# Are you proud to be a feeler?



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

Are you glad to be a feeler? Do you like to... think of yourself as a feeler? Or just a nonsense label?
The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Thinking or Feeling

I read the following:
Thinker-Feeler Differences

_4. The global and American economy is driven by science and technology and modern business methods -- in other words, by Thinker values. Political and artistic considerations are not as significant as financial and technological issues for achieving wealth and power. This tends to give Thinkers a higher prestige status than Feelers in the public perception.

*5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts.* Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves. 

6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too. There is a half-serious anonymous list of "The Guy's Rules" going around, one of which reads:

"If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the other one."_

Which reminded me of a recent discussion where feelers told me that they were just as competent thinkers as... thinkers. And i should respect them more and not think of them as stupid. Which sounded.... stupid to me even though i don't consider the persons saying it as such. Just their reasoning seems flawed because of the basic differences between our value system which some don't want to acknowledge when it comes to certain areas it seems...

What say you?


----------



## katemess (Oct 21, 2015)

That's like being proud to be a Canadian... it makes no sense to be proud of something which you had no control over or choice in.


----------



## lavendersnow (Jan 13, 2016)

I'm perfectly capable of thinking logically and feeling empathetically/sympathetically. Those labels are limiting and some of those comments towards 'feelers' are nonsense. In agreement with @katemess, I'm not proud of something I haven't worked for. I'm proud of all of the weaknesses I work everyday to improve and my effort to balance my thinking and feeling skills.


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

I wrote "proud" because the quoted text talks about "Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning". 

A definition of proud can be: "feeling self-respect or pleasure in something by which you measure's your self-worth;"


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

lavendersnow said:


> I'm perfectly capable of thinking logically and feeling empathetically/sympathetically. Those labels are limiting and some of those comments towards 'feelers' are nonsense. In agreement with @katemess, I'm not proud of something I haven't worked for. I'm proud of all of the weaknesses I work everyday to improve and my effort to balance my thinking and feeling skills.


I am not perfectly capable of feeling emphatically/sympathetically like you are. It's much easier for you.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Apprentice
With all due respect, this has "using MBTI for identity rather than growth" written all over it, which always imposes some very limiting black & white categorizations.

Due to the Nature vs Nurture factor (development, environment, upbringing and social pressures, etc.) some Feelers can even be more logical than some Thinkers. We all are capable of using all of the functions perfectly well, it's just that we all have a natural knack for some over others. The reason I say this is to address the following statement and all the others similar to it (in underlying dynamics):


> Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too.


...because not all feelers are necessarily so easily offended. Some people should also be offended in times when they are not, but rather than standing up for themselves or walking away, they tolerate or justify, rationalize, enable, etc. and any type is capable of doing this.
As a more specific instance of what I'm saying, a feeler could grow up being taught Thinker things by a Thinker and turn out very T-like in spite of this being something learned and developed through practice rather than through nature taking its course.

In addition, a Feeler's morals and values are not necessarily synchronous with your proposition that they tend to rather not tell the truth if it hurts; as just one example of said exception, they could see it as even more hurtful to lie, and therefore tell the truth. It is also possible that they have a tender conscious and don['t like to lie, so they do not want to go against their morals by lying. A Thinker is capable of this as well.

[highlight]Any mature person of any type understands that there is a time or place for both Thinking and Feeling qualities. Just as a mature Thinker knows when it's appropriate to use Fx functions...a mature Feeler also knows when and where to use Tx functions.

"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling." -Carl Jung[/highlight]​​
One more thing worth noting is that it's theoretically possible for some people to be naturally MBTI "ambidextrous," and there is currently no tool whatsoever for determining whether or not a person is...so they may identify more with one type or another due to practice, but in reality be naturally fluid in either Thinking's functions or Feeling's functions.

You aren't accounting for a lot of factors and it's resulting in an over-generalization with many holes in your statements. Try to consider more theoretical possibilities and challenge your own idea a little more thoroughly.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To answer your question though...I see no MBTI type in itself as insulting, nor something to be proud of. I just see that sometimes people add certain stereotypical stigmas because they lack understanding of what things are or the way things work...I have often found that when someone criticizes and stereotypes a thing, it's because they themselves are unbalanced and have room for growth in something in that area. Since all people have their strengths and weaknesses and MBTI is not strengths and weaknesses finder, such is subjective preference elitism which stems from bias.*


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

Lunacik said:


> @Apprentice
> With all due respect, this has "using MBTI for identity rather than growth" written all over it, which always imposes some very limiting black & white categorizations.
> 
> Due to the Nature vs Nurture factor (development, environment, upbringing and social pressures, etc.) some Feelers can even be more logical than some Thinkers. We all are capable of using all of the functions perfectly well, it's just that we all have a natural knack for some over others. The reason I say this is to address the following statement and all the others similar to it (in underlying dynamics):
> ...


