected our view of how Thinking or Feeling should look in ones demeanor.

Just doing a rough tally in my head of everyone I know that I have thoroughly typed... of both genders, I'm not seeing particularly more Thinker men nor Feeler women. 

Having said all that, I don't think it is wise to reduce this to 'society forces us to be this way'. On some level that is true, but I think it is too simplistic to really answer the question.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> I would think there are hormonal effect to why females are more emotional, and that can make people think they are feelers because they are emotional. however I think a lot of it is due to social expectations. If I never had the chance to deal with people's emotions, I would have answered the questions very differently.
> 
> also feelers are tend to be nicer, so a lot of females tend tho think they are nice, so feelers are borned xD


Do they though? Hormones regulate just about everything in the body but I'm not sure they directly effect emotions. Hormones seem to react to emotions, not the other way around. In addition to natural hormonal changes.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

It needs to be pointed out that emotionalism is not a cognitive function. Evaluative thinking, in terms of "shoulds" and priorities, what behaviors "should" be rewarded without needing to drill down to specific cause and effect - this *was* the domain of women. Jung's studies, observations of 8 types were formed before women ever had even the right to vote. Today, the value of social dynamics (Fe) and reward or worth defining (Fi) can have a broader application than what was observed by Jung. Nardi studies indicate perceiving functions are largely right brained and judging functions of T or F are left brained.

But that being said I think this could be biological, down to genomes. The fact that "thinking" women exist would say some social value exists for not all women to be feelers. I wonder if some day studies can be done to show more of a mix will appear as society evolves.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> It needs to be pointed out that emotionalism is not a cognitive function. Evaluative thinking, in terms of "shoulds" and priorities, what behaviors "should" be rewarded without needing to drill down to specific cause and effect - this *was* the domain of women. Jung's studies, observations of 8 types were formed before women ever had even the right to vote. Today, the value of social dynamics (Fe) and reward or worth defining (Fi) can have a broader application than what was observed by Jung. Nardi studies indicate perceiving functions are largely right brained and judging functions of T or F are left brained.
> 
> But that being said I think this could be biological, down to genomes. The fact that "thinking" women exist would say some social value exists for not all women to be feelers. I wonder if some day studies can be done to show more of a mix will appear as society evolves.


Well, genetically, women are more prevalent. If it came down to survival of the fittest, and one group of women were surviving on their own, there would be a need for thinkers as well as ethically-oriented people. 

The same goes for men, I'd imagine.

Although, what makes most sense to me is that, in terms of cognition: There are likely more thinking women than there are feeling men.

If it came down to survival of the fittest, there would be weeding-out of certain traits simply to survive. In life-or-death scenarios, the level-headed ones would keep the group focused, and the ethically-oriented would keep hope and morale up in order for the will to survive.

I dunno, just some thoughts.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Hormones, I guess.

For the question why even more women act like F's, well, that's the gender norms of our culture for you.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Simple answers include:

Societal expectations/stereotypes (i.e. many may give off the impression of being feeler when they're actually not)
Evolution
Being mothers - so more inclined to be caring

One of my theories is that female humans are more "advanced" than males - more complicated, more...evolved. And since emotions are for complex creatures, women may be more emotional.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kavik said:


> Do they though? Hormones regulate just about everything in the body but I'm not sure they directly effect emotions. Hormones seem to react to emotions, not the other way around. In addition to natural hormonal changes.


Do not they live in symbiosis? Hormones affect emotion, emotion affect hormones. When cry, from what I hear, the tears inhibit hormones that made the persons emotions overwhelming. Please correct me if wrong.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

I don't know if women (as a whole) are, but I know that we are often caught in a catch 22 when it comes to emotions vs. logic as women. If we don't behave sufficiently emotional, we're cold and unfeeling. And by sufficiently emotional, I mean if you walk down the street without any particular expression (neutral, neither smiliing nor looking upset), if you don't have an expressive enough voice, etc. But, then emotional responses get one characterized as being irrational and untrustworthy when it comes to making decisons. 

I know I behave much more emotional than I am (pleasant ones, of course). I guarantee, when I am at home, alone, I'm not smiling for no freaking reason..but you can bet that, on the street, there's a slight upward turn, just to not get flack for 'are you upset?'. I respond to casual conversation with a lot more expression than I feel. I can also guarantee that I'm not feeling as empathetic about a person's relationship issues as I sound like I do, or as excited about their good news. It's a social expectation, and there's penalties for non-compliance, primarily for women. So, are women as emotional as they act, and are they as much feelers as they test? (When tests are often about what you do, not what you want to do), I doubt it, as those results also change from one culture to another, while the genetics do not. Why are there more 'extroverts' in the US, but fewer in Japan, for instance?are different MBTI types more common in different countries? What about different jobs or hobbies? : mbti Some of this is likely as much cultural as genetic.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, genetically, women are more prevalent. If it came down to survival of the fittest, and one group of women were surviving on their own, there would be a need for thinkers as well as ethically-oriented people.
> 
> The same goes for men, I'd imagine.
> 
> ...


What about Fe in politics today? What about times when women in third world countries speak out against war? It gets complicated to define what is thinking or feeling in these contexts. Without a brain scan we might not know.

