# Feelers jumping to the wrong conclusions on people : NF/SF?



## Callie (Mar 27, 2010)

I have 2 feeler friends, who are attracted to psychology, think they are great feelers on people motives, hidden meanings of behaviors, make connections between people and their behavior etc... This 2 women seem very Fi (they internalize feelings a lot). But BOTH very easily jump to wrong conclusions based on their impression, what they feel etc... They think very much they have an great abilitie to perceive people but everyone around them see, how wrong they are and don't rely on them anymore to "get people"...


Im wondering if "wrong connections"/"wrong conclusions" are SF or NF?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Hmmm...with most of the impressions I've gotten about people, I've not been able to confirm them for one reason or another. I can say that I am adept at telling if people are lying. That I can confirm. But many of my feelings about people revolve around seeing through their fake-ness or hearing differences in their vocal tones. I can read peoples' actions also..These always come from intuition... If you asked me for relationship advice...I would be absolute SHIT! In that regard, I cannot read people. But with these little pieces of intuition I get about people, I really can't say that they are false...although, I sometimes make assumptions about how a person works based on these pieces of intuition...I'm trying to get out of that habit because I'm pretty much always wrong -_-

My mom is an INFJ, and she's the complete opposite...She has a hard time reading peoples' emotions and judging their fake-ness. She's almost always wrong in these situations. But she shines in giving advice about relationships and life choices and the such...in that way, she can read people. She can somehow grasp how a person works, but she's shit at seeing through people's fake-ness and reading their actions and changes in vocal tone. xNFJs are pro at grasping how people work, but they will sometimes use that to judge a person the way an xNFP does(fake-ness/behavior and vocal tone), and they seem to falter in that area.

So we can intuit these things, but jump to completely wrong conclusions...us intuitive feelers lol
And that's the difference between Ni-Fe and Ne-Fi...I don't know if I'm really describing it clearly. But there is a huge difference. 
I haven't the slightest clue how xSFx's work...sorry...I just thought that that info might help a bit.


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Callie said:


> I have 2 feeler friends, who are attracted to psychology, think they are great feelers on people motives, hidden meanings of behaviors, make connections between people and their behavior etc... This 2 women seem very Fi (they internalize feelings a lot). But BOTH very easily jump to wrong conclusions based on their impression, what they feel etc... They think very much they have an great abilitie to perceive people but everyone around them see, how wrong they are and don't rely on them anymore to "get people"...
> 
> 
> Im wondering if "wrong connections"/"wrong conclusions" are SF or NF?


Hmm. very often we say things we don't mean. It's a huge difference between the ntp and nfp. our words mean much less than the WAY we say things. So it's very very possible that what we literally say will be inaccurate. We are trying to convey feelings. Feelings are not so easily expressed in words. Instead we use symbols, body language, eye contact, intervals between breath, and emotional stimuli to communicate. We get a persons feelings in other words. We see their emotions flowing.... or lack there of. Explaining it ..... is another ball game.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

thehigher said:


> Hmm. very often we say things we don't mean. It's a huge difference between the ntp and nfp. our words mean much less than the WAY we say things. So it's very very possible that what we literally say will be inaccurate.


That's one thing that often hinders my ability to communicate with people -_-
Words just dilute what I'm actually trying to say. And when I use these words, some people take the literal meaning and then my original point get's muddled even more.

Another thing that has to do with NFs jumping to the wrong conclusions, and this may just be me...I dunno. But I do notice that because I have a hard time understanding how people work in their emotions,so I will relate them to me when I'm trying to understand why they do certain things. 
My mom seems to judge a person's expressions and whatnot based on herself in that same way. So she has a very limited perception of peoples' facial expressions and so on and so forth. She'll jump to conclusions in that fashion...