 @Lunacik, with all due love feelings in my INTJ heart (not much perhaps, but i'm trying, i refuse to let mbti hold me back!),

You made some very good points.
I was not trying to give a complete picture of all possible configurations, preferences though. Partly because i simply don't know enough to do so and partly because this is not the point i'm trying to make here. 
IMHO you illustrate the point. You focus on the faults and not on the truth. You feel and think that my statements are too limiting. On the other hand you have to acknowledge the MBTI system of describing how a person can be. Else why bother typing anyone?

Perhaps it helps if we don't try to be perfect in our assessments. But instead use the feeler/thinker model to make a generalization that does indeed apply to many people. Because how many people are content with who they are and how many are busy with personal growth? The reality, as i see it, is that most people are getting dumber not smarter. They are content with tv, video games, and so on. That doesn't mean i don't know about many people who are interested in learning. But are they the majority of people you reckon?

I can notice when i'm in a group that is dominated by feelers that the feelers will have different conversations going on than the thinkers. The thinkers like to engage in more abstract theoretical conversations for longer periods of time. And a typical feeler will be quicker to leave such line of thinking for several reasons.
E.g. because they get upset by perceived or real insults. So they tend to think less about certain subjects than 'typical thinkers'. 

Is there truth in what i'm saying?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I feel and then I think. But yes, generally I am happy. I like being in direct contact to the world; or at least, that's how I would describe.

There's a whole other spectrum and facet of reality that you miss out on, by only focusing on your thoughts; and people so often forget that things like ethics, and values are very important and significant. It's like saying that your humanity doesn't matter at all. It's just ridiculous.


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

MeteorShadow said:


> I feel and then I think. But yes, generally I am happy. I like being in direct contact to the world; or at least, that's how I would describe.


Good to see a happy feeler. :happy: Compliments from a happy thinker.:happy:



> There's a whole other spectrum and facet of reality that you miss out on, by only focusing on your thoughts; and people so often forget that things like ethics, and values are very important and significant. It's like saying that your humanity doesn't matter at all. It's just ridiculous.


Are you saying that thinkers tend to forget more about ethics, values because of the lack of natural emotions? I don't know... A thinker can be a highly caring person as well. And a feeler can also be a selfish person. Feelings can be a big ego trap.


----------



## Asmodaeus (Feb 15, 2015)

I’m not a feeler, but I’m glad NFs exist, since they’re wonderful friends, philosophers, artists, mentors, coworkers, teachers, lecturers, mystics, comedians and even potential SOs. Interacting with them reminds me I’m still human. :happy:


----------



## lil intro vert (Jan 14, 2016)

This is one hell of a thread.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

When I say I still "think", I'm not talking about MBTI Thinking. Actual cognition (thinking) is involved in all the functions.

"Thinking" and "Feeling" are terrible, terrible labels for the dichotomy, but they're what we have to work with. I think you're misunderstanding some of the syntax on the threads


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

TheProtagonist said:


> This is one hell of a thread.


Is this a complimentary comment?


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

Kerik_S said:


> When I say I still "think", I'm not talking about MBTI Thinking. Actual cognition (thinking) is involved in all the functions.
> 
> "Thinking" and "Feeling" are terrible, terrible labels for the dichotomy, but they're what we have to work with. I think you're misunderstanding some of the syntax on the threads


Thanks to your comments in the other thread i understand more of what you are saying here. However can you follow my simple line or reasoning and agree with me that the typical feelers have more emotions going on? And that people who are influenced more by emotions have a harder time controlling them? And this might be why it gets a negative connotation?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Apprentice said:


> that people who are influenced more by emotions have a harder time controlling them?


Yes.

　


Apprentice said:


> And this might be why it gets a negative connotation?


I don't see emotions as always-bad, but if they interfere with reason or don't interfere, it's not because of being a "Feeler" (because, in this case "Feeling" _does not equal_ Emotion, but moreso "Interpersonal rationality" badly-labeled) or because of being a "Thinker", conversely (also badly-labeled).

　


Apprentice said:


> However can you follow my simple line or reasoning and agree with me that the typical feelers have more emotions going on?


No. While logic-oriented (Thinking) people may have a certain protocol they can follow to _appear_ unswayed by emotion, I've seen emotions control their behavior even if they're not "emoted" in the same way an ethics-oriented (Feeling) person may choose to emote such sentiments.