This complexity goes for how decisions are emotional (I like BigThink BTW) too. Of course when we talk about thinkers we are not talking about brain damage where motivation is disconnected and a thinker thrives on robot like how-to's. We don't even have any agreed (Te) definition of what consciousness is -yet. My point is that functions are all a matter of proportion and consciousness. Social politics and rewards, or tastes, can be reflected in behaviors while still serving some larger logical architecture, conversely, a thinker is not void of any personal preferences or social needs either.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

kannbrown said:


> I don't know if women (as a whole) are, but I know that we are often caught in a catch 22 when it comes to emotions vs. logic as women. If we don't behave sufficiently emotional, we're cold and unfeeling. And by sufficiently emotional, I mean if you walk down the street without any particular expression (neutral, neither smiliing nor looking upset), if you don't have an expressive enough voice, etc. But, then emotional responses get one characterized as being irrational and untrustworthy when it comes to making decisons.
> 
> I know I behave much more emotional than I am (pleasant ones, of course). I guarantee, when I am at home, alone, I'm not smiling for no freaking reason..but you can bet that, on the street, there's a slight upward turn, just to not get flack for 'are you upset?'. I respond to casual conversation with a lot more expression than I feel. I can also guarantee that I'm not feeling as empathetic about a person's relationship issues as I sound like I do, or as excited about their good news. It's a social expectation, and there's penalties for non-compliance, primarily for women. So, are women as emotional as they act, and are they as much feelers as they test? (When tests are often about what you do, not what you want to do), I doubt it, as those results also change from one culture to another, while the genetics do not. Why are there more 'extroverts' in the US, but fewer in Japan, for instance?are different MBTI types more common in different countries? What about different jobs or hobbies? : mbti Some of this is likely as much cultural as genetic.


I've been reading about this; the western extrovert ideal. This is one reason the emphasis of MBTI disturbs me. In today's technical virtual world Ni doms could be the new extroverts. Fi introversion is a whole different brand from Ti and so on.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Do not they live in symbiosis? Hormones affect emotion, emotion affect hormones. When cry, from what I heard, the tears inhibit hormones that made the persons emotions overwhelming. Please correct me if wrong.


I don't 100% know. My last biology class was in high school and they don't teach jack. Google gives conflicting results and arguments as well. From experience on what is supposed to be my most extreme flux of hormones when I go into PMS mode, the hormones themselves don't make me emotional. I don't break down into tears or go on random triads. I just get irritable as a result of being subjected to constant waves of pain and overall discomfort from physical changes which lowers the threshold of stupidity I'm willing to put up with.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

It is interesting how the internet can seem like the 'bizarro world', where things that are minorities offline become the norm online (T/F, E/I in particular). Not sure how this translates to real world consequences, though. Knowing there's a few more nerds online than I thought existed doesn't help me much with job searches where they want me to be 'on' and, apparently, no matter what the job is, able to be some kind of charismatic, energentic salesperson.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> What about Fe in politics today? What about times when women in third world countries speak out against war? It gets complicated to define what is thinking or feeling in these contexts. Without a brain scan we might not know.
> 
> This complexity goes for how decisions are emotional (I like BigThink BTW) too. Of course when we talk about thinkers we are not talking about brain damage where motivation is disconnected and a thinker thrives on robot like how-to's. We don't even have any agreed (Te) definition of what consciousness is -yet. My point is that functions are all a matter of proportion and consciousness. Social politics and rewards, or tastes, can be reflected in behaviors while still serving some larger logical architecture, conversely, a thinker is not void of any personal preferences or social needs either.


I was agreeing with you.

Everyone, no matter the type, has a balance of both ways of reasoning. 

There's just a preference there, generally.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

Yeah, doesn't take hormones to make a person a bit less patient if they're physically uncomfortable. I'd think that becoming 'emotional' in general due to hormones would involve mood swings in more than one direction, yet it is inevitably about being angry/irritable. I'm also cranky when I have the flu, but I'd not attibute that to hormones.


----------



## scoobysnack (Jan 26, 2015)

i don't think its fair to assume that women don't think lol. but i think men aren't as encouraged to explore their feelings, while women don't have that issue. there is something called EMOTIONAL Intelligence and it's an important and useful set of skills to hone. its also important to remember that dismissing someone who may seem like their coming from a more emotional angle is a lame thing to do and its more of a reflection on your own issues with your own emotions.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

kannbrown said:


> It is interesting how the internet can seem like the 'bizarro world', where things that are minorities offline become the norm online (T/F, E/I in particular). Not sure how this translates to real world consequences, though. Knowing there's a few more nerds online than I thought existed doesn't help me much with job searches where they want me to be 'on' and, apparently, no matter what the job is, able to be some kind of charismatic, energentic salesperson.


I'm having the reverse of your scenario, sort of. I was comfortable with face to face selling but the game has all changed now. You need to draw people out of the woodwork - to your "online presence"? Part of why I started spending time here. With every company needing to be unique and entertaining online, it seems like Fi doms might be the new ESFJ's too?