Thinking about it, I don't think that this would be very SFish at all...And sorry for going into detail, I was kinda thinking out loud and that helped me understand MBTI a bit better lol


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

I've been misread by both NFs and SFs. I think the N's are more likely to accept your explanation when you tell them how they misread you, while the S's are more likely to remain conviced they were right when they weren't


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I think jumping to conclusions is based on the judging functions all together. Ti and Fi dominant types may internally make snap judgments based on their principles and values, but not necessarily reveal them as quickly. Te and Fe types will let their thoughts be known since the decision making process is based on the object. So ETJs, EFJs, ITJs and IFJs are notorious for jumping to conclusions since they internalize with a function (Ni or Si) that forms opinions in lieu of known data. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jonny0207 (Apr 27, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> I think jumping to conclusions is based on the judging functions all together. Ti and Fi dominant types may internally make snap judgments based on their principles and values, but not necessarily reveal them as quickly. Te and Fe types will let their thoughts be known since the decision making process is based on the object. So ETJs, EFJs, ITJs and IFJs are notorious for jumping to conclusions since they internalize with a function (Ni or Si) that forms opinions in lieu of known data. Just my opinion.


 
Well plenty of impatient Ne's and Se's might jump to conclusion out of the boredom of going through the whole process?


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

unleashthehounds said:


> I've been misread by both NFs and SFs. I think the N's are more likely to accept your explanation when you tell them how they misread you, while the S's are more likely to remain conviced they were right when they weren't


I feel like I'm always wrong.....

I must admit I jump to conclusions quickly. I get contructive criticism from my father and I then immediately think I'm a failure and he hates me. This still hasn't changed...

So yes, I jump to many untrue conclusions which I still can't seem to move away from. For example I'm still convinced that if I ask a girl out, I will get an aggressive response for me wanting to pursue a more meaningful relationship. It'll be my fault... entirely. That's what I think. People tell me that it's completely preposterous to think that way, but I can't change.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

My problem is I never seem to trust what I "intuit". I make far too many personal judgements on not just my perceptions, but the judgments their selves. If I notice something about someone, I often think it's due to my imagination getting the better of me... and because of that, I often ignore or do/think the opposite of what I interpret. 

Apart from that, I anticipate that I am often deluded about how I 'read' people, there's no doubt about that. It's good to have plenty of reality checks in place to stop this from occurring, and to trace my thought patterns from their beginning, to see if i'm being reasonable/realistic.

I do really try to read people from as many possible perspectives as I can..


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Jonny0207 said:


> Well plenty of impatient Ne's and Se's might jump to conclusion out of the boredom of going through the whole process?


I connote jumping to a conclusion as making a decision. Perceiving functions do not make decisions, they process information for a decision to be made. When we jump to a conclusion, we are coming to a meaning of a circumstance without thinking or taking in all the facts or looking at it from all different sides. Ne and Se types look at all the sides and take in information. Are you confusing jumping to conclusions which is based on decision making processes with being impulsive or leaping before you look?


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

*On a Hot Tin Roof*



Callie said:


> I have 2 feeler friends, who are attracted to psychology, think they are great feelers on people motives, hidden meanings of behaviors, make connections between people and their behavior etc... This 2 women seem very Fi (they internalize feelings a lot). But BOTH very easily jump to wrong conclusions based on their impression, what they feel etc... They think very much they have an great abilitie to perceive people but everyone around them see, how wrong they are and don't rely on them anymore to "get people"...
> 
> 
> Im wondering if "wrong connections"/"wrong conclusions" are SF or NF?


Wrong means you just do not agree with them. I expect it those darn Cats ISFP again.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

*Political World*



NatalieAnne said:


> My problem is I never seem to trust what I "intuit". I make far too many personal judgements on not just my perceptions, but the judgments their selves. If I notice something about someone, I often think it's due to my imagination getting the better of me... and because of that, I often ignore or do/think the opposite of what I interpret.
> 
> Apart from that, I anticipate that I am often deluded about how I 'read' people, there's no doubt about that. It's good to have plenty of reality checks in place to stop this from occurring, and to trace my thought patterns from their beginning, to see if i'm being reasonable/realistic.
> 
> I do really try to read people from as many possible perspectives as I can..


