# INTJ emotions vs INFJ emotions vs INTP emotions



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

reckful said:


> As I said before, it _really doesn't make any sense_ to say (as you did) that "whether or not you're considerate of people's feelings" has "nothing to do with T/F." And as I said before, consideration for others (including their feelings) is generally considered one of the more noteworthy components of T/F, and there's now decades of data in support of that correlation.
> 
> And if you're under the impression that that's just an "Fe" thing rather than an "Fi" thing, you're misinformed. There's no significant correlation between the MBTI T/F and J/P dimensions, which means that an FJ is no more likely than an FP to choose the F side of those official MBTI items that I listed in my first post. They're mainly an F > T thang; not an FJ > FP thang.
> 
> You said that "if you look at the _functions_, INTJ / INFJ are entirely opposite in many aspects"; and that leads me to think you could probably benefit quite a lot from taking a look at this post, this post, and the posts they link to — which contain quite a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the Harold Grant function stack (where INFJs are supposedly Ni-Fe-Ti-Se).


Hmm, let me see if I can clarify what I was trying to say...
Your consideration of others' emotions _will _directly impact your test results as you're saying, because technically, the test itself does measure that. However, the test inaccurately measures where someone falls on that T/F scale because it doesn't take the _reasons_ for a behavior into consideration. So in reality, the test can misplace someone on that scale _because _it uses this as a measurement, in spite of textbook answers stating otherwise.
The difference in our perspectives is coming from the fact that you're going by the text books, while I'm going by my own insights and pointing out that the test measurement system is flawed. I'm doing that typical INTJ thing where we go against the system because the system is flawed and self-contradictory. :kitteh:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Corah said:


> I'm doing that typical INTJ thing where we go against the system because the system is flawed and self-contradictory. :kitteh:


Well, it sounds to me like the "system" _you've_ mostly been reading about is that Harold Grant INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se _cognitive function system_, and it's certainly flawed and self-contradictory (as explained in those posts I linked you to) — a-a-and on top of that, it's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — but instead of "going against" it, I'm afraid you've pretty much swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Trust me when I say that Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are _not_ the "go against the system" rebels a reality-oriented personality ponderer wants to be following.

In any case, I will continue to patiently await the day when you decide to kick your INTJ critical-thinking skills and your INTJ data-respecting skills into full gear and realize that the respectable districts of the MBTI are _not_ the ones where INTJs are considered more like ESFPs than INTPs, and INFPs are considered more like ESTJs than INFJs, _because functions_. :tongue:


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Binge Thinker said:


> Again, I completely agree.
> 
> The notion of "saying it like it is" being flaunted to an extreme is quite an interesting way of putting it, but it makes sense. And I agree tact is definitely more results-orientated.
> 
> ...


When I said that "say it like it is" part, I was thinking of this specific example I've seen:








and yeah, you're absolutely right.
On a related note, there's a quote I grew up hearing from my (ENTJ) dad, he always says, "what you judge for is what you're doing."
Most often, I've found it to be true, to the point where if I start to become easily agitated by some sort of specific behaviors all of a sudden, I'll question whether or not it's something I'm doing and subconsciously recognizing as a quality I hate about myself. It's not true every time, but I find it to be pretty effective filter for keeping myself from "projecting" regardless.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

reckful said:


> At this point nobody really knows for sure what possible things it might mean for someone to be in or very close to the middle on particular MBTI dimensions — and the answer (and possible variations) might not be exactly the same for all four dimensions.
> 
> And the idea of "facets" is a further complication. If there's anything to them, then one person might conceivably be pretty much in the middle on T/F (for example) because they were pretty much in the middle on all the T/F facets, and another one might be kinda sorta in the middle on T/F because they were mildly T-ish on two facets and mildly F-ish on three facets.
> 
> ...


Thank you.
Seems it can happen, but the why component is a little hazy.
For me there is not clear preference between T/F I can see. The overall score is often too close to call. Going through the facets I seems more F for 2, More T for two and in-between for the 5th, so that didn't help haha.
To me the F side seems too theatrical, and the T side too harsh.
I like the idea of the 'sensible centre'


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I am more concerned about emotional intensity than what type of emotion it is. I tend to shy away from extremes. I don't see being manically happy as a good thing. I'd rather be mildly melancholic than some kind of hedonic adrenaline rush. From my perspective (though maybe I'm wrong) I think NTP's are more concerned with how negative/positive the emotion is than how intense it is. Their fear seems to be of too much negative emotion overcoming their rationality, while my concern is more that too much of any emotion can overcome it (think drug addiction due to inducing euphoria, which leads to a cycle of irrational behavior and life choices).

Others have already mentioned the harmony-seeking vs solution-seeking distinction, so I'm not going to go into that.



Corah said:


> To be honest, I can't say I've ever experienced that. I'm not sure. I know I don't empathize with how others feel very well unless I've felt it before too and know what it's like firsthand, if that's what you mean.





acidicwithpanic said:


> Yes. Because I've been a victim of abuse, this applies to me. The catch is though that I feel like I need to relate to your conflict in order to empathize with you or have a close relationship with me.


Same here, but I don't need to know what the exact situation is like firsthand, just the general emotional experience in the abstract. I think people misunderstand this a lot and think I'm being cold or unempathetic just because I haven't experienced what they have. This isn't true. I can relate to and empathize with some situation I haven't experienced in literally the same way, but have experienced the same emotional consequence. Like, let's say someone went through a bad experience with a friend or SO where they or their friend are being spiteful and trying to get revenge. I only need to relate to feeling vengeful to empathize with the one seeking revenge. And I only need to have experienced someone acting spiteful towards me to relate to the other side. 

I don't know why but people seem to think you need to experience the _exact same situation_ in order to have empathy and I think that's ridiculous... the opposite example is that sometimes I'm in exact same situation as someone else but our extrapolations of the experience are so different, that the shared experience isn't even relevant. But they think I "get them" because the same life experience happened to both of us. (This comes up more when I get into political discussions).

I guess sort of circling back to the abuse topic... for example, I can relate to people with PTSD or some traumatic experience in general, more than I can with people who have depression. And I have neither. (Though I was diagnosed with depression when I was younger, it was probably a misdiagnosis). I have probably experienced something closer to trauma than to depression in my life. (I think it has to do with being an INTJ and feeling traumatized/"victimized", and having breakdowns simply due to too much sense data. lol.) Depression to me is like, "meh, I'll live". Sometimes I don't even realize when I feel depressed....

(Possibly another difference between T and F is that F users are more emotionally aware...if they aren't outright repressing it, T users can be oblivious of their emotions, until it gets pretty bad)


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

> Well, it sounds to me like the "system" you've mostly been reading about is that Harold Grant INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se cognitive function system, and it's certainly flawed and self-contradictory (as explained in those posts I linked you to) — a-a-and on top of that, it's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — but instead of "going against" it, I'm afraid you've pretty much swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> Trust me when I say that Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are not the "go against the system" rebels a reality-oriented personality ponderer wants to be following.
> 
> In any case, I will continue to patiently await the day when you decide to kick your INTJ critical-thinking skills and your INTJ data-respecting skills into full gear and realize that the respectable districts of the MBTI are not the ones where INTJs are considered more like ESFPs than INTPs, and INFPs are considered more like ESTJs than INFJs, because functions.