What used to be perfect, I have a little of the sense you have of being on or off socially, so interaction by appointment worked. If i got stuck in a customer service job, now that would be hell. But the nice thing for me was dialog. I would naturally be prepared, and having all the possibilities thought up, let them carry the small talk. Facebook makes me want to puke.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

kannbrown said:


> I know I behave much more emotional than I am (pleasant ones, of course). I guarantee, when I am at home, alone, I'm not smiling for no freaking reason..but you can bet that, on the street, there's a slight upward turn, just to not get flack for 'are you upset?'. I respond to casual conversation with a lot more expression than I feel. I can also guarantee that I'm not feeling as empathetic about a person's relationship issues as I sound like I do, or as excited about their good news. It's a social expectation, and there's penalties for non-compliance, primarily for women. So, are women as emotional as they act, and are they as much feelers as they test? (When tests are often about what you do, not what you want to do), I doubt it, as those results also change from one culture to another, while the genetics do not. Why are there more 'extroverts' in the US, but fewer in Japan, for instance?are different MBTI types more common in different countries? What about different jobs or hobbies? : mbti Some of this is likely as much cultural as genetic.


Not that I'm ever impressed with the scope of any MBTI study so I shouldn't be too critical, but in a study like that one I would really like to see some numbers. Simply saying that for instance Japan has more P types compared to other countries does not mean that the result is outside of the uncertainty of the actual average. The numbers say that men and women have a huge gender split on 70%-30% or similar numbers, but I doubt that if there are, say, 60% J-types in the world that there is a country with 60% P-types for instance, which is even a smaller difference than the T/F gender split. 

Besides, culture plays a part in behavior so the tests should be tuned to the specific country in question. If for instance going to a lot of alcohol parties counts for extraversion then probably Saudi Arabians will naturally get a higher introversion score.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

That's probably an issue with the test, in general. So many questions I paused on because it asked me if I DID something. 'Are you often late' or 'Do you not finish projects' . Well, no... because I want to keep my JOB. Is being on time and finishing things my desired state? I think a better question may be, then, 'Does it bother you when OTHERS are late' or 'if they don't finish things on time', because I'm pretty laid back about that kind of thing as long as my survival doesn't depend on it. So, yeah, they need to tweak with the test in general.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> Simple answers include:
> 
> Societal expectations/stereotypes (i.e. many may give off the impression of being feeler when they're actually not)
> Evolution
> ...


Emotions belong to all creatures.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

Actually, I hate socializing on social media too. Interestingly, I use it more for an info source and to get data (including music, pictures, etc) than to 'connect to people'. Though the medium may make it easier to confuse the two, since my FB interaction tends to be, outside of mandatory family announcements, clicking 'like' on the occasional picture. If you could do that IRL, I'd suppose I'd be in a better position there, too. I do see people who gush, rant, and get dramatic on FB, so, I'd say that feelings have their own way of showing themselves and...if you're an introvert, like me, there's ways to suss that out too...just different cues.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Feeler vs Thinker has little to do with emotions or the lack of these.

People who think they are thinkers because they aren't emotional or at least aren't emotionally expressive are basically miss-typed & have failed to understand function theory quite possibly due to intellectual laziness. *Do NOT rely on the test to tell you your type, the MBTI test as any self report test is only as accurate as your perception of yourself & most people are in denial about themselves/idealize some other type & end up sabotaging their own results. *

The reason as to why there may be more female feelers is quite simple. Feeling as we use it here has to do with the social realm & women are biologically superior or at least their brain is better equipped then males when it comes to interpersonal & intrapersonal interaction aka the social aspect of our species.

In short, most females have a biological predisposition towards being NF, guys towards being ST.

Full story here: Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal

*Fi *- subject-object (person) relationships from the subject's perspective - means how you feel about a certain relationship & I don't mean romantic, I mean comprehending it

*Fe *- object(person)-object (person) relationships & how to affect these. - means influencing people & comprehending complex social interconnections

*Ti* - subject-object (thing) relationships from the subject's perspective - means how you think, systems & abstract ideas. I see a lot of Ti users enjoy philosophy for example

*Te* - object(thing)-object (thing) relationships & how to affect these. - means making use of the objective-empirical realm, stuff such as how light works & how you can use it to make a picture.

As an ENFP I suck at Ti, enjoy Te & prefer it over Fe at which I'm exceptional, but hardly use, on the contrary often mock & substitute with Fi perspectives.

 my motor skills (good at sports like free running), spacial orientation & tendency to prefer interacting with stuff in stead of people is alive & well however, so it must mean I have a dude's brain despite being NF. (yeah you heard me I'm not a social ENFP)


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I must say I thought the title was 'why do women often wear loafers' at first.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Another thing is: many men will type themselves thinkers, when they aren't. Just random people I have take tests, who know nothing about it. There is a stigma. I couldn't believe I was a feeler at first either. That made no sense to me.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

kannbrown said:


> Actually, I hate socializing on social media too. Interestingly, I use it more for an info source and to get data (including music, pictures, etc) than to 'connect to people'. Though the medium may make it easier to confuse the two, since my FB interaction tends to be, outside of mandatory family announcements, clicking 'like' on the occasional picture. If you could do that IRL, I'd suppose I'd be in a better position there, too. I do see people who gush, rant, and get dramatic on FB, so, I'd say that feelings have their own way of showing themselves and...if you're an introvert, like me, there's ways to suss that out too...just different cues.


Twitter has been a great source of brain-food for me. The problem is that I think to use social media as a funnel you have to have a virtual home base with a maintainable flow of content. The Fe or Fi element I struggle with shows up in how even a few authors who's books I liked and who are actually great writers, seem to fall prey to a social expectation of chiming in to whatever is popular thinking. The other route is to be controversial or provocative. The only thinking route would be super specialized with credentials I don't have? I have some things I'm still getting ready to launch but. . . . . .

