# Is "feeler" really just a nice label for someone who is spoiled rotten?



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

I've wondered this because most of the feeling people I know don't even expect to have to do anything to be rewarded. Like they act like children; Tyrannical, using underhanded remarks to intentionally hurt people who question their attitudes, judgements, ect. and throwing fits whenever something doesn't go their way where they again, intentionally hurt people who may not have even known they were doing anything wrong to begin with. And yet despite all of this horrendous behavior, they expect others to respect them and act as though they are totally justified in their decisions to hurt others and complicate what should be purely rational matters. What is this, and do you think it's justified? Isn't this really just spoiled behavior and not a mere preference for "feeling"?


----------



## azir (Sep 28, 2016)

no


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

"Feeler" is an uncomplicated label for someone who prefers to make judgements on the basis of value as opposed to function/utility.

Maybe just don't spend time with people who suck, there isn't that much to overthink here. You don't have to puzzle over peoples motives when they're ultimately self-serving ones, and that way you avoid the appearance of trying to uncharitably encapsulate their nature under some self-serving label that allows you to exact some kind of pseudo-revenge/justice over them because they're all stupid self absorbed feelers or whatever argument it is you're trying to build up for some value-driven yet opaque reason.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Maybe start with the basics, go and read about MBTI on Wikipedia or something.


----------



## lavendersnow (Jan 13, 2016)

Perhaps you don't understand what 'feeler' means if you feel that way. 

People seem to forget that *everyone* uses thinking and feeling functions. No one only feels or thinks. And feeler does not mean emotional, tyrannical child. Feeler is short for someone who places the importance of many of their decisions of whether they are ethical or moral in their world. The same as Thinkers believe their decisions are more logical or reasonable than others. They both boil down to the same thing - what you think is right. Those labels are only good for one thing - what you're more likely to label your 'brilliant' ideas as "I'm so ethical/moral" versus "I'm so logical/reasonable".

'Feeler' is a stupid label as all people think and feel, even if they don't recognise that they do. It is a misleading word which allows uneducated, biased folks to undermine the worth of others. If you don't like these people in your life, stop hanging out with them. _Think _ about it, it's not that hard.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

lavendersnow said:


> Perhaps you don't understand what 'feeler' means if you feel that way.
> 
> People seem to forget that *everyone* uses thinking and feeling functions. No one only feels or thinks. And feeler does not mean emotional, tyrannical child. Feeler is short for someone who places the importance of many of their decisions of whether they are ethical or moral in their world. The same as Thinkers believe their decisions are more logical or reasonable than others. They both boil down to the same thing - what you think is right. Those labels are only good for one thing - what you're more likely to label your 'brilliant' ideas as "I'm so ethical/moral" versus "I'm so logical/reasonable".
> 
> 'Feeler' is a stupid label as all people think and feel, even if they don't recognise that they do. It is a misleading word which allows uneducated, biased folks to undermine the worth of others. If you don't like these people in your life, stop hanging out with them. _Think _ about it, it's not that hard.


+1 

1. Being a thinker does not mean that you are more intelligent, have better ideas or better / more informed opinions than feelers.
2. Feeling is not irrational.
3. Feeling and thinking are _not_ opposites.


----------



## lavendersnow (Jan 13, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> +1
> 
> 1. Being a thinker does not mean that you are more intelligent, have better ideas or better / more informed opinions than feelers.
> 2. Feeling is not irrational.
> 3. Feeling and thinking are _not_ opposites.


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

*Is &quot;feeler&quot; really just a nice label for someone who is spoiled rotten?*

no. Apart what everyone has already said, being spoilt is not exclusive to 'Feelers' but to do with the environment you're used to/grew up in/level of maturity. Everyone can be perceived as spoilt if their behaviour clashes with what you perceive to be normal, mature behaviour.
'Feelers' are not spoilt rotten. Some are, but that's people. Not type.


----------



## Enterprise (Oct 23, 2016)

patadia said:


> no


patadia knows what's up.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

RainIsMyColour said:


> no. Apart what everyone has already said, being spoilt is not exclusive to 'Feelers' but to do with the environment you're used to/grew up in/level of maturity. Everyone can be perceived as spoilt if their behaviour clashes with what you perceive to be normal, mature behaviour.
> 'Feelers' are not spoilt rotten. Some are, but that's people. Not type.