*The main problem with that little theory there is that the definition of efficiency is relative to the end goal.
For example, if your goal is to get laid, in order to efficiently do this, you probably want to consider the girl's feelings when talking to her or else your dick is probably going to be sad and lonely.*








When you finally figure out the original founders aren't always right and that disagreeing with authority sources isn't always an act of rebellion, and that what I'm saying is highly accurate...when you finally expand your little mind beyond the confines of 16 boxes and a couple of definitions you read in some books...come back and let us all know, because everybody else but you seems to have their heads wrapped around this concept.
_Til then friend, have fun with your hand._

*If I sound like a bitch, it must be because evidently I can't be a "strong T type" and also tactful or considerate, because that makes me more of a feeler.* At least, according to sources. So I might as well just let it all hang loose, because that makes me more logical and rational, right? *Being a tactless and inconsiderate person makes me less of an "F" or "Feeling" type, right? Which means, articulating myself like this should make my points better, and make me more objective / rational / logical???*

*And people can't be entirely impersonal in their consideration of others either, because even impersonal consideration would make them a feeler. Right?
So tell me...doesn't that make all sociopaths and psychopaths feelers, according to this philosophy??? Because they're some of the most charming and "considerate" people, and if the reason they do that doesn't matter, if it doesn't matter whether it's impersonal or not, then that means they're included, doesn't it?*

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxatciZMaP1qjvgh1.gif


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Corah said:


> *The main problem with that little theory there is that the definition of efficiency is relative to the end goal.
> For example, if your goal is to get laid, in order to efficiently do this, you probably want to consider the girl's feelings when talking to her or else your dick is probably going to be sad and lonely.*
> View attachment 435937
> 
> ...


The definitions read in some book are explaining the model. They are drawing the lines in the sand and shuffling people around to where they seem to best fit. To ignore this model is just drawing your own lines in the sand, perhaps applying different labels/definitions and shuffling people around in slightly different ways. It is perhaps just re-categorizing of the same phenomenon in a different ways to different standards. Essentially talking about the same thing in different languages.

As for your example, A person who is a strong T type is not incapable of feeling judgment. Their attention is more often focused on thinking type judgments. They are perhaps much better at thinking type judgments, and when feeling is in conflict with thinking will follow through the thinking judgments more often.
The other factor here may be due to the facets of the MBTI step II the example person identifies with. There are five facets for each category. Being considerate of others feelings is only apart of one of the feeling facets. So yes a thinking type may take into account others feelings, but show strong tendencies to fall into all the other thinking facets and identify as a thinking type.

Also I'm curious about your thoughts here. If this example person had such goals that always involved other people (getting laid, getting a job, helping others to benefit themselves, etc) and so they always took the feeling approach as they believed this was the most efficient way, why could they not be considered a feeling type?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ksara said:


> The definitions read in some book are explaining the model. They are drawing the lines in the sand and shuffling people around to where they seem to best fit. To ignore this model is just drawing your own lines in the sand, perhaps applying different labels/definitions and shuffling people around in slightly different ways. It is perhaps just re-categorizing of the same phenomenon in a different ways to different standards. Essentially talking about the same thing in different languages.
> 
> As for your example, A person who is a strong T type is not incapable of feeling judgment. Their attention is more often focused on thinking type judgments. They are perhaps much better at thinking type judgments, and when feeling is in conflict with thinking will follow through the thinking judgments more often.
> The other factor here may be due to the facets of the MBTI step II the example person identifies with. There are five facets for each category. Being considerate of others feelings is only apart of one of the feeling facets. So yes a thinking type may take into account others feelings, but show strong tendencies to fall into all the other thinking facets and identify as a thinking type.


You're entirely missing what im saying, but ive said all of what im going to say about it. tired of repeating myself.



> Also I'm curious about your thoughts here. If this example person had such goals that always involved other people (getting laid, getting a job, helping others to benefit themselves, etc) and so they always took the feeling approach as they believed this was the most efficient way, why could they not be considered a feeling type?


no person who is orientated around efficiency, is going to ALWAYS go the feelings = efficiency route. neither will feelers. thats like saying someone is entirely introverted or extroverted, those people would be in an asylum if they existed, everyone is ambiverted and falls somewhere on a spectrum. idk what youre trying to ask, the hypothetical scenario in that question is extremely unrealistic.
I think you'll find similar answers in the other things I've posted here in this same thread though. Go back and read the other things I wrote, if you're curious. If not, I don't like to repeat myself.


----------



## LlamadeusMozart (Nov 25, 2015)

Wow, a hard question with a lot of very good (scientific and credible) answers posted. I score consistently INFJ on all my tests forever, so I guess what I can offer is personal experience as opposed to the indepth answers above. 

I am lucky to know and love two INTJ's, and I think they are great! However the difference in how we process the world is huge. HUGE! The biggest thing I notice is that the INTJ's in my life don't seem to be able to truly get into the heads of others like I can. I seem to be able to put on another person's mental suit and wear it around like my own. I understand the motivations of others, can easily embody their feelings (overwhelming when my boundaries weren't as strong as they are now), and basically argue convincingly from their point of view. Sometimes I can describe what their childhoods were probably like, what they may be likely to do next, or how situations would affect me if I was in their mental suit. One of the most overwhelming parts of being an INFJ for me is the stress that comes from seeing both sides of a lot of issues equally and observing the inability of some others to truly empathize. Why would people want to hurt each other over issues that do not have black and white solutions anyway?

I don't know if this helps at all, but like I said, it's my own personal experience.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ksara said:


> The definitions read in some book are explaining the model. They are drawing the lines in the sand and shuffling people around to where they seem to best fit. To ignore this model is just drawing your own lines in the sand, perhaps applying different labels/definitions and shuffling people around in slightly different ways. It is perhaps just re-categorizing of the same phenomenon in a different ways to different standards. Essentially talking about the same thing in different languages.
> 
> As for your example, A person who is a strong T type is not incapable of feeling judgment. Their attention is more often focused on thinking type judgments. They are perhaps much better at thinking type judgments, and when feeling is in conflict with thinking will follow through the thinking judgments more often.
> The other factor here may be due to the facets of the MBTI step II the example person identifies with. There are five facets for each category. Being considerate of others feelings is only apart of one of the feeling facets. So yes a thinking type may take into account others feelings, but show strong tendencies to fall into all the other thinking facets and identify as a thinking type.
> ...


*After further study (and working with someone certified), I learned that...*
First of all, I am actually an INTP, and have been all along since MBTI never changes (Sorry for the inconsistency with what I typed before.)

Secondly, the Fe (Extroverted Feeling function, which is used by NTPs) is what acts more emotionally accommodating like this (even if it's sometimes not sincere). It's not that Fe users are FAKE, or untrue to themselves, either...which is often how Fi users will interpret Fe. It's just that we are true to our cause of either controlling or conforming to the atmosphere...and, at least for INTPs, part of the reason we do this is due to our (ever so common) belief that everyone has their own subjective truth, so we tend to be more accommodating of those differences. However, since we first process things through our Ti before our Fe, we're normally more emotionally accommodating of differences if they make feasible logical sense (or at least if they aren't ILlogical). Make no mistake though, INTPs, especially immature ones, can also be quite intolerant of illogical things like NTJs have the reputation for, just as NTJs can be more tolerant and laid back like NTPs have a reputation for. From what I understand, it's relative to the individual's Fx function development.

*Fi (used by NTJs) is more concerned with its own inner structure of values, etc. Fi users will hold steadfast to their own (what NTPs perceive as) subjective truth more.
Fe is more concerned with others' and their values, more accommodating, conforming, etc...often because we aren't really certain ourselves of what the universal objective truth is.*

So actually, NTJs do tend to be more "say it like it is"
because they're holding firm to what they believe. As an NTP, I can actually say I see this as terribly flawed and stubborn on a surface level...but subjectively speaking here, since I know 1 confirmed ENTJ and another strongly suspected ENTJ, I also think that a lot of times they aren't always stubborn, it's just that
1.) Both have to be more mature
2.) You have to be valuable enough for them to not cut you out of their life if you disagree
3.) You have to win debates with them if you're ever going to change their views, because they have subjective reasons for believing what they believe.