For instance, something I've noticed is that Thinking types, due to prejudices like what I've been highlighting are engrained in faulty labels of T and F, have an irrational attachment toward believing that being a Thinker somehow means they are less controlled by their feelings.

While the individual Thinker themself may indeed be less emotional of a person than other Thinkers and people altogether, I believe that such a Thinker will utilize the false Thinking/Feeling dichotomy that's resulted from bad labels, and use that false dichotomy to feel like they can find other people ("Thinkers") that value emotional restraint as much as they do and that there's some kind of easily-spottable dividing line between the emotional and the non-emotional in MBTI when there isn't:

The closest thing used in MBTI is the Assertive/Turbulent dichotomy, and that's not even a Jungian thing-- it was added on later.

Assertive would be the closest thing to the false idea you have of "Thinkers": Less emotional.

as opposed to what Thinkers actually are: Logical.


　
The dichotomy between Logic<-->Ethics and the dichotomy between Emotional<-->Restrained exist independently.

Also, as Ni-doms, we're actually more driven by irrational functions than rational ones, and that presents a third dichotomy: Irrational<-->Rational.


----------



## lil intro vert (Jan 14, 2016)

Apprentice said:


> Is this a complimentary comment?



Yes, all these rebuttals are extremely strong.


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

TheProtagonist said:


> Yes, all these rebuttals are extremely strong.


Yes it helps if people really want to discuss a subject instead of trying to 'win' or get hurt all the time


----------



## Apprentice (Feb 12, 2016)

Kerik_S said:


> I don't see emotions as always-bad, but if they interfere with reason or don't interfere,


That is whats being implied yes.



> it's not because of being a "Feeler" (because, in this case "Feeling" _does not equal_ Emotion, but moreso "Interpersonal rationality" badly-labeled) or because of being a "Thinker", conversely (also badly-labeled).


I know that's what you have explained before. However i'm not convinced that people with an 'interpersonal rationality' preference are not having more emotions (like feeling bad because of an insult) than the thinkers.

"However can you follow my simple line or reasoning and agree with me that the typical feelers have more emotions going on?"


> No. While logic-oriented (Thinking) people may have a certain protocol they can follow to _appear_ unswayed by emotion, I've seen emotions control their behavior even if they're not "emoted" in the same way an ethics-oriented (Feeling) person may choose to emote such sentiments.
> 
> For instance, something I've noticed is that Thinking types, due to prejudices like what I've been highlighting are engrained in faulty labels of T and F, have an irrational attachment toward believing that being a Thinker somehow means they are less controlled by their feelings.


This is not irrational but experience. Which btw doesn't mean that they can't be controlled by emotions. But less. See the example of the blog i link below.



> While the individual Thinker themself may indeed be less emotional of a person than other Thinkers and people altogether, I believe that such a Thinker will utilize the false Thinking/Feeling dichotomy that's resulted from bad labels, and use that false dichotomy to feel like they can find other people ("Thinkers") that value emotional restraint as much as they do and that there's some kind of easily-spottable dividing line between the emotional and the non-emotional in MBTI when there isn't:
> 
> The closest thing used in MBTI is the Assertive/Turbulent dichotomy, and that's not even a Jungian thing-- it was added on later.
> 
> ...


But why are the feelers getting hurt so quick by real or perceived insults? And thinkers not so quick. Or is this another misconception i seem to have? And why do the feelers empathize so easily and a thinker not?

I just read this blog which i can identify much with. Please read and tell me if it changes your opinion.



http://www.amusingmaralee.com/2013/09/how-it-feels-to-not-be-a-feeler/ said:


> -You look naked to me. Emotions are awkward to me. When people are really emotionally raw, I have the same gut reaction as you might have if somebody just started taking off their clothes in front of you. I want to avert my eyes out of respect for the other person’s dignity. I’m working on this and it’s not always a problem, but at times it has meant that I shy away from certain people or situations if I know there’s likely to be big displays of uncomfortable emotions. And I want to clarify—there is a difference to me between “big displays of emotion” and “honesty”. I love and value honesty. I want to be where there is honesty and I can handle it and will even deal with the emotions that come with it, but let’s not kid ourselves that all emotions are honest.
> 
> -You don’t overwhelm me. Okay, so I might feel awkward about your big displays of emotion and not be sure how to handle them, but they also won’t pull me under. I can listen to you and think about what you’re going through without getting emotional about it myself. I enjoy asking questions and listening to people’s problems and have a good bit of patience since it isn’t emotionally taxing for me. I got a degree in psychology and I remember telling one of my professors I didn’t think I’d go on to do more school so I could be a counselor because I just didn’t get as passionate about stuff and didn’t feel all the empathy other people felt. He told me that that’s why I NEEDED to be a counselor- people who are struggling emotionally may need somebody who is more calm and rational to help them work towards a solution and it helps to not be a person who will carry that emotional burden home from work with you. Sorry Professor, I decided to be a mom instead. . . and that same skill has proved pretty useful.