Meh, I think maturity and psychological temperament are closely related.


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

Brown bear said:


> Meh, I think maturity and psychological temperament are closely related.


could be. But maturity is also in the eye of the beholder. Much more plays into it than type.

Maybe the feelers you met specifically are spoilt brats, I don't know. Not met them. Maybe they are immature. But that doesn't mean all are. Just like all thinkers aren't unemotional robots.


----------



## bremen (Apr 25, 2016)

People aren't 100% thinkers or feelers anyway.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

This is purely a maturity issue not a mbti issue.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

RainIsMyColour said:


> could be. But maturity is also in the eye of the beholder. Much more plays into it than type.
> 
> Maybe the feelers you met specifically are spoilt brats, I don't know. Not met them. Maybe they are immature. But that doesn't mean all are. Just like all thinkers aren't unemotional robots.


See the thing is, I've never seen thinkers as particularly robotic, I always saw that as more of a feeler thing. Thinkers actually have very deep feelings, hence our desire to hide them from the world and repress them through our thinking function. Feelers, on the other hand, seem to use their emotions as more of a tool to get what they want via manipulation. At least that's what I've observed on a fairly consistent basis.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> This is purely a maturity issue not a mbti issue.


I don't think it would be totally out of the question to say that certain MBTI types are more mature than others on average. Not out of the question at all.


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

*Is &quot;feeler&quot; really just a nice label for someone who is spoiled rotten?*



Brown bear said:


> See the thing is, I've never seen thinkers as particularly robotic, I always saw that as more of a feeler thing. Thinkers actually have very deep feelings, hence our desire to hide them from the world and repress them through our thinking function. Feelers, on the other hand, seem to use their emotions as more of a tool to get what they want via manipulation. At least that's what I've observed on a fairly consistent basis.


What I meant was that people on the outside can't observe Thinkers feelings easily precisely because they are deep and mostly hidden, plus the reliance on logic-based decisions. That's what gives some the 'robot' impression. Maybe that already gives more of an advantage to be less 'spoilt'.

You could also argue that those who are spoilt aren't introspective enough to question themselves and realise they're spoilt. That has absolutely nothing to do with being logic or moral based, just to what degree you are ready to face inner demons/your fears.

The Thinkers I've met and know are 'hard' in that they follow logical principles, but I've never assumed for a single moment they don't have feelings or deserve to be treated as someone who is more obvious. People are more than what you see on the surface. There is a reason for everything they do, say, act like, who they are, what made them that way.

What you've observed are manipulative people, fullstop. Maybe they're Feelers. But neither is exclusive or dependent on the other. Thinkers are capable of manipulation just as well as Feelers are; it depends on one's worldview and morals.

You do realise you are judging and marginalising pretty much half the world's population based on what you think is the whole truth?


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

RainIsMyColour said:


> What I meant was that people on the outside can't observe Thinkers feelings easily precisely because they are deep and mostly hidden, plus the reliance on logic-based decisions. That's what gives some the 'robot' impression. Maybe that already gives more of an advantage to be less 'spoilt'.
> 
> You could also argue that those who are spoilt aren't introspective enough to question themselves and realise they're spoilt. That has absolutely nothing to do with being logic or moral based, just to what degree you are ready to face inner demons/your fears.
> 
> ...


Yes, and from my own life experience, feelers have been far more likely to display manipulative behaviors. I don't think they are even fully conscious that they are being manipulative when they do things that are indeed manipulative, but nonetheless they still do them, and at a far greater rate than your average thinker. They are also experts at shifting blame away from themselves and on to others, especially ExFx's. Obviously not every feeler is this way but I think on average they do it far more than thinkers. This is something I've observed on a fairly consistent basis with feelers, they're just so reactionary that they don't always think before they act and thus can wind up doing some pretty bad/morally questionable things. Again, you don't have to agree, purely my observations.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

Brown bear said:


> I've wondered this because most of the feeling people I know don't even expect to have to do anything to be rewarded. Like they act like children; Tyrannical, using underhanded remarks to intentionally hurt people who question their attitudes, judgements, ect. and throwing fits whenever something doesn't go their way where they again, intentionally hurt people who may not have even known they were doing anything wrong to begin with. And yet despite all of this horrendous behavior, they expect others to respect them and act as though they are totally justified in their decisions to hurt others and complicate what should be purely rational matters. What is this, and do you think it's justified? Isn't this really just spoiled behavior and not a mere preference for "feeling"?