*
Furthermore, someone can actually have a Fx that is more developed than Tx, but still be a T type. How? Because it isn't about what we do most frequently, it's about what we prefer. Not what we DESIRE...but what is our absolute nature, the first instinct, that we would do if not for nurture (environment, responsibilities, social pressures, etc.)
For instance, we live in a highly scheduled society, that's why NTPs can seem like NTJs with scheduling and planning and organization, but the reason they aren't NJTs is because that's not the natural way they WOULD LIKE to do it, it's just the way they SHOULD do it. That's how you determine your type.
*


I still think Ti dom users are generally more logical than Te dom users, and that because of using Fe instead of Fi will often be more persuasive with their logic in social settings, but that's relative to a plethora of nuances also, so I can't wholeheartedly say that anymore.


As for the future orientation I spoke of before, with the "Chess board problem solver" thing, that's an NT thing, not just an INTJ thing. iNtuition is future oriented like that, T is logical and NTs tend to be motivated and analytical problem solvers that way. The gravitation toward conflict or not conflict is a Fe vs Fi thing, and often has environmental influences which cause it to be more individualistic as well. The functions act differently when they are moved around in the stack; for instance, a typical INFJ (Ni, Fe, Ti, Se) will be far more conflict avoidant than a typical INTP (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe).

Also, fun fact, evidently NTPs often like to write novels instead of paragraphs or sentences.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

My mother is INTJ (your not INTJ, INTJs usually have a good grip on themselves except in rare cases you challenge something dear to their ego. But because of their tert Fi they have a good grip usually).

My stepdad is INTP (your not INTP, INTP dont have their feelings come to a surface as much they are inferior Fe)

My sis is INFJ (you sound alot like an IxFJ to me). With Aux Fe


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

_Exaggerated_ + (*extra* emotions) are _useless_ - and, I see no ''purpose'' in overdoing such feats. Be respectful to ones ''persona'' - there are no malfunctions (i.e., _technical difficulties_) within this pursuit.

That said, I am not ''_emotional-less_'' - nor ''lack empathy'' - (i.e., what other fallacious nonsense) However, I find such 'exaggerated' expressions to hinder + distract + limit functional means of thought + escalate ''drama'' that is unnecessary, _et al_ .. when solutions are easily sought. Thus, are rather 'irrelevant' to discourse; I run into no ''malfunctions'' in the real world, either.

The ''maturity'' argument is _nonsense_. (re: undeveloped) it asserts one does not 'express' self in 'same' ways as _other_ individuals, thus, it is just more means of dislike for the INTJ persona (re: *morphing* persona's to ''suit'' _others needs_), without sufficient means of *compromise*. 

Anyways, what do you mean by ''INTJ emotions'' - what do those _look like_, per se? Question is incoherent.

_____________________________

Com.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

SensationalCinnamon said:


> My mother is INTJ (your not INTJ, INTJs usually have a good grip on themselves except in rare cases you challenge something dear to their ego. But because of their tert Fi they have a good grip usually).
> 
> My stepdad is INTP (your not INTP, INTP dont have their feelings come to a surface as much they are inferior Fe)
> 
> My sis is INFJ (you sound alot like an IxFJ to me). With Aux Fe


I'm pretty sure none of those people used a 600 dollar instrument with a certified practitioner (since it's not even supposed to be called a test), and that you are not certified yourself, nor have you done the MBTI instrument with me. Plus, you sound like the typical MBTI ignorant, thinking you know all about types because you looked up some false and stereotypical MBTI information on scheme sites, so now you're running around speaking as if T types are emotionless bastards, when really "F" isn't a synonym for "emotions". Guess what...everyone neurologically healthy and normal has feelings, we all struggle with them from time to time, and they all surface in different ways. Give it a couple of years, maybe you'll start to see what I'm saying...if you even remember this.

But hey, if you're so masterful that you can type someone better than Myers and Briggs, C. G. Jung, and every certified MBTI practitioner out there, since you can tell someone's type from a little forum post and none of them even can which is why Myers and Briggs made the Type Indicator in the first place (which by the way, is nothing even remotely close to the phony online self-tests)...then I guess, have fun with your self delusion.

Lastly, make no mistake about it: I don't feel the need to prove _myself _to you, but I do want to prove _a point_ to you. Unbeknownst to you, I actually told the practitioner "I'm not sure about my results, I think I might be an F" he asked why, and when I gave my reasons for doubt, he practically laughed at me like "lol no you're not an F." Upon further conversation, he comments on the fact that my Si/Fe are virtually nonexistent. I don't see this as a good thing, I see it as something I need to improve because I'm not some "subjective preference MBTI type elitist" who thinks they're superior to anybody. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, both in the MBTI and on an individual level.

I don't have a single friend who hasn't at some point called me insensitive, and I don't even see how I'm being that way when they say it. I have to logically reason it out to figure out how I'm being emotionally insensitive, and if it doesn't make rational sense (if they don't have legitimately logical points for why or how), I don't understand it at all...although honestly I'm perfectly fine with it at that point, because I don't tolerate or walk on eggshells for that sort of irrational thinking. I also struggle to receive compliments, or even speak in personally endearing ways such as, "that means a lot to me" and I literally get shaky on the inside, my voice starts jittering, because emotional expression is that uncomfortable to me. It's easier for me to speak of emotions objectively in impersonal statements such as, "that was very nice of you."
I recall a time when I was less accepting of emotions and my dad once said some nice things to me and I just sort of (inwardly) stiffened up nervously, and all I could respond was, "genuine warm, heartfelt fuzzies to you too," in a joking way, using humor to deflect from the emotional awkwardness I was feeling. I no longer avoid it this way, I'd rather raise my thresholds. Jungian theory is helping me to do this as I learn how to develop my inferior Fe.

It's something I'm working on developing; therefore no, I do not avoid or suppress my Fe because running from something never helps you improve it. Therefore, just because an INTP's emotions "surface" doesn't mean Fe is more natural to them than Ti is...according to that insensible idea, no one can ever be a T because everyone's emotions surface that much and more; breakups, loss of a loved one, etc...*and people act like Fe is entirely unnatural to INTPs anyways, as if it's not even part of the function stack at all. *We all have and use every single solitary function there is, including shadow functions.

The MBTI is wasted when it's merely used as an identity, and not for personal growth. Maybe someday you'll understand that emotions aren't the devil, that trying to kill them off and become a purely cerebral machine is not only futile but also results in hurting those you actually do care about, and then you'll want to grow up somewhat too just like I do.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

Emotions exist independently of the T/F axis. Ts can be especially expressive with their hate, anger, and frustrations. My mother is a very strongly typed ISTJ, and she has no problem expressing hostility and anger.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Another Lost Cause said:


> Emotions exist independently of the T/F axis. Ts can be especially expressive with their hate, anger, and frustrations. My mother is a very strongly typed ISTJ, and she has no problem expressing hostility and anger.


Well that sucks...but exactly. We all have emotions. We all struggle with them, and even if some might deny it, we all express them even if there is a spectrum varying degrees of that expression. T/F are not the same as emotions. We all think, and we all feel. But the MBTI is somewhat complex (then again, I'm an INTP so I tend to over analyze most things and that's just my subjective interpretation), but learning about it is definitely not an overnight process. They'll learn to develop their other functions later though, as they grow older or read more official sources that validate every word of what I'm saying (except for the things I specify are subjective interpretations, or "I think" because those things are my own theories I haven't validated, subject to possible change with growth, as this is a learning process for me also).