Perhaps we can agree that indeed there are feelers and thinkers in the world. And then all we have to decide is if this corresponds to F and T in MBTi.



> The dichotomy between Logic<-->Ethics and the dichotomy between Emotional<-->Restrained exist independently.


Even that first naming convention seems flawed to me. As if ethics are separate from logic.


----------



## Effy (Feb 23, 2014)

No, I don't particularly relate to the idea of being a 'feeler' rather than a 'thinker'. I typed as INTP for the longest time and when I take cognitive functions tests, I score almost as highly for Te and Ti as I do for Fi (and score pretty low for Fe). I think it's an unnecessary line to draw in the sand, as many people will use all four functions in different proportions - and, frankly, I see a lot of very illogical "Thinkers" on this forum, so I don't put too much stock in the distinction. It's just a label.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Apprentice said:


> I know that's what you have explained before. However i'm not convinced that people with an 'interpersonal rationality' preference are not having more emotions (like feeling bad because of an insult) than the thinkers.


That's honestly why I think the "Assertive" and "Turbulent" dichotomy was invented and added to some commercial tests in the first place-- to address the concerns that people were having in terms of emotional dispositions.

I've seen T's (because I'm gonna refrain from using those terrible labels) get their knickers in a twist just as much as I've seen F's be calm in making their "reads" of people.

　


Apprentice said:


> This is not irrational but experience.


Your experience, itself, is the reality that you personally are not more swayed by your emotions.

The "irrational" part is the need to see that emotional restraint as somehow "built-in" to your type in a way that can be predictably attributed to MBTI types. It always comes across as a little desperate to me, and unnecessary.

It's likely just reinforced by stereotypes and The Forer Effect of T's _suppressing_ their emotions, not simply allowing them to coexist without swaying their reasoning. It comes across as posturing for some people.

I would assert that most T types are pressuring themselves to _appear_ what would be gauged as "Assertive" even if they're "Turbulent".

You, however, do seem legitimately Assertive to me, so this doesn't apply to you, and you don't seem particularly desperate. So, my read may not apply to you, but you're the exception to what I've seen, tbh.

Just look at how much time some T's waste writing treatises about the superiority of T-- it's clear self-serving bias and it's clouding their reason, and the sheer amount of time they spend in that tunnel vision indicates to me that there's an emotional impetus behind their postings.

　


Apprentice said:


> But why are the feelers getting hurt so quick by real or perceived insults?


We're not hurt more-- we just realize the social dysfunctions that those insulting beliefs can have, and thus are more apt to react to them.

I'm rarely actually hurt, but whenever I respond in a way that is simply saying "That's not okay", T's tend to assume I'm "hurt" and thus emotional. It's a cheap dismissal tactic from someone with an unrounded, myopic reasoning faculty.

　


Apprentice said:


> And thinkers not so quick.


Because logic accesses impersonal information before _inter_personal information, so they may miss the real or perceived insult completely. Or, if they catch it, they aren't as likely to think of the "ramifications" of that insult (like, how that person's attitude may create things like prejudice and discrimination on a scale that transcends the single-instance insult).

Logicians are often "upset" by logical inconsistencies, but they have really easy access to turns-of-phrase that are predictable and thus look "disaffected" in _words_ when _inside _they're not very disaffected.

　


Apprentice said:


> Or is this another misconception i seem to have? And why do the feelers empathize so easily and a thinker not?


Well, empathy seems like more of a function of understanding interpersonal systems.

Empathy doesn't literally mean "feeling" (viscerally) the emotions of others, so that's a misnomer. That sounds more like sympathy to me.

And having F in your type in no way guarantees being more "sympathetic", as in actually "feeling" that resonates with another as a result of the other person.

　


Apprentice said:


> I just read this blog which i can identify much with. Please read and tell me if it changes your opinion.


Sounds like the same old shit of T being conflated with Assertive, and F being conflated with Turbulent.

　


Apprentice said:


> Perhaps we can agree that indeed there are feelers and thinkers in the world. And then all we have to decide is if this corresponds to F and T in MBTi.


Yeah. They exist but they don't correspond, despite how the horrible labels would trick people.

　


Apprentice said:


> Even that first naming convention seems flawed to me. As if ethics are separate from logic.


They're both "together" as two "aspects" of rationality. so in that sense, they're not "separate",

However, according to functions theory, they have to accessed separately.