I just think F's have the advantage in social media because it's natural to them, to stirr people up or bring people together.
If I went the provocative route I'd be having fun but might ruin myself. I hear ENTP's around here talk about being a chameleon and I know what they mean, but for me it's been more like tone myself down until or unless the right opportunities pop up.

Online, the adaptive thing percievers enjoy, is not the same (unless you use a forum). I'm workin on what to do about it.
But I think social media has opened up a new avenue for "F" functioned people, of whatever gender, and apart from limbic emotional reactions, or hormones, or being a good smile-er. It seems like a good time in the world to be INFJ or ENFP.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Although, what makes most sense to me is that, in terms of cognition: There are likely more thinking women than there are feeling men.


I have the opposite perspective, as reflected in the recycled reckful in the spoiler (from my long "T/F's a mess" post).


* *




Given the asymmetry of male/female T/F percentages, and given the fact that the kinds of characteristics that seem to be the most respectably established as sex-typical personality differences often sound similar to T/F differences, it seems reasonable to suspect that it will turn out that T and maleness and F and femaleness are at least somewhat tied together in terms of their evolutionary roots — but perhaps that, just as it made sense for any given group to include both introverts and extraverts and so on (and maybe also a small percentage of homosexuals), it also turned out that there were advantages to having a certain number of the men be F and a certain number of the women be T. And if your thinking runs along those lines, it seems to me there's no reason why anyone should assume either (1) that there would necessarily have to be any symmetry between the percentage of male F's that it was good to have around and the percentage of female T's that it was good to have around, or (2) that the T characteristics that it was advantageous for some of the women to have would necessarily be a full contingent of T characteristics by male-T standards (and likewise for the F males and F characteristics). So... it's not hard to see that, notwithstanding anybody's desire (Jung certainly included) to have the system be relatively tidy, there are any number of reasons why it might turn out to be pretty messy.

Just letting my own reckful-speculative apparatus run wild and ponder the possible roles of personality variation in the context of the human race's 50,000-year (or so) hunter-gatherer phase — when I'm inclined to think much of the evolution of the "types" probably took place — and the differing roles of men and women in a typical hunter-gatherer tribe, it sort of seems to me that it would be understandable if the useful niche (evolutionarily speaking) for men who were notably F-ish was a significantly larger niche than the useful niche for women who were notably T-ish. If so, that would be one possible explanation for the fact that, assuming Linda Berens has her figures right (and she says they're from the MBTI Manual), the official MBTI folks are apparently now estimating that, whereas 43.4% of men are F's, only 24.4% of women are T's.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

reckful said:


> I have the opposite perspective, as reflected in the recycled reckful in the spoiler (from my long "T/F's a mess" post).
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Interesting. But, I don't think there have been large enough studies to verify either case.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

OhDarling said:


> Thanks for the answers! As for the people who are wondering about the discrepancy, I found this :
> 
> "Out of the four spectrums, Thinking vs. Feeling is the only function correlated with gender.
> 
> ...


''Regardless of gender, "feelers" prefer making decisions with their heart, and are naturally more sensitive, empathetic, warm and communal. Asking for promotions or putting themselves first ain't their jam.''

Bullshit.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Of course, it's always society.

Is it really that farfetched to think that maybe women's and men's brains have different patterns? They have to be different, at least, or it would be impossible to be transgender. Maybe something happened gestationally that made this quirk of women often preferring to think with their hearts, so to speak.


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

Perhaps this is dismissed because, as has been pointed out by researchers over and over, individual differences are much more pronounced than group differences in this case. In other words, individual differences between two men, two women, or a particular man and woman than there are between women as a group and men as a group. And, what does that mean for men and women who don't conform to that 'biological wiring difference'? I'm female and firmly in the thinking group. So, I'm miswired for my gender? How about male 'feelers'?


----------



## Leostain (Jan 28, 2015)

I like to think that in the same way the amount of testosterone you are exposed when in your mother's womb can dictate your disposition to sports( google it, is a fact), some other chemicals and circumstances may have an inpact in what kind of personality we will have. I firmly believe that what you are exposed as a child also has a BIG inpact. Ex, ISTPs tent to have a strong sense of justice, how ever, whose justice do they conform to, well, the one they were tough as is. Knowing what is your personality is only knowing what kind of engine you were build with, but your speed, your chasis, your power, well thats up to many, many other factors. Sociaty and gender being of them.


----------



## TheEpicPolymath (Dec 5, 2014)

I think because they were brought up that way


----------



## Sophia1 (Oct 7, 2014)

Kavik said:


> Do they though? Hormones regulate just about everything in the body but I'm not sure they directly effect emotions. Hormones seem to react to emotions, not the other way around. In addition to natural hormonal changes.


I think hormones contribute to brain formation. Because there are still parts of the brain that we don't fully understand exactly how it works, ie. hippocampus, and other areas thought to be linked to "emotion", perhaps there are differences in brain formation that are caused by the variation of hormones produced by male or female. ie. perhaps, just male specimen have more testosterone perhaps that plays into how their physical brain is formed resulting in changes. 

The pathways that also connect areas of the brain also vary from individual based on experiences, genetics, upbringing etc. we already know musical brains are in fact different than non musical brains, they're wired different. I think its the brain variations caused by genetics, hormones and possibly societal effects.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Because Female starts with the word "F." I don't think it's a coincidence!!