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

*@Catwalk:*

1.) "Finding emotions distracting" is entirely your own subjective interpretation, and not part of your MBTI type, thus is entirely irrelevant to this. Parallel to this statement is the fact that upon initially reading, (what I subjectively find to be) your incessant coloring, symbol use, and excessive deliberate misuse of grammar for tonal emphasis, to be far more distracting than most emotions I observe on a more daily basis (I say it that way because it's more like "saving for the ones that have more shock value, or are environmentally startling")...but not every person of the same MBTI as me would agree with me. Likewise, although I'm certain that many individuals out there would agree with you, not everyone of your MBTI type will, and I wasn't directly addressing emotions vs logic; rather, my post was pertaining to Fx and Tx in the MBTI. There's a vast difference, and if you think they're synonyms, please read information from more official MBTI sources and aim to avoid stereotypes, phony websites, or forums during your learning process.
If you would like to know more about what to look for, use this: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Trusting MBTI® Information on the Web

2.) Although still irrelevant to MBTI, I'll still entertain the next statement: "Emotions are useless" another subjective interpretation, and is relative to the end goal as well as the starting point. I can come up with several cerebral uses of emotions for someone who advocates high IQ and admonishes the idea of EQ off the top of my head, and it would all be entirely relative to the point in time, the goal one wants to accomplish with emotions, as well as the environmental conditions, etc (for instance, is it in a situation where the rest of the world still has emotions? Or is it a more hypothetical scenario such as one where emotions have been entirely eliminated from the planet?)...but a few years ago, I'd have argued the same as you.

The definition of maturity is relative to its subject, and is subject to interpretation; in this case, the way I used "maturity" would be referring to function stack development, according to the way that Jungian theory describes MBTI type maturity.



> However, I find such 'exaggerated' expressions to hinder + distract + limit functional means of thought + escalate ''drama'' that is unnecessary, et al .. when solutions are easily sought.


3.) Firstly, I never said anything about "exaggerated" emotions. Secondly, define "exaggerated" emotion anyways; it's relative to subjective interpretation, there is no universal definition, because anything beyond what 'feels natural' can be considered exaggerated, but to someone who is naturally inexpressive, the 'social norm' could consider that as under exaggerated, thus still technically exaggerated and able to 'cause problems' because the person can be seen as insensitive, which can start drama just as easily.

If you want to get technical though, this in itself is an emotional reaction / solutionless approach. (Often times, types with undeveloped Fe/Fi can experience emotions *unconsciously*. A large part of Fe/Fi development is being aware of emotions, which enables you to be more in control of them as well.) You dislike emotions and find them illogical, therefore you'd rather...what, talk about it on a forum? Rather than come up with a solution for it, knowing that emotions are not just going to magically disappear to stop distracting you? The underlying dynamic behind what you're saying sounds like, "I hate emotions, these are my reasons" which is more emotional than cerebral and solutions oriented within itself. This has an easy solution: either eliminate emotions from the world somehow, or simply choose not to be distracted by developing your own abilities, which would thus enhance the efficiency of your communication (as well as eliminate this particular 'reason' you have for not liking them). Problem solvers don't have a victim mindset about things, that's kind of the point of problem solving.
You say


> ...I run into no ''malfunctions'' in the real world...


but your distractibility problem is actually a malfunction in itself. Emotional people don't have this same struggle you have, which means that according to the current (emotion filled) state of the world combined with your statement about your distractibility, it's hard to deny that logically and objectively speaking, this implies that emotionally more developed people have more of a tactical advantage than you.
It's also not logical to allow that to continue, because all it does is hinder your own personal efficiency, while making absolutely no difference to the rest of the world. In your definition of a perfect world, there might be no need for this; but the way I see it, you have two options...either stop talking about how emotions hinder your personal performance and grow yourself past it, or find a way to eliminate emotions from the world in order to bring your idea of a perfect world into reality. If you don't think your perfect world is practical, or think it's too idealistic, then the only logical solution would be to find ways to function more gracefully in this one...which is partially why I personally include emotional development and accommodation as part of my definition of emotional maturity. You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is that not everything in this world is logical, and there is no universal truth for some things. It all comes down to what you choose to believe, because not everything has concrete factual evidence; if it did, you'd have presented it already, and it would be irrefutable to anyone and everyone.



> ...escalate ''drama'' that is unnecessary...


Absolutely! This is sometimes the case. However, there's a difference between having / expressing emotions tactfully, and having them for the "wrong" reasons (such as being "too easily offended") or expressing them in the "wrong" ways (such as situations they do escalate, as you said). Contrariwise, if we label those escalations as "con sides" that deem emotions as negative things, we also have to examine the flip side of that axis: the pros...such as soothing crying children, saving someone's life, etc. In heightened emotional states during emergencies, people can also get adrenaline rushes and lift a car off of a victim, whereas when they're in a more emotionally level state, they normally can't.
Furthermore, it's really not even 'logical' to bother with any of that drama at all, because having and forming personal connections / relationships with other people isn't even logical to begin with; without personal connections / relationships with others, there is no drama.

8/10 times when I speak with someone who hates emotions, I also find that it's in part because they struggle with theirs.

*That aside, let's not forget the point which is that I'm not implying the world should be emotionally uncontrolled, but simply addressing and sharing the functions of MBTI from more official sources, which thus far lacks a correlation to your subjective views about emotions.*


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Corah said:


> I still think Ti dom users are generally more logical than Te dom users, and that because of using Fe instead of Fi will often be more persuasive with their logic in social settings, but that's relative to a plethora of nuances also, so I can't wholeheartedly say that anymore.


I agreed with everything else but I strongly disagree with this. Te-doms are more logical because we evaluate facts. Ti-doms make their own conclusion based on personal logic. However, Te-doms will be more set on "protecting" their conclusions due to Fi while Ti-doms will be more flexible due to Fe. I'm not saying Ti-doms won't protect their conclusions or that Te-doms can't change their mind. Though, Te-doms need facts that go against their opinion rather than someone arguing with feelings or subjective logic. But saying that a T function that uses personal logic is more logical (to a fellow Ti-dom maybe) than a T function that uses objective facts, seems very off.

Te-dom way of thinking is easily replicated. You have a fact A, a fact B and together they imply C. Of course, once we see fact A or fact B in wrong light or understand them wrongly we can make illogical conclusions. But Ti-dom logic is very rooted in self rather than outside world and they would need to specifically describe their thinking process for everyone to understand their conclusions. 

Unless you use logic as synonym for "thinking a lot" or "analysing stuff" (which also Te-doms can do just with different magnitude and in different ways) or "complying with opinions of others". In that case you have a point. But I consider logic something that uses objective reasoning.


----------



## greco (Jul 10, 2010)

My emotions affect my decisions by showing me whether I am doing what is morally right, what is ethical. If a decision that appears to have been arrived at through rational consideration as the right one, resonates negatively with my inner emotional filter (doesn't 'feel' right from a moral standpoint) then it cannot be undertaken. Certainly not without tremendous cost

I was once forced into a position where I had to make such a decision. It could be rationalised to be 'right' in many ways, namely through business (economic) logic and through considerations of political expediency, pragmatism or moral relativism. In the end, all of these could not provide enough of a justification for taking that sort of action, which lead to my resignation. Interestingly, I am not sure what input my Ni had into this, as it did not conjure up anything that read "Do this" or "Don't do that". It all seemed to be Te vs Fi, and whilst Te put up a serious battle, Fi won... If Ni had anything to do in that war, it was by seemingly abstaining


----------



## Yasminec19 (Sep 16, 2015)

It goes down like this for me :

Emotion is felt *->* Emotion is rationalized *->* Emotion goes through the spectrum of personal values *->* End up with a very dull version of the original emotion that is 'felt'. This is an automatic process that I don't control. 

Example : Let's say I would feel attraction for a guy who used to be a heavy drinker, or used to do drugs.