F accesses the people-oriented information separate from impersonal stuff.
T accesses the systems-oriented information separate from interpersonal stuff.

Same "faculty" (rationality, F and T), different "aspects".


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Yeah in the sense that it's easier to observe other peoples feelings. Many T's I know struggle with micro expressions and seems to underestimate peoples need for connection. 

In terms of work. As a designer I need emotions to successfully create some form of unconscious feeling through whatever design I'm making. I'm also regularly exposed to T-people with no understanding of how stuff like this influences our decisions. I enjoy having this 'skill' of being able to 'feel' underlying associations and how strongly it subconsciously connects with emotions.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Wiz said:


> Yeah in the sense that it's easier to observe other peoples feelings. Many T's I know struggle with micro expressions and seems to underestimate peoples need for connection.
> 
> In terms of work. As a designer I need emotions to successfully create some form of unconscious feeling through whatever design I'm making. I'm also regularly exposed to T-people with no understanding of how stuff like this influences our decisions. I enjoy having this 'skill' of being able to 'feel' underlying associations and how strongly it subconsciously connects with emotions.


Cool. As for me, my work requires Thinking. That's why i kinda developed Thinking as well. XD half half.


----------



## Lunaena (Nov 16, 2013)

I am very emotional, but I can be cold as ice. Through the years of my life I have learned to make harsh and stern decisions when needed. I used to be much worse at making the logical decisions and only followed my emotional impulse. That can damage so much of your life. 

But the worst thing I can ever imagine is suppressing emotions. Emotions is important, because without emotions, no empathy, no care for the world and the creatures living in it.


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

No, I wish I was an INTx


----------



## thantophobia (Nov 13, 2016)

Yeah, somehow I don´t quite like it to be a feeler. There are so many feelings and even if you want to be alone, you need to feel the pain of the whole world. Beside that, people don´t take someone serious who is so emotional.
So, over the yeras I learnd to hide it. All these feelings and my emotions. I´m not saying that I´m cold as ice but no one would think that I´m an NF because i try to act and to think rational. I try not to let these feelings overwhelm me and most of the times ist works.


----------



## tryingtodobetter (Apr 19, 2016)

Im proud to say that i've been there for people who could do little for me in return

Im not proud to say that i've been a doormat to a lot of people.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Nope. I hate developing emotions. Too much problems. I'd rather be a thinker. 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

Sure.

A thinking preference seems more supported by our culture, because instrumental rationality has been critical in our concept of 'progress' since at least the turn of the twentieth century, but thinkers are often subject to a lot of blind spots, like humanity, ethics, eudaimonia, etc.

Since I am a human, and I do want to thrive, and sometimes my attitudes are in conflict with society, it's unlikely I'll ever fall into some non-reflective rut where the ability to operationalize some problem or convert things to economic value is the only standard we should judge the value of anything by.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

We’re all feelers AND thinkers.

I’m a proud feeler, but simply not ruled by emotion. 

If somebody calls me names, I consider it a mere opinion until proven.

I don’t crave emotional stroking, and I don’t take things personally.

Example: A lynch mob is a group overrun by emotion, something I will oppose whether I agree with their motives or not.


----------



## Falling Foxes (Oct 19, 2016)

A lot of people's responses here seem to resort to "emotions suck!" but even Thinkers feel... I know, it surprised me too.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I am neither proud nor unhappy. It just is.

I mean by that that there are things about being an ENFJ that I enjoy, such as a heightened aesthetic sensitivity, and others that I don't, such as a tendency towards perfectionism. But in the end, I am me, and that's all that matters.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Falling Foxes said:


> A lot of people's responses here seem to resort to "emotions suck!" but even Thinkers feel... I know, it surprised me too.


Yeah ofcourse. I have hurted an INTP. I broke his heart and he turned into an INFP for a short period of time cus after breaking up with him i friendzoned him. Am i evil bitch?! Then he saw me flirting and i hurted him like he gotten emo thrice. He's actually sensitive already. Hmm... I wonder if being a thinker comes with sensitivity. Cus im a feeler but im not very sensitive to comments or criticisms. But he as a thinker is very sensitive to criticism. I wonder why. Just saying.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> I am neither proud nor unhappy. It just is.
> 
> I mean by that that there are things about being an ENFJ that I enjoy, such as a heightened aesthetic sensitivity, and others that I don't, such as a tendency towards perfectionism. But in the end, I am me, and that's all that matters.


I wonder what enneagram type are u?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> I wonder what enneagram type are u?