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

OP is asking a question and not even providing us even a single word in defense for her argument.

I feel obliged to not fall for the troll bait, so let's turn this thread into something else entirely.

This thread is now about badly designed logos instead:


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

There exist Thinkers who feel very deeply for things but they have emotional filters. For people to stereotype Thinkers as people who don't feel, that's bullshit. They just don't feel the necessity to be effusive about it. That's like saying men have no emotions. They do. They cry, they laugh, they get angry, but the intention and the purpose behind it is different.


----------



## hellebore (Nov 30, 2014)

Smells a little funny in here with the assumption that women = feelers = don't care about thinking and only care about emotions. Not to mention, not at all productive if you're one of the ones pointing to a sexist society to blame for _____.


----------



## Xenograft (Jul 1, 2013)

Disclaimer: haven't read through thread.

Firstly I think it's incredibly fucking sexist to assume that women are "often" feelers, and unless you've got statistics and _real_ data to back up this assumption, then you have no basis to assume that many women are feelers except for the pre-established and socialised idea of archetypal females. I'd like to point out that, as the INFP above me did, just because a person is a "feeler" type, they are not incapable of thinking or using reason, and the idea that all feelers are highly irrational is a concept that really needs to stop fluttering through MBTI and the people who want to find out about it. Low level analysis leads nearly everyone (that I have observed) that finds out about MBTI to abjectly judge other types based on their own type and what they personally value, rather than traits that are evolutionary inferior traits. Fun fact, if ESFJs are the most common type, then we can project that ESFJs are the most evolved type. If they are the most common then their dominant phenotype is currently the best at survival in the real world, so even if they're "irrational" they are still higher on the food chain than a lot of us, ESPECIALLY the intuitive types.

Women are not often feelers, I think there are a pretty high frequency of female INTPs and ESTJs roaming around out there, you just need to learn how to spot them. Emotionality also cannot be equated to feeling dominant or auxiliary functions, as most of the types with inferior/tertiary feeling functions are more violently emotional and easily swayed by their own misconceptions and self developed ideologies (I'm looking at INTJs, here).

tl;dr stop generalising/ascribing gender to type.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

People are getting overly emotional about this. Statistically speaking, women are more likely to have an "F" personality then men. It's not that complicated. And then, on top of that, women have more hormones that cause stronger emotions. It's not offensive to say that women are often times feelers, it's accurate and completely neutral.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> People are getting overly emotional about this. Statistically speaking, women are more likely to have an "F" personality then men. It's not that complicated. And then, on top of that, women have more hormones that cause stronger emotions. It's not offensive to say that women are often times feelers, it's accurate and completely neutral.


Emotion ≠ Feeling. What statistic are you referring to?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

I did some research about this a while back, if I still had my sources I'd link it but I don't.. but, F is more prevalent in women than men. And I know that emotion is not equal to being a feeler, but the post was specifically referring to feelers. It didn't say why are women so emotional.


Captain Mclain said:


> Emotion ≠ Feeling. What statistic are you referring to?


----------



## lunai (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> And then, on top of that, women have more hormones that cause stronger emotions.


I don't think is true. Different hormones have been linked to different emotions, maybe. I have read some studies suggesting estrogen linked with depression and sadness, and testosterone linked with anger. Women have more estrogen, and men have more testosterone. Do women experience more sadness and men more anger? Or is it more complicated than that (most likely)?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

lunai said:


> I don't think is true. Different hormones have been linked to different emotions, maybe. I have read some studies suggesting estrogen linked with depression and sadness, and testosterone linked with anger. Women have more estrogen, and men have more testosterone. Do women experience more sadness and men more anger? Or is it more complicated than that (most likely)?


I wasn't using that to say that is was as simple as women feel this and men feel that. But again, typically men do anger more easily and women get sad easily. Men especially during puberty, when the hormones are not stable. Unfortunately, women experience this instability throughout their whole lives. During pregnancy and menopause we experience huge hormonal imbalances which make us more emotional than the men in our lives. That's why a pregnant woman cries about every little thing, and a menopausal woman is so on edge. Our hormones affect our emotions differently based on our genders.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I did some research about this a while back, if I still had my sources I'd link it but I don't.. but, F is more prevalent in women than men. And I know that emotion is not equal to being a feeler, but the post was specifically referring to feelers. It didn't say why are women so emotional.


I have found little information that prove it is nothing more then bias/preconception. So what where you saying when you didnt say all that?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I have found little information that prove it is nothing more then bias/preconception. So what where you saying when you didnt say all that?


What?


----------



## Heylo (Jan 5, 2015)

I read a book about Men vs Women psychology and there they clarified that studies shows that women actually are more "feeling" types in general and that NF types are more common in women. But it was still not embodied a feminine thing in men. I understand that this might be useless to say if I don't have the source but that was what I read. 

It was something about that women have to take care of the kids & be emotionally there for them and that it was biological where most men in general had a stronger rational kind of thinking. But note that this is in *general* so there is always exceptions.

Something I wonder, is an NF woman always a stronger feeler than the males NF?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> What?


You said that more women are feeler type because they are more emotional. At the same time you agree that emotion is not feeling. You say it is a fact that more women are feeling type then men. So what do you base that presumption on?