First emotion would be attraction *->* Then the automatic thing that I would think just after the raw emotion is that he must have an addictive personality / is not very independent / could relapse / the addiction must have shifted elsewhere *->* Lastly I would scan the emotion in my personal values machine, where the value called ' understanding ' is not as high as the ' independence ' value. Therefore *the emotion is dismissed.* 

I have to say that this process gives you a TON of self-control. But at the same time you don't allow yourself to feel things. Because at the end of the day you do feel them.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Corah said:


> I'm pretty sure none of those people used a 600 dollar instrument with a certified practitioner (since it's not even supposed to be called a test), and that you are not certified yourself, nor have you done the MBTI instrument with me. Plus, you sound like the typical MBTI ignorant, thinking you know all about types because you looked up some false and stereotypical MBTI information on scheme sites, so now you're running around speaking as if T types are emotionless bastards, when really "F" isn't a synonym for "emotions". Guess what...everyone neurologically healthy and normal has feelings, we all struggle with them from time to time, and they all surface in different ways. Give it a couple of years, maybe you'll start to see what I'm saying...if you even remember this.
> 
> But hey, if you're so masterful that you can type someone better than Myers and Briggs, C. G. Jung, and every certified MBTI practitioner out there, since you can tell someone's type from a little forum post and none of them even can which is why Myers and Briggs made the Type Indicator in the first place (which by the way, is nothing even remotely close to the phony online self-tests)...then I guess, have fun with your self delusion.
> 
> ...


Excuse the fuck out of me....
I dont remember quoting you and once arguing you and your opinions. Where the fuck do you get off making so many assumptions . About me. When did I ever even post enough there for you to write such a rant to someone who did not even directly interact with you. And to speculate so much on a person off that. 

I am going to wake up and have my coffee and then assess this better and come back. But let me just say you are seriously out of line. I barely even posted in this thread enough to merit your going on a rant about what makes you an expert and simplifying me to an idiot who only thinks its thinking vs feeling is related to emotions. You know your in a section where stereotypes are going to come up. And just because we all use stereotype association as jokes sometimes or generalize does not mean we always use that as a form of distinguishing personality types and typing. 

I did not pose as an expert I chimed in on an open forum politely. You however are clearly an over sensitive very rude person who thinks they are a fucking expert because they spent $600 rather then listen to their fucken Ti. Ok ok your an expert. I think you acted extremely rude disparaging for absolutely no reason. Youd better grow thicker skin on this site if my comment attracted this much of a rude rant from you you sure will be picking fights everyday as theres people who seriously generalize everyday far worse then me. 

Oh and by the way 'expert' when I generalize I dont think its because I know everything, I am totally categorizing people similar to how my type can be prone to profiling people. But I do factor in all the functions and orders and types. When I wrote a generic answer in 1 of how many threads it certainly did not invite this much hostility. 

Oh yeah what you bolded btw lol seriously get over yourself. It was a very simple generalization off the INTP I know. 



> The MBTI is wasted when it's merely used as an identity, and not for personal growth. Maybe someday you'll understand that emotions aren't the devil, that trying to kill them off and become a purely cerebral machine is not only futile but also results in hurting those you actually do care about, and then you'll want to grow up somewhat too just like I do.


Learn some fucking manners. You do not know me and certainly have no place assuming so much. Off of a very generic post. You have no idea about any of my emotions or what I chose to expose or develop or not but I assure you its not your place to speculate off of such a generic post and come at anyone like that. You seriously giving me a lecture on Fe. Your inferior Fe is evident in your entire post. It shows by even knowing your place and how to express it. My Tert Fe is going to tell your 'expert' inferior not self typed ass to learn some boundaries and be a bit more selective on who you come at and how you come at them. Cripes. Who the fuck do you think you are. I didnt need to see a specialist to tell me to develop my Fe (lucky me) and had you known anything about me before you assumed and speculated so much while whining about generalizing and stereotyping yet coming to crazy conclusions about a stranger. Youd know I actually do have a soft side and do not think T is for robots. 

Excuse the fuck out of you.

Oh yeah @Corah there are a few certified MBTI experts on this site who know their shit and are a pleasure to listen to their explanations. They dont go thru the threads quoting everyone and making empty assumptions while bitching about generalizing. Talk about hypocrisy. You should just keep coming at everyone on the site with wild assumptions about them while using your own experience and study as a level of expert card. Right ok then.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Prada said:


> I agreed with everything else but I strongly disagree with this. Te-doms are more logical because we evaluate facts. Ti-doms make their own conclusion based on personal logic. However, Te-doms will be more set on "protecting" their conclusions due to Fi while Ti-doms will be more flexible due to Fe. I'm not saying Ti-doms won't protect their conclusions or that Te-doms can't change their mind. Though, Te-doms need facts that go against their opinion rather than someone arguing with feelings or subjective logic. But saying that a T function that uses personal logic is more logical (to a fellow Ti-dom maybe) than a T function that uses objective facts, seems very off.
> 
> Te-dom way of thinking is easily replicated. You have a fact A, a fact B and together they imply C. Of course, once we see fact A or fact B in wrong light or understand them wrongly we can make illogical conclusions. But Ti-dom logic is very rooted in self rather than outside world and they would need to specifically describe their thinking process for everyone to understand their conclusions.


You make some very interesting points. I can see how this could be interpreted this way, but the reason that subjective Ti dom is different than one might expect is due to the fact that generally speaking, Ti dom users (with an actual developed Ti) aren't actually stuck on subjective logic as "Introverted / Subjective Thinking" might make it sound. The reason for this is that most Ti users are able to see _multiple _subjective truths, from _multiple _peoples' views, while also comparing and contrasting many different ones, without personal attachment to any with their Fe, which actually causes them to be more _objective_ and, since NTJ is more concerned with just moving forward and NTP more concerned with accuracy than productivity, Ti dom is also more thorough prior to moving forward with something. However, that's contingent on whether you define logic as "accuracy" or "efficiency".

Say for instance that a Te dom needs a square to get some sort of job done. Where Te might find one and see, "Ok, there's a square there. Got it. Move on. That's all that I needed," the Ti user will (from Te perspective waste time on) examining all the different sides and say, "well wait, when you look from these other sides, it's actually a cube! Oh hey, and it opens...what's inside..." and then go into what kind of cube it is, why it's that kind, how it _could be_ improved, where it fits, _what else_ it can _possibly_ be used for, _what else it can possibly_ become, how it got there, _where it could_ go, etc. and then go and find more cubes and find out other _possible _perspectives on said cubes, (Ti's theme word is _"possibilities"_) but in many cases never actually 'get the job done' at all lol...ENTJs don't want to waste time on that, not without there being an actual end goal or purpose. They don't typically stop with no objective in mind, especially in that much detail. To them, it's pointless. 

ENTJ will have 5 houses built, each with an increasingly better material, before INTP is done researching what the best materials to use for one of them are. That's why ENTJs and INTPs can potentially go so well together, bc the INTPs can kind of be like information sources (and therefore the shadow / support role) to ENTJs, while ENTJs can help get INTPs moving forward a little more and not get so caught up in what I like to call "analysis paralysis." Personally, I absolutely *LOVE* ENTJs, even if I find some aspects of them a bit challenging at times. If I ever end up with a guy, I hope to find an ENTJ.