It would take you only a second to find out :wink:


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> It would take you only a second to find out :wink:


Type 4? Cus ive peeked at your profile. Lol


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Type 4? Cus ive peeked at your profile. Lol


Basically I am a Type 4 who has decent testosterone levels. I don't cross-dress and cut my arms, that shit is for losers beneath my level of sheer awesomeness. I. AM. LIFE.

OK, slight exaggeration, but you made me feel good. The love of a woman is my cocaine.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Basically I am a Type 4 who has decent testosterone levels. I don't cross-dress and cut my arms, that shit is for losers beneath my level of sheer awesomeness. I. AM. LIFE.
> 
> OK, slight exaggeration. But you made me feel good.


Yeah you do seems good. That's why i was surprised to see you to be a four type.  i used to be a four type before. It sucks. Haha. Don't wanna go back there again. Lol. 
4 social. That's me before.

Btw, what's your preferences?? I guess, 
4 sexual? XD lol. 4sx?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Yeah you do seems good. That's why i was surprised to see you to be a four type.  i used to be a four type before. It sucks. Haha. Don't wanna go back there again. Lol.
> 4 social. That's me before.


If you hated being identified as a 4, that means you probably are one. The sad truth is that you're always going to hate your true Enneagram type. It is too embarrassing and cringeworthy.



atamagasuita said:


> Btw, what's your preferences?? I guess,
> 4 sexual? XD lol. 4sx?


I am sx/so, and either a 4w3 or a 3w4. I probably appear more 3ish in public, but that's deliberate and I lean towards 4w3 for reasons that I won't explain here. Take my word for it.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> If you hated being identified as a 4, that means you probably are one. The sad truth is that you're always going to hate your true Enneagram type. It is too embarrassing and cringeworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sx/so, and either a 4w3 or a 3w4. I probably appear more 3ish in public, but that's deliberate and I lean towards 4w3 for reasons that I won't explain here. Take my word for it.


Hmm. But when i took my enneagram i got this


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Hmm. But when i took my enneagram i got this


Really? And this is me...kind of caveman, really...










P.S. If you must be "strong and in control to survive" then I would recommend you get your tendrils around an INTP man. Sweet talk, tell him how hot he is despite the acne and 4 inch prick, and the sucker will melt. Stoic, emotionless, and flaccid, yes...but those dudes are good at making money, and it's a dog eat dog world. So good luck, angel. May the force be with you.


----------



## Merisela (Oct 7, 2016)

Hi, new to this thread
eh.. sometimes I feel that I would rather be a thinker and I do agree that being a feeler is generally considered like something negative in the western society and there are a lot of portrayals of unhealthy feelers in the movie industry and such.. where for example, girls only think about boys, are clingy, cry all the time etc..)
but in the end, I wouldn't change the fact that I am a feeler because, well, it's what makes me who I am


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Really? And this is me...kind of caveman, really...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol. My ex was an INTP. It's good. Well at first years he's so emotionless like we lack of emotional connection, but with hobbies we get along, and ideals.. 
After the last year of our relationship, i lost my feelings completely cus i thought it wasn't compensated very well, probably due to lack of emotional connection which i am looking. That "spark".  
So there, i broke up with him thinking he's ok with it. But then, I've found he loves me. Haha. Like his display of love was through apparent actions like giving gifts, dating. 
But then, it's too late I'm moving on. Haha. That's all.  
Our relationship feels like we're just brothers and sisters. That's all.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Hell yeah


----------



## inmymind (Feb 15, 2016)

Apprentice I agree with most of what you say. I am a Feeler, but if I am not a thinker, then how did I get such great marks in college, and produce good works in my profession? I can clearly see where my feelings have not served me well in many instances, but there are times when they did.

As for do I have pride in being a Feeler, I have to say No, but nor do I have disdain or shame. The same goes for being white, black, brown, or yellow. We have no control over our natural gender or ethnicity, so I do not see how we can take pride in something we had no role in making. I take pride in a job well done, especially one where I was the sole or major contributor to.

We play with the hand we are dealt, and can go up or down from there.


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

Hmm. I read through some more responses and found it quite interesting. I'm not sure yet where I stand on the issue of whether Thinkers and Feelers really exist or not (if this was the issue being discussed). I do, however, agree that those labels are quite misleading.

I remember something during a discussion I had with my mother, an INTJ. This was about my aversion to/being affected by conflict, and how extreme this is compared to many other people we know. Her theory was that others weren't more resistant to its effects, as opposed to how I'd been raised to believe, but that I was more sensitive. Thinking of it as an image, imagine the average person as a horizontal line; then there are those who are below this line and more resistant to conflict/outward emotion and those above the line, who are more sensitive to it.