If you aren't trolling, it seems likely that you know some immature people who irritate you, and that you're 
generalizing all feelers to be like those people who annoy you. There could be some psychological projection from yourself going on here also. Is there something about the way you behave that causes people to act like this around you? Perhaps you, yourself, act very immature around people and cause exasperation in them?


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

Brown bear said:


> Yes, and from my own life experience, feelers have been far more likely to display manipulative behaviors. I don't think they are even fully conscious that they are being manipulative when they do things that are indeed manipulative, but nonetheless they still do them, and at a far greater rate than your average thinker. They are also experts at shifting blame away from themselves and on to others, especially ExFx's. Obviously not every feeler is this way but I think on average they do it far more than thinkers. This is something I've observed on a fairly consistent basis with feelers, they're just so reactionary that they don't always think before they act and thus can wind up doing some pretty bad/morally questionable things. Again, you don't have to agree, purely my observations.


lmaooooo. 

Being bad and morally questionable. #lifegoals


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

lavendersnow said:


> And feeler does not mean emotional, tyrannical child.


*This* is one of the greatest misconceptions I see around these parts. One thing I thought of as well, is that whenever people see someone who has emotional outbursts, the immediate assumption and label is "unhealthy Feeler", when Inferior Feeling would explain uncontrollable emotional outbursts way more. Just food for thought.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Certainty said:


> How is that even possible? My dominant function is Ne and it's the most prominent personality trait that you see about me. I can't use Te that well. If I could, I'd be an ESTJ instead. Your argument makes no sense here. We do not choose which functions we use. If we could, I'd be an ISTJ instead since they're so badass. But I'm not one and I'll never be one
> 
> No bro, just because you're capable of introspection, doesn't make you good at. An ESFJ could be better at introspection than you are. And just because you make fast decisions, they needn't be wrong. Again, an ESFJ could be better at it than you. You don't have the time to introspect sometimes. Sometimes fast decisions need to be made. Extroverts are so much better at it than introverts will ever be.


Wow, how low are you willing to stoop to prove me wrong? I'm concerned for you?


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @*Brown bear*
> 
> Where did you get this idea from? There are plenty of emotional thinkers and logical feelers out there. I think perhaps you need to recognize that F/T is just about how people make value judgments. Thinkers value their thoughts whereas feelers value their feelings.
> 
> ...


Admit that thoughts have more value in how they can serve others than feelings. Acting upon how YOU feel in the moment with no consideration of the facts and realities and how it could affect others is really just selfish. I would also argue that "feeling" and making decisions based solely of of feeling is really just shallow thinking.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> Stop right there. You saying its a choice what functions you use is tantamount to some of the worst arguments used against other groups of people (ohh you can choose to be religion/sexual orientation/nationality/etc..) These types of statements do nothing but demean people to be less than human by saying they could choose otherwise. It is a part of who they are and they are still your equals in humanity. Implying superiority because of some trait you may have that other groups don't is despicable.
> 
> Introverts are no more superior than Extroverts
> Sensers are no more superior than Intuitiveness
> ...


I disagree with you that acting to save others with no second thought or concern for ones self is mature. I find it the exact opposite. A mature person respects both him/herself and others and therefore wouldn't be likely to put themselves in any immediate danger just to protect others. A mature person sees themselves as EQUAL to others and therefore of no more or less value than others. Its also a sign of someone who feels that they need to compromise their own needs to take care of others, which is not only disrespectful to one's self but downright irresponsible. And yeah, I'd say it's pretty immature. Most balanced, thoughtful, "mature" adults would know better than to throw themselves in harm's way unless they absolutely had to. It's called having a good survival instinct/sense of self/self-awareness.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Brown bear said:


> Admit that thoughts have more value in how they can serve others than feelings. Acting upon how YOU feel in the moment with no consideration of the facts and realities and how it could affect others is really just selfish. I would also argue that "feeling" and making decisions based solely of of feeling is really just shallow thinking.