Intuition is tricky. It is the political world.


----------



## Callie (Mar 27, 2010)

Perseus said:


> Wrong means you just do not agree with them. I expect it those darn Cats ISFP again.


No ! Wrong means really WRONG.


They jumped to WRONG conclusions about people in general (are going to think that a guy friend is gay, whereas he is 100% heterosexual and looking for a GIRLfriend.......... just because he's flaming a little sometimes, apparently an education thing in his case)
It happened to me as well (like one thought I was an highly sensitive person who ignored it... see im an ENTP so not really sensitive, and all her description of highly sensitive people didn't fit AT ALL with me. i didn't even understood how she came to such a conclusion. She apologized afterwards when she got to know me better and realised how wrong she was.)

One is an XFxJ (maybe ISFJ or INFJ).
The other one is rather an ExFX (maybe ESFP, ENFJ or even ENFP but rather ESFP, in my opinion)


----------



## Molock (Mar 10, 2010)

My mother (SF) and one of my best friends (NF) constantly interpret things I do incorrectly. I don't know if this is the case for most feelers but those I know well are completely incompetent at reading people.


----------



## Callie (Mar 27, 2010)

I think, some NT read better people... INTJ, some ENTP, some INTP because we take distance with our own emotions before interpretating the other's emotions. Beside we wait and see (Ne/TI for NTP) before coming to a conclusion. Also we are able to grasp the context and do logical based conclusion not depending only on the person...


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Callie said:


> I think, some NT read better people... INTJ, some ENTP, some INTP because we take distance with our own emotions before interpretating the other's emotions. Beside we wait and see (Ne/TI for NTP) before coming to a conclusion. Also we are able to grasp the context and do logical based conclusion not depending only on the person...


I think it depends on who you are reading more so than how good you are at reading. It's more like if you understand the person.... you are better at reading them. 

NT's would be good at reading NT's and they seem to be good at reading SF's as well because..... 

ENTP=Ne Ti Fe Si 


Notice you're feeling function is backed up by introverted sensing .... not introverted intuition. If it were backed up by introverted intuition you would understand NF's much better. By understand I mean a different kind of understanding than logical understanding. I mean emotional understanding. 



Furthermore... there are different types of reading. Describe what kind of reading you mean. Because F's may be talking about something completely different than you. 

Take the gay example. Perhaps you heard that an F said that they were good at reading people. Then later on they said they thought someone was gay.... and they completely weren't. Is this why you think they are bad at reading people? If so.... this is kind of like taking a passage out of context. Taking a specific instance where they are wrong doesn't mean that they are bad at reading people. There are many things to consider.... first..... were they joking? Are you sure? Why are you sure? What signs did they show? Did you think the guy wasn't gay? If so why? 

Also keep in mind that when it comes to people nothing is 100% always true. Or at least very rarely.... even that is not 100% true. So when feelers say "I'm good at doing this" they may mean in general. 

Like I said not everything we say is 100% what we mean. NTP's are a fiend for this and they seem to judge others by their own standards too much imo.


----------



## Callie (Mar 27, 2010)

Well, at least I got through this thread that feelers tend to say "imrpessions" rather than objective truth (or an aspiration to objective truth). It helps me understand things !


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

I've had the same experiences with 'Feelers'.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

NatalieAnne said:


> My problem is I never seem to trust what I "intuit". I make far too many personal judgements on not just my perceptions, but the judgments their selves. If I notice something about someone, I often think it's due to my imagination getting the better of me... and because of that, I often ignore or do/think the opposite of what I interpret.


Same here...although I have trusted myself in seeing that people are not telling the truth. In those instances, my perceptions have usually been true. Other than that...I mean feeling that people are being fake...I usually don't really trust that because I don't really like to make judgments in that way.