I can imagine now, as the middle line represents 'average', most people fall somewhere along there, maybe a little below, maybe a little above, but all congregating around the same 'height'.

'Feelers' may simply be more sensitive to picking up on other people's emotions which tie in with ethics more 'clearly', as ethics are people-centric (which is not to say that 'Thinkers' can't pick up on these things or forget about ethics). The 'logic' we use pertains to people, how they feel or are affected, how our ethics will affect the outside (or inner) world.

Imagine a second image, another horizontal line, set up the same way - but using 'logic' as the average baseline.

'Thinkers' may simply be more sensitive to 'logic/logical fallacies'. Excuse my Harry Potter quote, but as Hermione says in part 7 "I'm highly logical which allows me to see what other people don't". This doesn't mean she's less emotional or ethics-oriented. She's simply able to 'cut away' all that doesn't fit into her logic-based frame of mind. She can see the bare facts of what is. People and feelings aren't logical, so unless trying to predict someone's behaviour, they might not necessarily be considered.

To try and bring it all together - to me, as a non-Thinker, it looks like 'Thinkers' are able to see the logical elements of situations pertaining to non-human elements. Like Hermione during Horcux-hunting I suppose, or Sherlock (BBC) solving his cases.

Now, what if I told you that this is exactly how I experience the world as well - but with people and their emotions? As crystal clear as 'logic/facts' may be to Thinkers, as clear it is to me what others feel. I wouldn't call it mind-reading or detailed psychological analysis, but people are generally as easily and effortlessly for me to 'read' as logical sequences and patterns may be for 'Thinkers'. My sensitivity towards them is higher than the average 'Thinker's, so I can take in information and react faster - just as it is with 'impersonal' information with 'Thinkers' (this is pure assumption as I've not talked about this extensively to a T).

'Feelers', it seems to me, have a more innate understanding that linear logic must be abandoned because people aren't linear. 'Thinkers' can't seem to do this as easily.

As mentioned, 'Thinkers' are likely to be perceived as less likely to be 'offended'. If it's 'not logical' to be offended as per their understanding, than no offended feelibgs will occur (whether it's true they're less offended than 'Feelers' is up to the individual). As 'Feelers' who as default may not be used to such 'linear logic' being unaffected may not be as easy. Likewise, if the perceived insult doesn't fit the 'logic' either follow, no offense will be taken. It's been my experience though, that offense is taken very easily if flaws in one's 'weakness' are pointed out - for 'Thinkers' that's emotional (in)sensitivity and 'Feelers' 'linear logic'.

Other than, everyone has different things they're insecure about and are easily hurt/offended when criticised for them/attention drawn to it. Whether they show it or not is a different matter. This is regardless of T or F.

People have different 'operation systems'. For a T, this is 'linear logic' while for Fs it's 'non-linear logic'. Being able to use the learned skillset well in conjunction with your 'operation system', they're like a well-oiled machine and can easily flow into one another, but the 'operation system'/basic way of thinking/approaching the world, stays the same. It's when your 'operation system' and learned skillset don't quite work well with one another, that you get someone who is perceived as illogical/irrational or 'too sensitive'. So you got a 'Feeler' who uses 'linear logic' to justify what they perceive as truth, and a 'Thinker' who uses 'non-linear logic' to do the same (this can of course be anyone and isn't necessarily a constant state - rather, this kind of disconnect may happen because you're learned skillset may have been overridden or something else temporarily shot it down). But because these are on different 'poles', neither can fully 're-calibrate' the way they think, even if they can emulate the other 'pole' well enough to fool even themselves.

We have different sensitivities and act accordingly. Of course we can learn other skill sets, of being more 'sensitive' to things we are more 'average' at. But even if we improve those skills as much as we can, they'll always require more conscious effort than our 'natural' abilities.

That's the distinction I can draw, at the moment, but what I learn about MBTI is constantly evolving, so my understanding will change or simply deepen in some aspects.


----------



## cozmicjack (Aug 29, 2016)

not really sure. its just who i am.


----------



## PurpleBeez (Dec 4, 2016)

Feelings come and go as do clouds, so I'm not sure if it's something to be "proud" or ashamed of, as alot of people in this thread have said. It's nice that I often appreciate things others miss, but that's a double edged sword, because at the same time as being able to experience the greatest euphoria from a sunset, I also experience misery in equal measure, and just as powerfully, over inane things that most would laugh at or dismiss (I can't browse facebook for too long because seeing what's happening in the world can really, really bring me down) So, like anything, it's not good or bad, it's a mix. I get overwhelmed too easily and there's no "off" switch.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Apprentice said:


> Are you glad to be a feeler? Do you like to... think of yourself as a feeler? Or just a nonsense label?
> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Thinking or Feeling
> 
> I read the following:
> ...