A person who prefers thought might tend to see thought that way. There are plenty of very empathetic people out there who judge on feelings and they are every bit as effective and valuable as those who judge on thoughts. You see, I've matured. My tertiary cognitive function is extraverted feeling. I am capable of realizing I can consider the feelings of others when making my judgments. 

ENTP - Cognitive Functions: Ne, Ti, Fe, Si

Extraverted iNtuition 
Introverted Thinking
Extraverted Feeling 
Introverted Sensing


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> Stop right there. You saying its a choice what functions you use is tantamount to some of the worst arguments used against other groups of people (ohh you can choose to be religion/sexual orientation/nationality/etc..) These types of statements do nothing but demean people to be less than human by saying they could choose otherwise. It is a part of who they are and they are still your equals in humanity. Implying superiority because of some trait you may have that other groups don't is despicable.
> 
> Introverts are no more superior than Extroverts
> Sensers are no more superior than Intuitiveness
> ...


I can see but not always appreciate the differences as I find that feelers tend to hurt people intentionally rather often and I just can't in good conscience say that I respect that sort of behavior in an adult (or even a kid for that matter) or support it. It wouldn't be right for me to pretend that everything they do is okay. Especially when their behavior impacts others around them and themselves. And when I say that their behavior impacts themselves, I am referring to feeler's tendency to allow people to take advantage of them and to engage in self-destructive behavior as a form of manipulation. Some people call it passive aggressive or being passive, I call it not being able to stand up for one's self and self advocate due to low self esteem or feelings of inferiority and its downright awful in the effects it can have both on the individual, and those around them. I can't state this enough.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> You have a lot of growing up to do if you can't realize that maturity is not a set of characteristics that you can ascribe to MBTI or any other personality typing. It not something you can define with age, or experience.
> 
> Here is a definition of emotional maturity: Emotional maturity is defined as how well you are able to respond to situations, control your emotions and behave in an adult manner when dealing with others.


You think feelers are equally as able to control their emotions as your thinkers? I'm sorry, I thought there was a reason why they were called feelers and thinkers.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> Here is a definition of emotional maturity: Emotional maturity is defined as how well you are able to respond to situations, control your emotions and behave in an adult manner when dealing with others.


I wouldn't put it completely out of the question that certain types are more likely to be able to respond to situations, control their emotions and behave in an adult manner when dealing with others than other types.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> A person who prefers thought might tend to see thought that way. There are plenty of very empathetic people out there who judge on feelings and they are every bit as effective and valuable as those who judge on thoughts. You see, I've matured. My tertiary cognitive function is extraverted feeling. I am capable of realizing I can consider the feelings of others when making my judgments.
> 
> ENTP - Cognitive Functions: Ne, Ti, Fe, Si
> 
> ...


Yeah but you have to admit that it depends how much/when/how/why you consider others/how much you allow others to take advantage of you because of this consideration that defines whether or not you are using the feeling function responsibly and maturely/valuably.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Great a young person who thinks they know better and the world has to make logical sense. :frustrating: Spend a few more years in the real world, grow up and realize your naive black and white view of things doesn't work.

I don't know what and whom manipulated you so bad that you have this twisted sense of hate against feelers and maturity. Maybe you grew up in a bad area and lost lots of loved ones out of a sense protecting someone and are bitter. Maybe your sitting comfortably in a home sipping a drink just killing time before work or school. I don't know or care. Your just one person of 7 billion that has a long way to go and grow up. So good bye I'm done conversing with you.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> Great a young person who thinks they know better and the world has to make logical sense. :frustrating: Spend a few more years in the real world, grow up and realize your naive black and white view of things doesn't work.
> 
> I don't know what and whom manipulated you so bad that you have this twisted sense of hate against feelers and maturity. Maybe you grew up in a bad area and lost lots of loved ones out of a sense protecting someone and are bitter. Maybe your sitting comfortably in a home sipping a drink just killing time before work or school. I don't know or care. Your just one person of 7 billion that has a long way to go and grow up. So good bye I'm done conversing with you.