Ti are skeptical, questioning, truth seekers. While Te may take some statistic's word for it and move on until proven otherwise, Ti needs to subjectively experience it for itself, thinking, "well maybe that guy over there was wrong...lemme learn about this subjectively and test it out for myself" and proceed in spending a lot of time analyzing the differences between a plethora of peoples' subjective truths, and universal truths; in this regard therefore, Ti is in some ways _more _objective and impersonal, due to being more skeptical of what truth _could be,_ or "best"_ could be,_ etc. Some INTP's drive themselves to the brink of literal suicide even, trying to figure out what the universal / objective truth which can be applied to everyone is, looking for whatever is the most concrete and absolute, not moving forward in anything without having that. In conclusion: there's not one universal truth, for most things...which is why often times INTPs will be agnostic, or not know what they believe in in life, or be so readily open-minded and eager to listen to new perspectives without judgment, able to "think in other peoples' shoes" and argue many sides of a debate from many different perspectives. I think ENTPs are much faster at this than INTPs, but INTPs will go into their heads more and think longer in order to ascertain more accuracy. *Basically, Ti dom users are "truth seekers" who remain detached from our own subjective beliefs (because of Fe instead of Fi). It's less objective to take your own subjective views and beliefs (Te/Fi, which says, "This is the best for this thing until proven otherwise." Decisive, even if because "science says so" or something) into deeper consideration than the big picture of the entire universe's (Ti/Fe, which says "Is this the best for every thing and everyone, and how do I really know that I know that I know?" Questioning, not trusting anything but their own subjective/personal/firsthand logical trials)*

*However, your response also has inspired further thought, and I now also realize...how do you define "logical"???
Te dom will make a decision and move forward more, collecting corrections along the way...whereas Ti dom can invest so much time and effort in exhaustively processing, truth seeking, weighing, and trying to be as accurate as possible, that we become stagnant and don't move in any direction at all...to some, that scenario can be considered quite irrational, especially when really, what's "logical" all comes down to what one chooses to believe is logical. Thanks for the added insight.*


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@SensationalCinnamon

Skimmed, and not interested in reading such an emotionally reactive response to what was clearly objective reasoning. Nobody's being arrogant, etc. You're just assuming and processing via emotions, unable to be objective. I'm not on here for emotionally charged conflict, I'm on here for rational and logical discussions, sharing ideas, etc. If you disagree with something I said, please instead debate it calmly and rationally, and support it with logical reasoning. If the only support you have for your disagreement is the personal emotional offense you took to something that wasn't even intended that way, I'm really just not interested in wasting my time, as this is not conducive to learning, etc. and is not my problem that you aren't mature enough to handle a discussion you started by inputting some very illogical two cents.

*Nothing I said was emotionally charged or arrogant. Frankly, I'm not here saying these things to be "right," I'm saying them to see how my logic stands up to others and putting my theories to the test in the middle of anyone who would like to come along and logically shred my thoughts so that I can learn to be more accurate, or see how accurate I am. If you're going to attempt to prove someone wrong though, it's only reasonable and common sense to expect a debate if they see a flaw in your argument. I don't care if people prove me wrong, if anything I thank and respect their competence if they can. If they can't, I respect them when they have the humility to admit it instead of getting upset because their ego gets hurt when they're wrong. Anyone who doesn't have this mindset when they set out to debate or discuss a somewhat controversial subject, is going to have a bad time. It wasn't rational whatsoever to come along and type someone from a few mere sentences, and professionals don't do that. Lol. Anyway, have a good day and peace out, friend.*


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

I actually got the idea a while ago - and have gotten some confirmation since - that Thinkers actually feel emotion more strongly than Feelers, we just keep it to ourselves better:

Feelers have Weak emotions some of the time, Medium emotions most of the time, and Strong emotions some of the time. Thinkers do not have a Medium setting; we go straight from Off to High and back (and forth).

Feelers think that we are computers because we do not have emotions, when really we are computers because our emotions are binary :wink:


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Corah said:


> However, your response also has inspired further thought, and I now also realize...how do you define "logical"???
> Te dom will make a decision and move forward more, collecting corrections along the way...whereas Ti dom can invest *so* much time and effort in _exhaustively_ processing, truth seeking, weighing, and trying to be as accurate as possible, that we become stagnant and don't move in any direction at all...to some, that scenario can be considered quite irrational, especially when really, what's "logical" all comes down to what one chooses to believe is logical.


This makes sense and I can definitely agree with this. I guess you equate logic with precision while I equate it with objectivity. If an ENTJ refuses to accept they are wrong, they're unhealthy and I don't think we should go into that. However, ENTJs usually research as much as they can before making conclusions. It's not like I just learn about something make an opinion and I'm willing to fight for death to defend it. No, sometimes, when the issue is complex, I research for months before making a conclusion. Until I know all sides of the problem that I can know and facts that are involved, I refrain from making an opinion, and if I get into a situation where it is discussed I pass along facts. "This is what I found out." rather than "This is what I think about it." 

That being said, even in discussion a healthy ENTJ will use facts and not their opinions. The reason why we seem to be satisfied with less research is because of our Se, which drives us to act and because of our inferior Fi which CAN be satisfied with not making an opinion just yet. Even now, I have lots of facts regarding a lot of current global issues stored in my head without having an opinion on them because I can't be sure just yet. And often, I seem to argue for both sides, simply because I'm just bringing facts into the discussion rather than my conclusions. Which is something that drives Feelers crazy. Te is about making conclusions efficiently based on facts rather than opinions of others.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Corah said:


> @SensationalCinnamon
> 
> Skimmed, and not interested in reading such an emotionally reactive response to what was clearly objective reasoning. Nobody's being arrogant, etc. You're just assuming and processing via emotions, unable to be objective. I'm not on here for emotionally charged conflict, I'm on here for rational and logical discussions, sharing ideas, etc. Nothing I said was emotionally charged or arrogant. If you disagree with something I said, please instead debate it calmly and rationally, and support it with logical reasoning. If the only support you have for your disagreement is the personal emotional offense you took to something that wasn't even intended that way, I'm really just not interested in wasting my time, as this is not conducive to learning, etc. and is not my problem that you aren't mature enough to handle a discussion you gave some very illogical two cents on. Frankly, I'm not here saying these things to be "right," I'm saying them to see how my logic stands up to others and putting my theories to the test in the middle of anyone who would like to come along and logically shred my thoughts so that I can learn to be more accurate, or see how accurate I am. I don't care if people prove me wrong, if anything I thank and respect them if they can prove me wrong. Anyone who doesn't have this mindset when they set out to debate a subject, is going to have a bad time. It wasn't rational whatsoever to come along and type someone from a few mere sentences, and professionals don't do that. Lol. Think before you feel next time. Peace out, friend.


You came at me and made alot of assumptions. 

Your gaslighting and pretentious and condescending. And your using 'logic' as a defense. 

Also your specifically quoting several people (not just me). And going out of your way to make assumptions. If youd like to speak logic you should try actually questioning a persons statements specific rather then speculate, & make assumptions. 

And then when you get a response telling you how rude you are your dismissive. 

Stop using 'logic' as a scapegoat. Your not entitled to come at people in assumption on personally speculating off a few sentences and write a page on it. (To someones few sentences). And then when they respond and put you in your place act dismissive and like the person is redundant. 

If youd like to discuss something with logic I could do that if youd like to talk about the functions and debate fine. I can discuss and politely disagree fine with a polite person. But please do not come at me and speculate about me as a person again off a few sentences with your subjective 'expert' knowledge. Also mind you most people who are open to critical thinking and 'logic' can listen to other perspectives. Your dismissive and instantly use emotion as a scapegoat when your original response to me was full of emotion all over.

Are you not capable tho of debating the subject at hand without inserting insult after insult and speculating so much about a person you dont know? 

You have questioned my maturity, intelligence, emotions etc all off of my putting a few sentences on typing, and your saying I am emotionally charged. 