There's so much wrong with this world's people. Everyone should be open and accepting about both thinker and feeler. Feeler having a lesser image than thinker says much about how badly human kind is being taught nowadays. They are not taught according true nature. Shame.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

AAADD Edison said:


> There's so much wrong with this world's people. Everyone should be open and accepting about both thinker and feeler. Feeler having a lesser image than thinker says much about how badly human kind is being taught nowadays. They are not taught according true nature. Shame.


One of the reasons we need the social justice movements. But hopefully what you mention can be the next front of them? How would it go?


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Yea im proud. Cus sex with feelings is much delicious 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Chara said:


> One of the reasons we need the social justice movements. But hopefully what you mention can be the next front of them? How would it go?


I'm not sure what social justice movements do, but social justice sounds good.

What's best to do is to teach the children well. Teach them the most important values of life and nature. The most essential things I have learned over the past years, I have never been taught through school. School teaches you to make career. It doesn't teach you to respect others (people, but also nature as a whole), no, that actually is in conflict with trying to become as succesful as possible in work and money earning. It doesn't teach you so many things that really matters. Another example is the importance of quality healthy food. What's really healthy, and how do you make it, and take the time for. Instead, quite a lot people here of today just quickly do dinner, see it as a task wanting to be done in not too much time and effort, while study and work requires it more.

People here of today neglect not only nature as a whole but their own nature as well, their own health (body, inner peace, ). They are not aware of the harm they do to themselves, while they are being taught to focus on others stuff. And the pressure for getting personal success we feel because of it, because we're taught like this, makes us inhuman to each other as a result of it.

We need (more contact with) nature. Instead, we (let ourselves to be/) are stressed out.


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

Sometimes...


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Actually nope. This feeling type gave me depression you know.


What distinguishes us from animals?

Animals don't have feelings. Yet they don't have self inflicted problems. 

Feelings makes you have self inflicted problems..


But on the positive side, it makes you sensitive to the needs of others..

It makes sex more good. 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## Falling Foxes (Oct 19, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Actually nope. This feeling type gave me depression you know.
> 
> 
> What distinguishes us from animals?
> ...


I disagree about animals not having feelings. After having a cat I realised my cat seems to be just as prone to psychological disorders as we are but of course without them being able to voice their concerns it seems like an impossible feat to understand what the problem is.

My cat showed symptoms of anxiety and depression. He had nervous habits like over grooming to the point of baldness. He very quickly lost his excitement for playing, he used to love the outdoors and running around the house chasing his imagination. 

There are quite a few other strange symptoms but I'm sure you aren't interested in psychoanalysing my cat.

Anyway animals certainly have feelings.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Falling Foxes said:


> I disagree about animals not having feelings. After having a cat I realised my cat seems to be just as prone to psychological disorders as we are but of course without them being able to voice their concerns it seems like an impossible feat to understand what the problem is.
> 
> My cat showed symptoms of anxiety and depression. He had nervous habits like over grooming to the point of baldness. He very quickly lost his excitement for playing, he used to love the outdoors and running around the house chasing his imagination.
> 
> ...


Okay. I have cats too. What i mean by "feelings" are useless thoughts or imaginations only humans are capable of having.


----------



## a crack in the sky (Dec 9, 2016)

I don't have a cat, but once I saw a reality show on Animal Planet which involved a cat that was plagued with night terrors.


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

I agree a little with @atamagasuita 

Feelings tend to overcomplicate things, especially when not well developed or mature.
I end up causing so much of my own troubles.
I Hate how I get so controlled by my emotions! It is honestly so frustrating to me and those around me but I simply have no control over them. They contradict my reasoning and then I can't even validate my own feelings because they have no reason to exist so then I feel worse about feeling bad. So no, I am currently not proud to be a feeler because I haven't properly or healthily developed it yet.

About the animal thing, yes they do have feelings.


----------



## Kenkao (Dec 18, 2016)

Proud of course but most of the time i hate myself for being so emotional.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

@LittleDreamer I know right, girl. XD


----------



## Vindicator Phoenix (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm proud to be a feeler.

Many people view emotions as obstacles, but my emotions can be rewards and impetuses as well: sources of passionate motivation. If helping other people makes me feel good, and that good feeling compels me to do more good to regain that happiness, what's wrong with that?

My feelings give me powerful scruples as well, which inhibit any spiteful or illicit behavior I'd consider, preventing me from stepping on the toes of others.

I love being an INFP, since I value and foster autonomy, while always being ready to support someone if they need me.


----------

