# The Irrelevance Of F or T Preference



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I would say thinking is pretty noticeable in the dominant T types (as in, these types tend to have a kind of stubborness about adhereing to fact-based reasoning when challenged or challenging people - they tend to always feel the need to "put everything in a box" or "label/define everything," which would also be a defense of inferior F - kind of like they're always unconsciously defining certain feelings in the process as well (because otherwise, why would they really care so much about just defining stuff for the sake of it, even though they might be convinced that they are). This stuff definitely goes far beyond reasoning along the lines of "I show the world a lot of thinking, so I much be a T dom/aux, whatever) - this kind of reasoning is not type - everyone thinks and many people, especially intelligent people, think a lot - so what, this means nothing about people on a personality level, because viewing it as a generalization, you can't meaningfully find any reason a person might be doing this (most of the time, this would be irrelevant to anything about their personality, since they might just be dealing with situations, interests, etc.). Type extends to what Jung considered "personality idiosyncrasies" in people - quirks, if you will.


----------



## TiNeSi (Jan 10, 2011)

Exarch said:


> Perhaps you don't notice such a distinction because you are an INFJ?
> 
> Ni/Fe/Ti/Se
> 
> ...


That was my first thought when I started reading that thread. Basically, I identify with Ti, whereas I relate to both Ne and Si.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

In auxiliary form (including MBTI's tertiary distinction), I would say thinking and feeling are quite irrelevant. I mean, okay, so in MBTI, I come out INTJ on the function level, but actually distinguishing much in the way of roles between T and F is pretty much an inevitable headache - I still haven't gotten down to it beyond maybe a few seconds of fruitless rumination, and frankly, that's something I'd be much more comfortable (still not very comfortable though, obviously) letting a Jungian analyst do, that's how hard it is. I don't really see why people should pain themselves trying to prove why their Ne is auxiliary, their Si is tertiary, etc., which gets heavily idealized for some reason in MBTI. All that's really required is just to pick a preference - it doesn't mean anything really, other than you just prefer one to the other (doesn't mean you dislike the other necessarily, it's just a forced choice, which might help to reveal stuff about your ego/shadow fundamentally). I actually have a really hard time *seeing* which one my intuition pairs up with - I'm tempted to say thinking more (then again, the differentiation of my thinking confuses me a bit, so that might be the source of my confusion), but I can think of numerous times I've had eerily accurate prophesies about self-referential feeling as well (Fi), and I can tell you right now, it's not impossible for dominant Ni types to have hunches about their sensation either (because, obviously, Ni compensates for Se, so it has a role here), but it's where the intuition begins to fail more (a lot more than the dominant intuitive would be comfortable with, of course, generally speaking in terms of why sensation is their inferior function). I suspect that intuitive hunches about sensation are going to trend into the negative with these types - when they fall into inferior episodes, I wouldn't be surprised if these types tend to feel pretty disoriented, like they're always about to have an accident of sorts. I think distinguishing Ni and Fi, especially in conjuction with each other, can be tough, because both are concerned with predictions and both are self-referential, and even the whole focus on "meaning" between the two can make the lines blur more (but intuition is more about meaning in the sense of symbolism/underlying space that meaning can be ascribed to, which sensation obviously gets in the way of, while feeling would be focused on meaning more in terms of evaluation/room for improvement where the facts of a situation just don't add up (so you can see from this that thinking is automatically paired with feeling) - it's not the reading-between-the-lines meaning of intuition, but deals with emotional weight - at the core, it is probably rooted in security, which is why it gets stereotyped as dealing with social harmony and values, although I don't see why this is made out to be some kind of imperative at all). So yes, using myself as an example, I would say don't worry about it with aux/tert thinking/feeling - it might be tough to really see much in the way of specificity between the two in introspection, since after all, according to some MBTI theorists, they're oriented toward dealing with the outside world more, which on a fundamental psychological level, of course tends to be more far removed from ego value (the outside world), so literally "seeing yourself" in them based on the way they tend to be stimulated for the purpose of the ego might be pretty tough and hard to measure consistently (because who really takes they time to analytically identify themselves based on the specifics of their daily actions and reactions to them, where so much else gets brought into the picture psychologically as well). I wonder if this makes sense, since I'm speaking from a pretty heavy psychological perspective. In aux/tert form, if you can choose one that tends to take on a more negative bent than the other, that might say a little something about preference (but beware, it's not going to stick out like the sore thumb the way dom/inferior is). Some people are just more obvious in this department than others, I think (and in the introverted function department, one is forced to infer what's at work, since introverted functions can't really be sought with external evidence the way extraverted functions can). Often, you will get one aux. getting played up over the other, though I tend to really struggle in seeing how people play up the feeling function, unless they come right out and say something really stereotypical (I'm talking about in people who have F as an aux. or maybe even a tert. function). Comes down to the individual, I'd say (I mean, after all, there are a lot of those F dom males out there whose personas don't reflect it clearly at all, but the only way I can guess that feeling is their dominant function would be to notice a downplay of thinking, which can be extra hard depending on their profession - for instance, I have a ton of F dom. professors, know some F dom male scientists, etc. who don't make feeling particularly distinct the way it normally gets stereotyped in these people, and they would look like fools to launch attacks at academics and such - sometimes, casual conversations might give their preference away - other times, I'm going on intuition pretty heavily to see what might be their inferior or recalling more specific, albeit subjective statements by Jung about how these types might look sort of scattered or over-invested in facts or theories or maybe a bit inefficient/prone to neglect this stuff outside of their profession, sort of try to avoid conjuring thinking questions from other people, etc.).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Amenophis said:


> Actually, I find the differences in T and F to be most striking and easily identified.
> 
> T types make determinations and decisions based on facts and information, F types made decisions based on feelings and opinion.
> 
> ...


What the hell are you talking about?




Thracius said:


> and you hate it :crazy:


I seriously think dude's example was one of the worst I've ever seen. For example, one of the reasons I don't want a car is because I want a hybrid or electric car, first and foremost, which is very safe. THESE ARE BOTH ETHICAL CONCERNS.

The idea that "F" (not even differentiating between Fi and Fe) chooses cars sheerly upon the way they look doesn't even have jack shit to do with how the Feeling functions work.

I want a certain kind of car for ethical reasons. Of course it's nice if it's cute, but I don't think an F is more likely to buy a good looking car versus a functional one. 

Actually the people who are obsessed with the way certain cars look may do so because of a sensing preference, whether it's Si obsession with a very particular look, or an Se obsession with what is newest and flashiest. Being obsessed with cars in the first place is an interest or hobby, not necessarily a clear indicator of type.

I personally like to have luxury cars from a sensory standpoint; so if I were to choose based upon my SENSES, I would probably have a car that was very comfortable in the interior...but my concern for buying a hybrid or electric would still be primary, the luxury part secondary, and what moron buys a car that doesn't even run?

I mean, don't get me wrong, there are people who REBUILD old cars or collect classics as a hobby, and those cars may not run at first, but usually those are "hobby" cars not the primary car the individual uses to drive around, and I think a T type could just as easily do this if cars were their interest.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Dear OP, 


I just don't think you understand the theory. Any of them.

In fact since you notice T types can be "irrational" and Fs can use logic, I highly suggest you learn Jungian function theory, because Keirsey's Friendly vs. Tough-minded clearly isn't cutting it for you (nor should it).


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Thracius said:


> As time goes on I am more and more convinced that F/T preference has virtually no impact. The most correct way to use MBTI, or Carl Jung's system or whatever you want to call it is to ignore F/T preference.
> 
> The effect of E/I preference is quite clear, for example how some people like (need) time alone and others go to great lengths not to be alone.
> 
> ...


Irrelevant? Maybe, maybe not. I was just thinking about this myself. 

Thoughts and feelings originate in the same place, is this not so? 

What we are really talking about is behavioral, how do we choose _to express_ our thoughts, or feelings. 

People with "T" tend not to show their feelings, but that does not mean they do not have them. 

People with "F" tend to show their feelings so openly that it can be hard to imagine they think at all. 

I stated something like this in the Enneagram folder concerning "Self-fullfilling Prophecy" that addresses some of your other concerns. I can't find the thread at the moment, I'll try to find it.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

here you go:



psychological types said:


> Feeling
> 
> Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ('like' or 'dislike'); but it can also appear, as it were, isolated in the form of 'mood', quite apart from the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations.
> 
> ...





> Thinking
> 
> This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (v. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking[70]. Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as "phantasying" [71]. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking.
> 
> ...


----------