----------



## lunai (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I wasn't using that to say that is was as simple as women feel this and men feel that. But again, typically men do anger more easily and women get sad easily. Men especially during puberty, when the hormones are not stable. Unfortunately, women experience this instability throughout their whole lives. During pregnancy and menopause we experience huge hormonal imbalances which make us more emotional than the men in our lives. That's why a pregnant woman cries about every little thing, and a menopausal woman is so on edge. Our hormones affect our emotions differently based on our genders.


Yes, but I do not think it's unpreventable or natural that women experience this constant hormonal instability. It is possible to achieve a healthy hormonal balance and consequently healthy mind. Nutrition and health habits make a big impact on that. I've seen females who have emotional mood swings but they also have poor diets and/or unhealthy habits that I think contribute to it. I think it is really a health problem.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

lunai said:


> Yes, but I do not think it's unpreventable or natural that women experience this constant hormonal instability. It is possible to achieve a healthy hormonal balance and consequently healthy mind. Nutrition and health habits make a big impact on that. I've seen females who have emotional mood swings but they also have poor diets and/or unhealthy habits that I think contribute to it. I think it is really a health problem.


No amount of healthy eating will make pregnancy and menopause non-emotional also, some women have hormonal imbalances due to menstruation that are genetic conditions, not everything is due to diet. But the point still stands, women have more obstacles when it comes to well balanced emotions.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> You said that more women are feeler type because they are more emotional. At the same time you agree that emotion is not feeling. You say it is a fact that more women are feeling type then men. So what do you base that presumption on?


No, I said women are more likely to be feelers than men. And then, on a semi-related note, women are often times more emotional. This affects our perceptions when making a judgement when we meet people. But the point I was trying to get across was that women are more likely to be feelers than thinkers and that feeling and emotions are not inherently bad or offensive.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> No, I said women are more likely to be feelers than men. And then, on a semi-related note, women are often times more emotional. This affects our perceptions when making a judgement when we meet people. But the point I was trying to get across was that women are more likely to be feelers than thinkers and that feeling and emotions are not inherently bad or offensive.


You are saying that women are more likely then men to be feelers because they experience more emotion?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> You are saying that women are more likely then men to be feelers because they experience more emotion?


Not cause and effect, simply two separate facts that alter the perception of each other. When you first encounter an emotional person, it's easy to judge them as a feeler and vice versa. But, according to legitimate studies, women are more often feelers than men.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> Not cause and effect, simply two separate facts that alter the perception of each other. When you first encounter an emotional person, it's easy to judge them as a feeler and vice versa. But, according to legitimate studies, women are more often feelers than men.


Where are those *legitimate* studies? And also before puberty the hormones and stuff are pretty much the same in boys and girls. Do you suggest we change type at puberty?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Where are those *legitimate* studies? And also before puberty the hormones and stuff are pretty much the same in boys and girls. Do you suggest we change type at puberty?


I just said about a million times that emotions do not affect type. No, we maintain our type through puberty. Our hormones and emotions can occasionally alter someones perception of which type we are. And about the studies, I told you I no longer have my sources. So you can believe me or ignore me, but I know that I had credible sources.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I just said about a million times that emotions do not affect type. No, we maintain our type through puberty. *Our hormones and emotions can occasionally alter someones perception of which type we are. *And about the studies, I told you I no longer have my sources. So you can believe me or ignore me, but I know that I had credible sources.


But type and perception of which type is not the same


----------



## lunai (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> No amount of healthy eating will make pregnancy and menopause non-emotional also, some women have hormonal imbalances due to menstruation that are genetic conditions, not everything is due to diet. But the point still stands, women have more obstacles when it comes to well balanced emotions.


I wouldn't say it is so simple. For one thing, males also go through "andropause", hormonal changes in their middle years. Also, males are just as susceptible to hormonal imbalances and their diet also can affect that. There is a lot of unhealthy food available, and not to mention the growth hormones and estrogen they feed to livestock. This can affect everybody. The suicide rate for males has been going up in several countries and it's linked with depression. Depression is often linked with hormonal imbalance. Most of our hormones aren't sex specific hormones either, they are there for all kinds of functions. The hormones that influence emotions are not all simply sex hormones.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> But type and perception of which type is not the same


That's why I specified that they were two different things.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

lunai said:


> I wouldn't say it is so simple. For one thing, males also go through "andropause", hormonal changes in their middle years. Also, males are just as susceptible to hormonal imbalances and their diet also can affect that. There is a lot of unhealthy food available, and not to mention the growth hormones and estrogen they feed to livestock. This can affect everybody. The suicide rate for males has been going up in several countries and it's linked with depression. Depression is often linked with hormonal imbalance. Most of our hormones aren't sex specific hormones either, they are there for all kinds of functions. The hormones that influence emotions are not all simply sex hormones.


I totally agree with you. I was just commenting on the fact that womens hormonal changes throughout their life tend to lead people to believe that they are more emotional. But I recognize that it is a far more complex topic than can be explained in a simple forum thread.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> That's why I specified that they were two different things.


So what you are saying is that women often perceive themselves as feeler type more often then men because of unstable hormone levels. 