Please dont condescendingly call me 'friend' again, my friends would never speak to me like that.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> I actually got the idea a while ago - and have gotten some confirmation since - that Thinkers actually feel emotion more strongly than Feelers, we just keep it to ourselves better:
> 
> Feelers have Weak emotions some of the time, Medium emotions most of the time, and Strong emotions some of the time. Thinkers do not have a Medium setting; we go straight from Off to High and back (and forth).
> 
> Feelers think that we are computers because we do not have emotions, when really we are computers because our emotions are binary :wink:


You know what, I actually had some very similar thoughts for a while. The thing that gets me wondering is...sometimes "dom/aux feelers" do feel things when "dom/aux thinkers" don't, or react to things we don't. Does that mean it's comparing apples to oranges, because the frequency is as varied as the intensity? I wonder what neurological scans on this would look like? Hmmm. Jungarian theory is interesting, and so eye opening. It's been there for so long, and yet we still know so relatively little about it.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pri...her-types-understood-about-their-personality/


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

BlueBlack said:


> INTJ vs INFJ vs INTP
> 
> All you guys out there, hello.
> Im trying to find my type, I'm not an intp but id like to know too. I seem to be going back and forth between intj and infj. In a cognitive function test i did, i got NI, Ti, Ne Te, Fe, Fi, Si, Se. I don't usually display my emotions, but I'm aware of them. I have a high EQ so its weird. They drive me insane at times. I don't put my emotions before me, Its inconsistent. I feel empty when i ignore them but feel scattered when i try to acknowledge them. I rationalise and analyse my emotions, but when I'm stressed out, i tend to react impulsively and my emotions overthrow me.
> ...


This is a bit too general, could you give more information?

Emotions vs emotions vs emotions....whut? It's how you deal with them not that you were dealt them at all.

I can relate to what you wrote and I think most people would.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Prada said:


> This makes sense and I can definitely agree with this. I guess you equate logic with precision while I equate it with objectivity. If an ENTJ refuses to accept they are wrong, they're unhealthy and I don't think we should go into that. However, ENTJs usually research as much as they can before making conclusions. It's not like I just learn about something make an opinion and I'm willing to fight for death to defend it. No, sometimes, when the issue is complex, I research for months before making a conclusion. Until I know all sides of the problem that I can know and facts that are involved, I refrain from making an opinion, and if I get into a situation where it is discussed I pass along facts. "This is what I found out." rather than "This is what I think about it."
> 
> That being said, even in discussion a healthy ENTJ will use facts and not their opinions. The reason why we seem to be satisfied with less research is because of our Se, which drives us to act and because of our inferior Fi which CAN be satisfied with not making an opinion just yet. Even now, I have lots of facts regarding a lot of current global issues stored in my head without having an opinion on them because I can't be sure just yet. And often, I seem to argue for both sides, simply because I'm just bringing facts into the discussion rather than my conclusions. Which is something that drives Feelers crazy. Te is about making conclusions efficiently based on facts rather than opinions of others.


Sorry, I should have been more clear:
I meant all types do both, just like INTPs are perfectly capable of, and often do, form conclusions and move forward. I gave extreme examples, but we all use both Ti & Te functions. Not that Te jumps to conclusions and never thinks first, just that Te is just much faster at moving things along *as compared to* Ti, and it's usually for some sort of end goal whereas Ti is generally more haphazard. Also, the obsession with definition of things "define this even, define that even...what IS 'success' even? etc." is classic Ti dom. Te doesn't do that...not that YOU don't do that, but just that when you do, that is not Te at work. It's you using Ti.
roud:


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Corah said:


> Sorry, I should have been more clear:
> I meant all types do both, just like INTPs are perfectly capable of, and often do, form conclusions and move forward. I gave extreme examples, but we all use both Ti & Te functions. Not that Te jumps to conclusions and never thinks first, just that Te is just much faster at moving things along *as compared to* Ti, and it's usually for some sort of end goal whereas Ti is generally more haphazard. Also, the obsession with definition of things "define this, define that even" is classic Ti. Te doesn't do that...not that YOU don't do that, but just that when you do, that is not Te at work. It's you using your shadow function roud:


Alright then, I concur. The way you worded it before sounded as if you were describing Tx-doms in general rather than Tx as functions. Well, Ti seems to be my best developed shadow function. :wink:


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Prada said:


> Alright then, I concur. The way you worded it before sounded as if you were describing Tx-doms in general rather than Tx as functions. Well, Ti seems to be my best developed shadow function. :wink:


Yeah, I was up for over 24 hours straight when I was saying that. Lol. Whoops.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Prada said:


> Alright then, I concur. The way you worded it before sounded as if you were describing Tx-doms in general rather than Tx as functions. Well, Ti seems to be my best developed shadow function. :wink:


*In Short:*
You may or may not care to read this, but upon further reflection, I decided I wanted to add something. What I was trying to explain before is that INTP's (Ti dom) can be more logical because it's more open-minded/open to alternatives/more of an explorer...cognitively speaking. However, I realize now that would be better summarized as, "more informed prior to concluding." Whether or not one is more logical than the other is open to subjective interpretation, circumstance, etc., there is no actual objectively correct / concrete answer, because they are different _kinds_ of logic, each surpassing the other more in one area than another, and therefore not comparable.

I can't tell anyone what type they are, but if waiting to form the most accurate conclusion possible most of the time...that has Ti all over it, not Te. _Not saying you're not an ENTJ, you're the only one who can decide that. I don't know you._

-----

*In Depth Elaboration:*

*Speaking From My Own Insights (From Eclectic Sources I Have Connected):*


> What I was trying to explain before is that INTP's (Ti dom) can be more logical because it's more open-minded/open to alternatives/more of an explorer...cognitively speaking.


That's _not_ to say that all ENTJ's (Te doms) are closed minded, but that most INTP's are more open-minded _as in what society labels and defines open-mindedness as._ INTP is not necessarily always more _open_ to new possibilities than ENTJ, but is often perceived and stereotyped to be due to the fact that INTP's are filled with more uncertainty and skepticism towards closure, therefore more eager to search for alternatives _prior_ to forming conclusions. So in a sense, some INTP's _can also be_ considered more objective than ENTJ's in spite of using Ti instead of Te, if they're holding onto subjective beliefs less (usually because of Fe vs Fi)...here's why broken down even further:

_Classic _ENTJ's: have been known to get stuck on a thing and not care what anyone says about it unless you can debate and prove otherwise. Right until you can prove them wrong (and the more mature ones will even thank you for this). The more immature stubborn ones, there is no otherwise unless they come up with it themselves...right until proven otherwise.

_Classic_ INTP: isn't like that, as they tend to question why right off the bat, and when they ask why like that, it's not to argue their own point, but to consider the alternative (though they might argue, too, but it isn't to be right or to "win," it's just to test and play devil's advocate in order to find the most logical way. A classic INTP will more often be 100% skeptical of their own argument, but still argue it.) Even in a stubborn / egotistical INTP, if they walk away as if they're right, deep down they'll most likely be doubting and reconsidering it later.



-----


*Speaking From Information Gathered From Official Documentation:*
Minus the really crummy example used to portray detailed observation vs moving forward


Te is more environmental.
Ti is more internal.
An ENTJ's Te might cause them to say, "Space your hands out when carrying that, it's more logical because you have a firmer grip, more balance, more stability."
Ti Dom might reply, "But what _is_ logic even?..." and then want to proceed with exploring the definition of logic, only to come up with 5476843968370 circumstantial variations of the word, which branches into just as many uses for each definition, and the uses branch into just as many "if, when" scenari-- you get where I'm going. That's why it can stress out an INTP to listen to an ENTJ rant, because a lot of times they'll want to interject, "wait, but what if this or that?...you're going too far in depth, because it depends on this or that!"
Te Dom might reply to Ti, "Right now, logic is what gets this thing over there as quickly and efficiently as possible. Focus, let's go."
Later after the job is done, they might both relax and emotionally connect over a nice debate about "What really is more logical, and when?" (Nightmare fuel to F's.)