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Callie said:


> Well, at least I got through this thread that feelers tend to say "imrpessions" rather than objective truth (or an aspiration to objective truth). It helps me understand things !


Yes F and T is much like subjective vs objective.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

My ESFP Mom and ENFP best friends always get me wrong, yet they think they know me well. And then BOOM!!! I surprised them. LOL. :crazy:


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

I think both NFs and SFs could jump to wrong conclusions, but for different reasons. A NF could jump to a wrong conclusion because they could misread their body language. A SF could jump to a wrong conclusion because they overthought it and didn't trust their hunches.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

People get me wrong a lot but so do I. I feel my Fi is majorly letting me down in these cases which is why I don't trust it. I'm glad someone made this thread because I've been wondering about this for a while now.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Ok, so this is the conclusion I got from reading this thread. "SF" people misunderstand everyone because they use their emotions too much...and "NT" people misunderstand because they don't trust their intuitions so eventually come to the wrong conclusion....

Therefore...1+1=2-1=0

We learned that all this knowledge...means nothing.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

lol well I can say mine comes from a bit of naivety as well as just being utterly clueless at times. The black and white thinking really gets me in trouble especially when I'm wrong.


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

Same here, and being that I'm a Counterphobic Six, my Fi is a wasted function, Se too.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

MilkyWay132 said:


> I think both NFs and SFs could jump to wrong conclusions, but for different reasons. A NF could jump to a wrong conclusion because they could misread their body language. A SF could jump to a wrong conclusion because they overthought it and didn't trust their hunches.


I very much agree with this. My NF friends misread my body language and tone of voice all the time. Then they jump to conclusions and things get messy from there. However, it is the individual who jumps to conclusions. Just because the capacity is there, does not mean one has to act on it. When people are use to being right about things, and you throw a proverbial monkey wrench into their world...its hard for them to overcome that barrier. When I was younger, I use to misread people all the time, mostly because I over thought. I was use to being wrong, and because of that when I began to be able to read people, it gave me a greater insight. Jumping to conclusions comes from us making shortcuts for ourselves, which make life easier. This is fine, but we have to remember that this is a rule of thumb, and not law.

As some of my NF friends have gotten to know me better, some of them can resist that impulse to jump to a conclusion. I know my one friend still has the jump to a conclusion happen, but she stops herself and thinks "How can I interpreted this in the best possible way?" Others have more difficulty, because of the understanding they have from past experiences. Overcoming this unintentional bias can be very hard. It can take a while for people to even begin to see it, and then it is a long road for some to still not react upon those impulses.

T's can also jump to conclusions in there own way. This generally involves them thinking someone does not know how to do something if they have a perception of that person not being able to do that for whatever reason. Sometimes they believe someone is unintelligent, simply because he is not well articulated. Once again, this is an individual thing. All T's have the ability to jump to conclusions, just like all F's, we just go about it in different ways.

I think the main problem is just a lack of human empathy for the most part. Generally when we jump to a conclusion, we are not putting ourselves in the other person's shoes. How would we feel if someone went of the handle for something insignificant we said? Those who struggle with jumping to conclusions have to remember to think about this, and how they would like to be treated if in the same situation with the roles reversed.

I think this pretty much sums it up though:
_"37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"_ [Matthew 22:37-39]


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

I jump to conclusions a lot but I have learned not to express them unless pressured to by somebody else because I know how often I am wrong. Trying to explain why I came to a particular conclusion about somebody is always messy because I can't make other people see the thought process that led to it. 

If I perceive a particular behavour I might postulate what caused it, giving myself 2 or 3 possible reasons, then I tend to keep track of the situation and add any evidence to my "case" that I can gather from subsequent interactions. I try to see thier actions from as many different perspectives as i can come up with before passing absolute judgement based on what makes most sense to me. Even when i do pass judgement it is for my amusement only and if I feel strongly that I'm right and it turns out I AM right, then I feel good about myself but if I am wrong I use the experience to learn from, and build that situation into my mental framework for next time.