Shame in your game


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Brown bear said:


> You think feelers are equally as able to control their emotions as your thinkers? I'm sorry, I thought there was a reason why they were called feelers and thinkers.


Strong feeling types do more than control their emotions. They are able to identify the emotion and the value behind it, fully experience their emotions, use them to order and understand their experiences, and are able to use this energy to connect to others (and others them). There is a very sophisticated use of emotions beyond just 'being emotional'.


A strong thinking type, or inferior feeling, does not control their emotions, rather they tend to repress their emotions. Repression removes the ability to fully experience their emotional range. Often they are unaware of the feeling values behind the emotions. They can even be unaware of their own emotional reaction. There is lack of consistency with how objects affect them, either they have an emotional response or none at all.

(I can link you later to where I got some of my information from.)


Feelers are named as such because they predominantly make judgments based on worth or importance, which is informed by a 'feeling' of what is agreeable or repulsive.

Thinkers are named as such because they predominantly make judgments based on what something is. That is true or false, definitions, principles, utility, what can be measured.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Brown bear said:


> You think feelers are equally as able to control their emotions as your thinkers? I'm sorry, I thought there was a reason why they were called feelers and thinkers.


And yet, there are emotional thinkers and logical feelers. Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combination.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Brown bear said:


> Yeah but you have to admit that it depends how much/when/how/why you consider others/how much you allow others to take advantage of you because of this consideration that defines whether or not you are using the feeling function responsibly and maturely/valuably.


Yep, I'm a mature ENTP. Took me years to learn how to integrate my preferred cognitive functions. Where you see a weak, or inferior function, I see something more wise and harmonious. My tertiary Fe makes me stronger, not weaker.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Ksara said:


> Feelers are named as such because they predominantly make judgments based on worth or importance, which is informed by a 'feeling' of what is agreeable or repulsive.


Isn't what is worthy or important, and what is agreeable or repulsive subjective, and thus varies from person to person? If so, why do you state it as "make judgements based on worth or importance" instead of "make judgements based on their view of what is worthy or important." The way you said it makes it sound like there is one universal opinion of what is worthy or important.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Ksara said:


> A strong thinking type, or inferior feeling, does not control their emotions, rather they tend to repress their emotions. Repression removes the ability to fully experience their emotional range. Often they are unaware of the feeling values behind the emotions.


I'd need you to define what you mean by "feeling values behind the emotions".


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Brown bear said:


> Isn't what is worthy or important, and what is agreeable or repulsive subjective, and thus varies from person to person? If so, why do you state it as "make judgements based on worth or importance" instead of "make judgements based on their view of what is worthy or important." The way you said it makes it sound like there is one universal opinion of what is worthy or important.


I am speaking of feeling 'in general'. Both Fi and Fe make judgments based on worth. To say 'their view' implies introversion as their view is subjective to the individual. From an (extreme) extraverts standpoint they take what is objective in the world and relate it to other objects in the world devoid of their own personal influence. Introversion relates back to the subject.

Getting more Jungian, Fe feels into and merges with the object. It appears as if the value judgment resides in the object. Fi separates itself from the object and sees it's value judgment occurring within themselves. I believe it was chapter seven of Psychological Types (by Jung) where this concept is discussed.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Brown bear said:


> I'd need you to define what you mean by "feeling values behind the emotions".


I'm taking my information from here (the link I promised):
The 5 Levels of the Feeling Function: a Phenomenological Description
What I was explaining was occurring at level two.


An basic example:

A mother gets 'angry'(emotion) at her small child for placing objects in the power socket. Her anger comes from a place of love (feeling) she has towards her child.
It's one thing to be aware of an emotion, another to identify an emotion, and a third to understand what it means.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Ksara said:


> I am speaking of feeling 'in general'. Both Fi and Fe make judgments based on worth. To say 'their view' implies introversion as their view is subjective to the individual. From an (extreme) extraverts standpoint they take what is objective in the world and relate it to other objects in the world devoid of their own personal influence. Introversion relates back to the subject.
> 
> Getting more Jungian, Fe feels into and merges with the object. It appears as if the value judgment resides in the object. Fi separates itself from the object and sees it's value judgment occurring within themselves. I believe it was chapter seven of Psychological Types (by Jung) where this concept is discussed.


you say Fi and Fe make judgements based on "worth" as though "worth" is not entirely subjective. "Worth" is in the eye of the beholder and I'm sorry but there is no universal worthiness as some people will find some things worthy while others will not. Worth is not something that is set in stone or objective in any way, it's entirely up to the perceptions of the given individual whether or not something is "worthy".