But at the same time, that is no argument of that more women then men are feeler type. Women misstype themselves more often towards feeling type then men, that is what you are saying


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> So what you are saying is that women often perceive themselves as feeler type more often then men because of unstable hormone levels.
> 
> But at the same time, that is no argument of that more women then men are feeler type. Women misstype themselves more often towards feeling type then men, that is what you are saying


Other people percieve them as feelers more often, but even so they are more lilely to be feelers. But sometimes T's can be judged as Fs by those who don't know the.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> Other people percieve them as feelers more often, *but even so they are more lilely to be feelers.* But sometimes T's can be judged as Fs by those who don't know the.


That is the logic I do not understand. Why so? Why are women more likely to be feeler type? If we assume that one person is the same type always, how can this emotion/hormone thing have any effect on type?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm getting bored here. This could be a real discussion if people were reading a little bit before posting.

to reiterate:

Jungian (including MBTI systems) functions, are not emotions. "F" functions are legitimate, even left brained decision making tools.

What Jung calls feeling toned cognition - cognition - look it up in the dictionary, means Knowing - not reactionary-ism. 
Get over the political incorrectness sound to this - statistically (roughly 75% in mbti testing - women test as "F" preferenced.
It does not follow that the other 25% are wired wrong. It does not logically follow that women are inferior or disadvantaged as a group (because of brain wiring). It does not logically follow that "F" prefference has any implication for IQ.

If you want statistics - google it, or read links and spoilers already in this thread.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

captain mclain said:


> that is the logic i do not understand. Why so? Why are women more likely to be feeler type? If we assume that one person is the same type always, how can this emotion/hormone thing have any effect on type?


It doesn't affect their type, and women just are more likely to be feelers. Probably some gene that we have yet to identify.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> People assume "Feeler" MUST mean "more emotional," and "Thinker" MUST mean "more rational," when that is a completely false assumption (since everyone "knows" that females are supposed to be more emotional, and males are supposed to be more rational, _right_?).
> 
> In truth, the difference between T and F is more about how one makes value judgments: when making decisions and taking action, does one tend to value their thoughts, or their feelings? It is entirely possible to be an emotional thinker, just as it is a rational feeler.
> 
> So you have society expecting that women are more emotional and men are more rational, and you have people with incomplete understanding of MBTI erroneously assuming what "F" and "T" really means.


Exactly. This is also dependent on what society we're talking about. When I lived in Japan I learned that they had the opposite views on how males and females should behave based off of preferred behaviors. Before the Meiji era it was preferable to be passionate and to express your emotions, this was considered a male trait. Women were considered to be emotionally cold and calculating, which was looked down upon (the opposite of our culture completely). I imagine during that time period and in that culture, if MBTI were around, women would mostly test as T's while men would mostly test as F's.

I don't agree that 75% of females are feelers and 25% of males are thinkers. I think women are more likely to test as feelers and men more likely to test as thinkers due to our cultural influences. When I meet female thinkers I've noticed that their feeling sides are usually more developed than a normal thinker's would be, same goes for male feelers, their thinking side is usually a little more developed than it would normally be. They've had expectations thrust upon them that force them outside of their comfort zones a lot, as such they've adapted to it a bit. 

Who hasn't met a male INFP who couldn't easily be confused for an NT? Nearly every time I meet one they seem like NT's until I get to know them. Yet this rarely happens with female INFP's, because they're held to different standards.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Kebachi said:


> Exactly. This is also dependent on what society we're talking about. When I lived in Japan I learned that they had the opposite views on how males and females should behave based off of preferred behaviors. Before the Meiji era it was preferable to be passionate and to express your emotions, this was considered a male trait. Women were considered to be emotionally cold and calculating, which was looked down upon (the opposite of our culture completely). I imagine during that time period and in that culture if MBTI were around women would mostly test as T's while men would mostly test as F's.


Is it not also possible that in that culture at that time, women happened to be more likely to be T's which is what caused the cultural expectations? A sort of chicken and the egg type/expectation thing.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> It doesn't affect their type, and women just are more likely to be feelers. Probably some gene that we have yet to identify.


I do not mine if it is so. But the argument is not valid, and statistic is not present. Like many things this seems to be bias based and when in the future someone do a real study on this it may show that is so, or not. That day we can make assumptions.

does it exist a study where ONE typist have typed more then thousand people randomly chosen?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I do not mine if it is so. But the argument is not valid, and statistic is not present. Like many things this seems to be bias based and when in the future someone do a real study on this it may show that is so, or not. That day we can make assumptions.
> 
> does it exist a study where ONE typist have typed more then thousand people randomly chosen?


I read multiple studies from multiple spurces. All valid. I don't care if you believe me, you can do your own research if you don't because frankly I don't have the time or desire to do all the research over again.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I read multiple studies from multiple spurces. All valid. I don't care if you believe me, you can do your own research if you don't because frankly I don't have the time or desire to do all the research over again.


So maybe there is a gene or something that make women more prone to be feelers. Maybe. How about men and thinking, is there a correlation there?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> So maybe there is a gene or something that make women more prone to be feelers. Maybe. How about men and thinking, is there a correlation there?


Considering most thinkers are men, I'd say yes. I think there is some sort of genetic link there, but as there is no evidence we can't be positive.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> Considering most thinkers are men, I'd say yes. I think there is some sort of genetic link there, but as there is no evidence we can't be positive.


also you can think of emotions and feel the world and all it pieces. I just have a very very hard type to accept this as true with what is represented, sry (for me I guess). But I bet you are refereeing to stuffs that is true


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> also you can think of emotions and feel the world and all it pieces. I just have a very very hard type to accept this as true with what is represented, sry (for me I guess). But I bet you are refereeing to stuffs that is true


What is your type?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> What is your type?