I would think that Fe doms are much more likely to come to judgements quickly and express them before giving them a good run through their Ni or Si, therefore giving the propensity to be wrong more often than those who use Fe as an auxillary function.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

It is the masks that people wear. I see through them. And it can hurt me to see stuff that THEY dont want to show. Then I grow conscious about that and since my mask is transparent it shows that I am uneasy. And then it CAN go into a bad spiral. Fe overload I suppose.

As someone stated, many people dont know about their own intentions since they are not inclined to introspect. So you might know more about them then they do themselves (in some aspects) in just a short while. But not in full depth of course.

As you can see, I feel quite good at reading people for what they are. Those adept at keeping appearances/masks make me nervous. It is unhealthy, and I have bad experiences with those people (mostly CEOs or finance managers). Issues.

I recently "guessed" a lot of stuff (occupation, what they studied, age, workplaces etc) about some strangers at a party. Everything was correct. I met a stranger over lunch and read him as INTJ within 15 minutes. And made him open up (he was quite the "stiff" NT). He was HR manager and knew about MBTI, so he was impressed. Having lunch soon again.

In relationships: I rerad people and the POSSIBLE problems and quirks. But I dont judge until I feel somehow that this is not interesting, and then I am just not interested. I am counselor to many friends, but it is hard to help other people since it is their interpersonal dynamics that is the problem, and it is hard for everyone to change.

As to Callie, she impressed me thoroughly with reading me from only text and pictures. 

NFs seem to be good at reading people, but have difficulty taking NECESSARY steps to fix stuff. These steps might include being hard and tough, opposing them or shaking someones values in confrontation. The NFs seem to avoid it and in those cases they arent able to dig as deep as an "insensitive" T would. Other Fs i think lack the quick insights of the NFs. Some ESTPs can be insightful but dont go as deep. 

All Js, to my experience, are quick to judge people, and have a hard time seeing other views. So, being a xNxP should help when reading people, having an easier time putting yourself in their shoes.


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

The only people who tell me that they've figured out how I think are feelers. They like to explain in great detail just what my thought process is.

To date, they've all been completely wrong.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Callie said:


> I have 2 feeler friends, who are attracted to psychology, think they are great feelers on people motives, hidden meanings of behaviors, make connections between people and their behavior etc... *This 2 women seem very Fi (they internalize feelings a lot).*


Internalizing feelings does not mean Fi. Fi is about obtaining our moral identity from within. 




> Im wondering if "wrong connections"/"wrong conclusions" are SF or NF?


As far as NF- there are 2 groups. Fi and Fe. And SF also has Fi and Fe. Those with Fi have extroverted perceiving functions (Se and Ne) that prefer to stay open a bit longer to receive all of it's data. Making hasty judgments and drawing conclusions before every rock is over turned is not our forte.


----------



## Windswept Sky (Jul 19, 2010)

I think that NFs in general just don't understand STs. Which is okay, because you guys don't understand us either. We both want each other to be something else that we are not. So, I guess an NF that likes you might presume that you act based on their own internal Fi code, as a sort of wishful thinking, even though you probably don't.

Don't know what to say about SFs, though.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

They don't just jump to wrong conclusions per se, as they somewhere have to make sense to themselves, as otherwise they wouldn't have drawn them. Though, typically the progression to a for a T unreasonable conclusion is none that could be understood and/or followed by a T without the T tearing its hear out.

It's a superb source of disagreement, anger, disappointment, miscommunication and trouble though. :tongue:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Internalizing feelings does not mean Fi. Fi is about obtaining our moral identity from within.
> 
> 
> As far as NF- there are 2 groups. Fi and Fe. And SF also has Fi and Fe. Those with Fi have extroverted perceiving functions (Se and Ne) that prefer to stay open a bit longer to receive all of it's data. Making hasty judgments and drawing conclusions before every rock is over turned is not our forte.