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Brown bear said:


> Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.


http://personalitycafe.com/critical...-manipulation-when-its-feeler-whos-doing.html


http://personalitycafe.com/critical...u-think-feelers-have-tendency-tyrannical.html


http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/785626-do-you-think-feelers-selfish.html


http://personalitycafe.com/critical...rs-intolerant-those-different-themselves.html


http://personalitycafe.com/venting/788146-feelers-they-selfish-just-self-preoccupied.html


http://personalitycafe.com/general-chat/780498-do-you-respect-emotional-biases-feeling-doms.html


Many more; where *THAT* came from. _Welcome back_, sir (!)


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Brown bear said:


> you say Fi and Fe make judgements based on "worth" as though "worth" is not entirely subjective. "Worth" is in the eye of the beholder and I'm sorry but there is no universal worthiness as some people will find some things worthy while others will not. Worth is not something that is set in stone or objective in any way, it's entirely up to the perceptions of the given individual whether or not something is "worthy".


To clarify:
Jung says feeling tells us what something is worth.
I am _not_ saying there is a universal code of worthiness (.. though all bow down to your new leader... nah jokes ).
I am saying one can have point of view seeing values as external to themselves.

From an Fe POV, "worth" is defined by social etiquette, acceptance, respectability, _not_ ones personal judgment. From a dominate Fe perspective they see values as external to themselves, and are taken from socially held standards (appropriateness, etiquette, social hierarchy/roles, acceptance), and they may even advocate these values for others to accept and uphold.

This is simply a _functional POV_, not what actually may exist in reality, as no single person is purely extraverted nor purely introverted. They can however be unaware of their opposite attitude.


And so you know I'm not making stuff up 

Jung's definition of extraverted Feeling: 



> As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the *subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values.* Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured.


The rest can be found here:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

more definitions (Jung):


> Extraversion means “*outward-turning*” and introversion means “inward-turning”.[17] These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.
> 
> 
> The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called attitudes. *Each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude)* or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type


Linder beren's definition: 


> Connecting; considering *others* and the *group*—organizing to meet *their needs* and honor *their values and feelings*; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others. *Building trust through giving relationships


Cognitive Dynamics


From Lenore Thomson:


> *Extraverted Feeling is conceptual and analytical. It encourages us to make rational choices, to measure our options for relationship against an external standard of behaviors”* (318).


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/132054-lenore-thomsons-extraverted-feeling.html


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> Isn't what is worthy or important, and what is agreeable or repulsive subjective, and thus varies from person to person? If so, why do you state it as "make judgements based on worth or importance" instead of "make judgements based on their view of what is worthy or important." The way you said it makes it sound like there is one universal opinion of what is worthy or important.


There is a consept of universal values, even if testing them and proving there is no doubt of their existence may be a somewhat difficult.

Many would consider these shared values to be an uniting factor, something we all know and share (either instinctively or by learning these) - and therefore they having objective worth on their own, and especially so when put into practise, benefitting everyone. Even if universal values wouldn't exist as such mysterious entities, F still deals with valuation, and constantly shares and seeks values to determine which ones have worth and which ones do not. This process can be both internalized and externalized. Universal or personal aspects can also be taken into account.



Ksara said:


> I'm taking my information from here (the link I promised):
> The 5 Levels of the Feeling Function: a Phenomenological Description
> What I was explaining was occurring at level two.


Just saying that article is pretty good. So I encourage people to read it.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> Isn't what is worthy or important, and what is agreeable or repulsive subjective, and thus varies from person to person? If so, why do you state it as "make judgements based on worth or importance" instead of "make judgements based on their view of what is worthy or important." The way you said it makes it sound like there is one universal opinion of what is worthy or important.