Infj or IEI


----------



## J (Jan 26, 2015)

interesting.. probably why i enjoy the company of men rather than women.. i am definitely not a feeler. i do believe a lot of the women i know are feelers.. maybe this has to do with the assumption that women tend to be nurturers and men as protectors. I think in that case it is biological and societal influences..


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Janelle said:


> interesting.. probably why i enjoy the company of men rather than women.. i am definitely not a feeler. i do believe a lot of the women i know are feelers.. maybe this has to do with the assumption that women tend to be nurturers and men as protectors. I think in that case it is biological and societal influences..


I have the same problem. A lot of the women I encounter are F's and I struggle finding other T women that I get along with. I'd definitely say it's biological though, sexual selection over so many years has preferenced rational men and nurturing women.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I have the same problem. A lot of the women I encounter are F's and I struggle finding other T women that I get along with. I'd definitely say it's biological though, sexual selection over so many years has preferenced rational men and nurturing women.


I met Te girls all the time and trying to avoid them.. estj, istj, entj (best friend gf)


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> Is it not also possible that in that culture at that time, women happened to be more likely to be T's which is what caused the cultural expectations? A sort of chicken and the egg type/expectation thing.


It's not impossible, but I kinda doubt it. Women were conditioned at the time to hold in their emotions and to be calm and logical, whether they were feelers or thinkers. Men were encouraged to be passionate and expressive, whether they were feelers or thinkers (especially among their comrades). It was simply cultural conditioning based off of what was considered preferable.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I met Te girls all the time and trying to avoid them.. estj, istj, entj (best friend gf)


You dislike TE girls?


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Kebachi said:


> It's not impossible, but I kinda doubt it. Women were conditioned at the time to hold in their emotions and to be calm and logical, whether they were feelers or thinkers. Men were encouraged to be passionate and expressive, whether they were feelers or thinkers (especially among their comrades). It was simply cultural conditioning based off of what was considered preferable.


I think type transcends what we hold back or let out. You can have an ENFP who is highly logical and unemotional because she was raised that way. It's just not their true type, it's the mask they put on to blend into societal norms.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> You dislike TE girls?


Sometimes, usually not do well with Te-dom


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kebachi said:


> Exactly. This is also dependent on what society we're talking about. When I lived in Japan I learned that they had the opposite views on how males and females should behave based off of preferred behaviors. Before the Meiji era it was preferable to be passionate and to express your emotions, this was considered a male trait. Women were considered to be emotionally cold and calculating, which was looked down upon (the opposite of our culture completely). I imagine during that time period and in that culture, if MBTI were around, women would mostly test as T's while men would mostly test as F's.
> 
> I don't agree that 75% of females are feelers and 25% of males are thinkers. I think women are more likely to test as feelers and men more likely to test as thinkers due to our cultural influences. When I meet female thinkers I've noticed that their feeling sides are usually more developed than a normal thinker's would be, same goes for male feelers, their thinking side is usually a little more developed than it would normally be. They've had expectations thrust upon them that force them outside of their comfort zones a lot, as such they've adapted to it a bit.
> 
> Who hasn't met a male INFP who couldn't easily be confused for an NT? Nearly every time I meet one they seem like NT's until I get to know them. Yet this rarely happens with female INFP's, because they're held to different standards.


Well, one thing would be to say people are faking it, but another angle is to see it as a chicken/egg question?
We know that brains make themselves, in the sense of practice making electrical pathways firm and people having capacity to re-wire in some trauma cases. Logically, people don't change personalities because it would be inefficient to not maximize the benefit of these pathways once they are formed.

But if from birth, certain pathways are encouraged because of the systems of a society, and if this continues to be profitable from a genetic reproductive level and or from the benefit to the organism as a group - couldn't this also have impact on genetics?

So you could literally have race/geographical differences in brains that become genome enforced when culturally initiated? Some people might not like how that sounds but it is plausible? As plausible as people faking it when they test? If People are not forced to test, why fake answers?

Your Japan example - interesting.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Sometimes, usually not do well with Te-dom


Is english your first language? And I usually get along well with most N's. I struggle with S's though


----------



## J (Jan 26, 2015)

inthesnowman said:


> I have the same problem. A lot of the women I encounter are F's and I struggle finding other T women that I get along with. I'd definitely say it's biological though, sexual selection over so many years has preferenced rational men and nurturing women.


i agree


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> Is english your first language? And I usually get along well with most N's. I struggle with S's though


No. I get along with most N's and most Se's well and Fe/Ti-Ti/Fe well. Blur out the Te-dom and aux and there is what person I get along with.


----------



## inthesnowman (Jun 18, 2014)

Janelle said:


> i agree


You seem like a pretty cool person.


----------



## J (Jan 26, 2015)

inthesnowman said:


> You seem like a pretty cool person.


:happy: hey, thanks!


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

inthesnowman said:


> I think type transcends what we hold back or let out. You can have an ENFP who is highly logical and unemotional because she was raised that way. It's just not their true type, it's the mask they put on to blend into societal norms.


Indeed, that's what I've been saying. It's my opinion that those statistics are based off of mistyping individuals and not seeing their true type, rather how they've been conditioned to behave.


----------