INTP's can drive ENTJ's nuts because it wants to just move forward.
And vice versa.
ENTJ's can drive INTP's nuts because they can feel like ENTJ's are jumping too in depth into things too fast without knowing all the details...but once INTP's explore all the details, it might come back with an even more logical way than that later once it has time to think about it, and help ENTJ restructure to find that "new most logical way" that they may not have otherwise thought of, since they are not as eager to explore new possibilities (doesn't necessarily mean they aren't open to them or welcoming of them, it just means that they don't seek them out as eagerly as INTP).


*Speaking From Personal Subjective Experience:*
I personally have noticed that INTP's can be very whimsical in our views, or when mediating in an argument between people with two opposing logical views, find ourselves not knowing what to think anymore because we see both sides. ENTJ's are more inclined to stick to a thing until proven otherwise, and don't have that same problem.

Both can be open-minded, but with different patterns of open-mindedness.
INTP: Open until confirmed; then confirmed until reopened for a damn good reason.
ENTJ: Firm until reopened, for a damn good reason.
INTP's question things more, which is why if we actually are firm on something for once, we're a lot more difficult to argue than normal, and people _might _say things like, "why are you being so stubborn suddenly, this isn't like you."

I have an ENTJ dad who also considers new possibilities, he can be surprisingly open-minded (most don't see that he is though), but I frequently have to debate with him to get him to consider a new possibility.
For example, once he said "You're only as strong as your weakest link" *and when I questioned it (of course I did, there's that Ti skepticism toward hard statements if we haven't confirmed it for ourselves by first considering every other possible alternative), he insisted to the point where I had to debate for 2 hours to get him to see why that's not always necessarily the case...not because he was stubborn as most people do assume, but because we had to go through every single reason why he thought that, so that I could derail each individual reason with counter logic.*

It's like his reasons are support beams holding up a tower, and in order to get him to replace the tower, I have to first knock out all the support beams. *If *I can do that, he's more than happy to implement the "better, more logical" tower.
*Contrariwise, when he is presenting a new thing to me, the very first thing I do is instead ask why...and then if it's complex or entirely new, I'll go think on it...and think on it...and think on it...THEN come back and debate it or elaborate on why I agree, and collect even more information from him. That's caused by my Ti dom + Ne aux. It's also what society considers "more open minded."*

The very fact that they hold onto such a concept so firmly is what at least I perceive as both an irrational AND a subjective attachment to an idea, which they are likely holding onto because of the way they view it with their subjective Fi. An INTP that is well aware that its logic is subjective, suddenly perceives many subjective views and seeks "the most objective" until finally realizing that it all leads to nowhere, and coming to terms with the fact that there actually is no universally objective truth. I have observed some other ENTJ type firm believers of things, and *when they bump their logic against each other, the only thing truly firm about any of it is their attachment to the ideologies. This is even worse among logical debate between two Enneagram 8 ENTJ's. Alphas. Neither of them usually win.* There is a reason neither of them can win, and that reason is USUALLY, "it depends." Yet still, they often don't realize they're doing this, and truly do believe they're right unless something is so hardcore that they legitimately cannot believe it anymore. Of course, those are MY OWN interpretations on how I subjectively perceive it (Si is at work here), and could possibly acquire information that causes me to nullify this observation.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Corah said:


> *In Short:*
> You may or may not care to read this, but upon further reflection, I decided I wanted to add something. What I was trying to explain before is that INTP's (Ti dom) can be more logical because it's more open-minded/open to alternatives/more of an explorer...cognitively speaking. However, I realize now that would be better summarized as, "more informed prior to concluding." Whether or not one is more logical than the other is open to subjective interpretation, circumstance, etc., there is no actual objectively correct / concrete answer, because they are different _kinds_ of logic, each surpassing the other more in one area than another, and therefore not comparable.


Yes, I see what you mean now. That clears it up and I agree, Ti-doms are better informed when making conclusion than Te-doms. Since it's something that comes from Ti itself.



Corah said:


> I can't tell anyone what type they are, but if waiting to form the most accurate conclusion possible most of the time...that has Ti all over it, not Te. _Not saying you're not an ENTJ, you're the only one who can decide that. I don't know you._


I'll just say that making an assessment about one's functions from one line taken out of context is reckless. Also, I don't think anyone _decides_ they're type, they can only discover it. It's not a favourite colour.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Prada said:


> I'll just say that making an assessment about one's functions from one line taken out of context is reckless. Also, I don't think anyone _decides_ they're type, they can only discover it. It's not a favourite colour.


I didn't make an assessment. I said "...IF waiting to form..." because I don't know, which is why I never claimed to.
And yes, "discover" would have been a better word to convey what I meant. Thank you for helping me to clarify my articulation.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

*I actually thought you were responding to me initially (telling me I an not an INTP because of a post I wrote about Fx functions) because I'd been up for over 24 hours, and because I was the only one who had been active on this post for a long time. So yeeaaah...sorry about that bit. 

But there IS one thing I want to respond to anyways...*




> thinks they are a fucking expert because they spent $600 rather then listen to their fucken Ti.


Actually, INTP's are statistically the most notorious types to seek professional help, because we over analyze our type and struggle to come to a firm conclusion by factoring in so much "if / when / grey area" that we don't firmly trust our own MBTI Type conclusions about ourselves. I invested 2 years into trying to figure out my type before finally getting so tired of it that I made the decision to seek a practitioner. _So basically, it's *because of my Ti*&Ne that I went to a professional, rather than me not using my Ti._ And no, having sought professional assistance in finding my type does not mean I think _I_ am an expert. It just means I know _you _don't know more than an expert, and as I said, I mistakenly read it as though you were responding to the post I'd just made. Damned sleep deprivation...sorry.

Just kick me in the shin
:tongue:

or maybe the brain...


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Morn said:


> Emotions are selfish and irrational. I do not trust them, I do not make decisions based on them.
> 
> The question to ask when you're deciding to do something, how much value do you give to how it will make you feel as opposed to the benefits and results of the outcome. Do you care more about being impartial and objective or care more about how it will make people feel?


Not all emotions are selfish and irrational just as not all logic means being a dick. Grow up.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

bruh said:


> Not all emotions are selfish and irrational just as not all logic means being a dick. Grow up.


How can an emotion possibly be rational?
Also, emotions are fundamentally selfish. Even for altruistic are in the end about the satisfaction one has for doing something for another. True concern for others only comes from a logically thought out philosophy.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Morn said:


> How can an emotion possibly be rational?
> Also, emotions are fundamentally selfish. Even for altruistic are in the end about the satisfaction one has for doing something for another. True concern for others only comes from a logically thought out philosophy.



What a narrow worldview you have. Emotions are also the reason you're alive.
An ignorant person could say the same, thinkers are emotionally dry, inconsiderate of others feelings and morally bankrupt.
That is not true. Each function has good and bad side. Both F and T need eachother.

True concern for others can only come from logic how so?


----------



## technoman (Nov 3, 2021)

PPM said:


> I think my actions are influenced by my emotions way way more than I am consciously aware. But that probably has more to do with enneagram and factors like my fear of being incompetent, or just me being impulsive. On a conscious level I dislike my thoughts/analysis being clouded by my personal values. When I feel strong emotions I tend to wallow in them and have no clue how to deal with them, so I just withdraw from the world until I calm down.
> 
> If you are undecided between INTJ and INFJ, I would suggest trying to figure out if you relate more to Fe or Fi. As an INTP I have no qualms about 'faking' an emotion externally to smooth out a situation. My ability to do so is pretty poor but I would assume that people with Fi would be less comfortable with the notion of externalizing an emotion they don't actually feel (not to say that they can't).


Well then: I have Fi (I definitely have a strong moral compass and honor mindset)
but also use Fe a lot recently. Fe developed recently for me imo, so I prolly used to be an INTJ, now am an almost solid INxJ. Sometimes I act like either type. And INFP characteristics thrown into the mix on occasion


----------