So what? What if I make judgments based on what I perceive is valuable? Isn't my perspective the one that matters the most to me? 

I think you don't understand the full range of feeling functions. Fi is a lot more than a set of values; it's an entire way of looking at the world. It's subjective interpretation. Fi tells me how I relate other people to me. It's the ethics of relationships. The truth is, thinking types need their feeling functions to form relations with others. An xxTJ is only a balanced individual if he can use his Fi. If he can't, he loses the ability to relate things to himself. Fi doesn't work alone and neither does Te. The two work together.

In case of dom or aux Te, the user is constantly making objective evaluations of the world around him. However, he needs some kind of way to know which things are important to him since things on their own have no value; they simply have the values attached to them. So a Te type would need to know which people he should care for, what goals he should pursue and what things he should attach sentimental values to. These are all characteristics of Fi. 

Now, for a dom or aux Fi user, it's the opposite. Fi types are constantly relating everything around them to themselves. So, an Fi user needs to have access to his Te to know what things to prioritize, what things to not care for and to provide for the people they love. 

So I hope you can see how it all goes together. Feeling types prioritize differently than thinking types do but that doesn't mean we're any less than you are. We all have our strengths. Fi users are very good when it comes to interpersonal relationships and we naturally have the edge here. It's a strength on its own.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> There is a consept of universal values, even if testing them and proving there is no doubt of their existence may be a somewhat difficult.
> .


Uhhh... what? don't understand what you're trying to say because your sentence makes no sense.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> There is a consept of universal values, even if testing them and proving there is no doubt of their existence may be a somewhat difficult.
> 
> Many would consider these shared values to be an uniting factor, something we all know and share (either instinctively or by learning these) - and therefore they having objective worth on their own, and especially so when put into practise, benefitting everyone. Even if universal values wouldn't exist as such mysterious entities, F still deals with valuation, and constantly shares and seeks values to determine which ones have worth and which ones do not. This process can be both internalized and externalized. Universal or personal aspects can also be taken into account.
> 
> ...


I don't think that in general, feelers act on what is good for everyone most of the time, it usually comes down to what is most convenient to them in the moment from what I've observed about them. Hence, I see no correlation to the feeling temperament and "universal values". if anything, I'd argue it's more of a thinker trait to be thoughtful and considerate of others and thus more likely to act according to universal values.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> Uhhh... what? don't understand what you're trying to say because your sentence makes no sense.


It has been suggested there is such a thing as universal values. But it is difficult to prove they are "real".


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Certainty said:


> So what? What if I make judgments based on what I perceive is valuable? Isn't my perspective the one that matters the most to me?
> 
> I think you don't understand the full range of feeling functions. Fi is a lot more than a set of values; it's an entire way of looking at the world. It's subjective interpretation. Fi tells me how I relate other people to me. It's the ethics of relationships. The truth is, thinking types need their feeling functions to form relations with others. An xxTJ is only a balanced individual if he can use his Fi. If he can't, he loses the ability to relate things to himself. Fi doesn't work alone and neither does Te. The two work together.
> 
> ...


I disagree, I think feeling doms and secondary feelers tend to see people as more of possessions than actual automic human beings with free will. That's why they are so good at appealing to people's emotions, because they know that deep down, the way they desire to treat other people is just plain wrong, so they try to cover it up by overextending themselves to others. It's really a terrible habit that I've seen play out time and time again with those of the feeling temperament, my mom included.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> I disagree, I think feeling doms and secondary feelers tend to see people as more of possessions than actual automic human beings with free will. That's why they are so good at appealing to people's emotions, because they know that deep down, the way they desire to treat other people is just plain wrong, so they try to cover it up by overextending themselves to others. It's really a terrible habit that I've seen play out time and time again with those of the feeling temperament, my mom included.