Sorry for posting without having read the thread...

I agree with pinkrasputin here. PiJe or JiPe is more important than SF or NF. My Ni can see patterns anywhere. There doesn't even have to be one in the first place. And my Fe pretends to knows what's best for every person i meet. So of course I jump to conclusions. :blushed:


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

wonderfert said:


> The only people who tell me that they've figured out how I think are feelers. They like to explain in great detail just what my thought process is.
> 
> To date, they've all been completely wrong.


Daisy Steiner Wins!


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Like wonderfert, those who make this claim in my experience are mainly feelers (N&S), with a few ENTPs (Fe+Ne?) thrown in the mix and are all wrong fairly frequently. The ones who are the problems are those who self-identify as someone who is 'good at reading people' and therefore don't take correction so easily. Those just throwing out hypotheses and knowing that they can be wrong are fine.

If you're trying to read people all the time, then you're going to be wrong frequently, just because you make so many guesses/judgements/assumptions. Right too, but wrong frequently. If you don't try to read people, instead just listening to them, you will be make less wrong guesses, since you make less, period, and when you do guess will be more anal about it since you don't think you already know. Right less often, overall, but wrong much less often too.

I suspect the data S&N use is different, but not so much the propensity for being wrong about people. Both do that. Just as both can be right sometimes (or so I hear).


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

lirulin said:


> ... If you don't try to read people, instead just listening to them, you will be make less wrong guesses, since you make less, period, and when you do guess will be more anal about it since you don't think you already know. Right less often, overall, but wrong much less often too.


Sounds like you're saying something like, "better to not say anything and let others think you are a fool, than speak and prove it beyond doubt."
!


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

No, she's saying if you think you have the skill of reading people, try to tone it down and stop making judgements so often and just accept people as they are, then over time you are more likely to understand who they really are without your own values process muddying the waters.

I think :laughing:


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Like wonderfert, those who make this claim in my experience are mainly feelers (N&S), with a few ENTPs (Fe+Ne?) thrown in the mix and are all wrong fairly frequently. The ones who are the problems are those who self-identify as someone who is 'good at reading people' and therefore don't take correction so easily. Those just throwing out hypotheses and knowing that they can be wrong are fine.
> 
> If you're trying to read people all the time, then you're going to be wrong frequently, just because you make so many guesses/judgements/assumptions. Right too, but wrong frequently. If you don't try to read people, instead just listening to them, you will be make less wrong guesses, since you make less, period, and when you do guess will be more anal about it since you don't think you already know. Right less often, overall, but wrong much less often too.
> 
> I suspect the data S&N use is different, but not so much the propensity for being wrong about people. Both do that. Just as both can be right sometimes (or so I hear).


We all make assumptions and have prejudices: An example of a useful premade assumption is that gravity will hold us to the ground. Which it will not if in outer space and there is no ground nerarby.

Kudos to all you prejudice-free people out there.... My EXPERIENCE tells me that my assumptions is correct most times. If not fully, then a least useful. What I think is key, is to be OPEN-MINDED so that you can edit those assumptions on the fly when wrong. And that is an ENTP trait, right? Whilst INTJ are more stubborn as to their conclusions?

At least for me, I can think " Either she behaves like this because of a or b or c, in which case a) will lead to, and will mean that she... " etc.). But one is more likely. If then "b" occurs, then I have refined the model.

Body language and non-verbal clues are some 70-80% of communication. So ONLY listening is not a particularly good idea if you want to "get under the skin" of a person. Besides, what people say, what they want and what they do can be quite different. Self deceit is also an issue (....opening for self deceit pun about reading people well).