Excuse me but I think I understand my motivations better than you do. I had respect for you till now. All you've done is build a strawman. And you're a thinker who's supposed to be good at logic. Listen carefully, I don't know who hurt you but *but no feeler sees people as possessions.* This discussion is over. I can't argue with people who don't know how to apply logic.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Brown bear
Everyone manipulates, people just use different standards for what is acceptable manipulative behaviour.
Jung pointed out that we repress what we don't accept in ourself in the shadow.
The only reason you have a need to paint feeling as immature and manipulative,
is because it is painted by your shadow as bad.
But I know what you mean, I view feeling as manipulative too often.
I value X, you have X, therefore it is right for me to take X from you.
Typical feeling reasoning.
Fortunatly society makes everyone conform to minimum standards of reason 
to prevent people to act out on their dominant manipulative style too much.
Regardless any society must by design favor one approach over another,
giving some people a cognitive advantage over others.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Witch of Certainty said:


> Excuse me but I think I understand my motivations better than you do. I had respect for you till now. All you've done is build a strawman. And you're a thinker who's supposed to be good at logic. Listen carefully, I don't know who hurt you but *but no feeler sees people as possessions.* This discussion is over. I can't argue with people who don't know how to apply logic.


Excuse me but I think I understand your motivations better than you do.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Strontphite said:


> @Brown bear
> Everyone manipulates, people just use different standards for what is acceptable manipulative behaviour.
> Jung pointed out that we repress what we don't accept in ourself in the shadow.
> The only reason you have a need to paint feeling as immature and manipulative,
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Again, you're mischaracterizing the traits on a very superficial level. You are attempting to split the connotative meaning from the denotative, when the true meaning is found from mixing the two. I suggest you may want to refrain from making blanket over-generalizations when discussing these traits.
> 
> Introversion and Extroversion are simply the methods by which a person prefers to interact. An introvert prefers to interact more internally within themselves, and an extrovert prefers to interact more externally. It has no bearing on maturity. There are plenty of immature introverts and plenty of mature extroverts.
> 
> This becomes crucial towards forming a better understanding the cognitive functions beneath these basic traits.


I would argue that while yes, there are immature introverts and mature extroverts, at their base and in general, introverts have a slight edge in the maturity department because they see the value of thinking before acting and tend to seek to understand whilst extroverts seek more to control. Again, it's not true in every case, but it is certainly a trend.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> Excuse me but I think I understand your motivations better than you do.


:bored:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Brown bear said:


> Well said.


Thanks
Thinking is no better when you think about it.
You have X, I want X, I will make structures that will make X end up with me somehow.
Contracts/Arrangements etc are thinking ways of "screwing over" feelers.
Forget to read the fineprint?
Didn't want to wade trough several hundred pages of EULA?
Couldn't care to opt-out or change the default privacy invasive settings?
Welcome to thinking manipulation, one structured hoop after another.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Strontphite said:


> Thanks
> Thinking is no better when you think about it.
> You have X, I want X, I will make structures that will make X end up with me somehow.
> Contracts/Arrangements etc are thinking ways of "screwing over" feelers.
> ...


Yeah I guess so, I don't really have any problem with the feeling function in and of it's self, I just find that it's easy to use it to justify doing some pretty messed up stuff is all.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Any function can be used for messed up stuff - _that_ is a question of motivation, not cognition.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Any function can be used for messed up stuff - _that_ is a question of motivation, not cognition.


sure, but some functions are used for messed up stuff more often. For instance, how many times have you heard someone say or do something completely ignorant and refuse to believe its wrong because they "don't feel that it is". The thinking functions require one to take a step back and examine their own selves/motivations/actions from an objective view, untainted by personal "hunches" or "feelings" about how reality should be or "is".


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> sure, but some functions are used for messed up stuff more often. For instance, how many times have you heard someone say or do something completely ignorant and refuse to believe its wrong because they "don't feel that it is".


I have heard people use this excuse for being ignorant - though, as they were mostly children or teenagers, I wouldn't rely on it while trying to type them - or use them as evidence of inherently corrupt nature of feeling.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> I have heard people use this excuse for being ignorant - though, as they were mostly children or teenagers, I wouldn't rely on it while trying to type them - or use them as evidence of inherently corrupt nature of feeling.


Are you saying that feelers are child-like?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> Are you saying that feelers are child-like?


No.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> No.


Hmm, but you said you've seen people use the excuse I provided (which was feeler-esque, to say the least) and you said you've mostly only seen children and teenagers using the excuse though, so I thought you were making a comparison of feelers and feeler-like tendencies to children or child-like tendencies.


----------