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

No, it's just a statement about probability. I wasn't making any judgement about which way is better. 
Obviously I do prefer mine, but others can prefer theirs. My only real problem with that is, as I stated, when they, _along with _making lots of assumptions, do not accept corrections - constant assumptions as long as one knows they don't deserve blind faith is just another tactic to figure shit out about people (albeit one that personally annoys me, but that's _me_). 

And gravity is not really an assumption... what you describe is simply not knowing what gravity is.
I do agree that everyone operates to some level on assumption, but we are talking here about assumptions _about people_. I think it is fair to say there is a degree of difference in how much different people assume about others. And that there are differences between people re the watch and wait approach versus the throw out as many hypotheses as possible approach. The fact that everyone can make some assumptions doesn't negate the fact that there are serious differences in which and when and how many.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

lirulin said:


> No, it's just a statement about probability. I wasn't making any judgement about which way is better.
> Obviously I do prefer mine, but others can prefer theirs. My only real problem with that is, as I stated, when they, _along with _making lots of assumptions, do not accept corrections - constant assumptions as long as one knows they don't deserve blind faith is just another tactic to figure shit out about people (albeit one that personally annoys me, but that's _me_).
> 
> And gravity is not really an assumption... what you describe is simply not knowing what gravity is.
> I do agree that everyone operates to some level on assumption, but we are talking here about assumptions _about people_. I think it is fair to say there is a degree of difference in how much different people assume about others. And that there are differences between people re the watch and wait approach versus the throw out as many hypotheses as possible approach. The fact that everyone can make some assumptions doesn't negate the fact that there are serious differences in which and when and how many.


After reading this post I dont know if we even have different opinions about anything, so I will not continue the debate....

YOU as well as I, and EVERYONE, have IMPRESSIONS about the people we meet. Yes, even so called first impressions. But as you say, we shouldn't be blindfolded and JUDGE people based on vague ideas. I agree fully. After they have affirmed through action that your perceived image of their "behavior" is largely correct, this will of course effect the IMPRESSION, and PREJUDICE/ASSUMPTIONS about what the person will do the next time. But everyone should ALWAYS be ready to acknowledge fault in themselves, otherwise your self-view will be totally flawed in no time.... 

I think we both agree....


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

I have a married couple who are friends of mine. The husband is an ENTP. The wife is an INTJ. 

I can't tell you how often we all end up in disagreement about various people's types or motivations, yet convinced we are correct.

There are several patterns I've noticed. I'm almost never wrong about someone who is an Fe feeler - or a motivation that comes from Fe. The INTJ is almost never wrong about someone who is a Te thinker - or a motivation that comes from Te. I usually do better with Ti people and she usually does better with Fi people, but we're both less accurate in these areas and have to do a lot more consideration to get to the bottom of something.

The ENTP is amazing at figuring out how things work, but notorious for coming up with impossibilities. His Ne is almost useless in determining answers. Don't get me wrong it's amazing for creating possibilities. However, when he gets his Ti and Ne working together, he's amazing at helping me and the INTJ figure out what we can't determine. He's an ideal catalyst and compliment to our thinking.

Strangely, all of us do pretty well when predicting S types, whether Si or Se. It's usually as simple as just following a straight line of reasoning and tracking the obvious. We have a mutual ISTP friend of which who the ENTP once said, "Poor guy. He thinks in straight lines." But again, I'm better with the STPs and SFJs, while the INTJ is better with the SFPs and STJs.

The implication is that like functions are much better at determining the motivations and mechanisms of like functions.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> I have a married couple who are friends of mine. The husband is an ENTP. The wife is an INTJ.
> 
> I can't tell you how often we all end up in disagreement about various people's types or motivations, yet convinced we are correct.
> 
> ...


Might be.... or you are just making assumptions? (bad joke...)

It is logical to think that you would know similar people better... But as you say, S are quite easy to read since they dont prefer to THINK beyond what they see, hear or sense. When they do put their mind to it, they may surprise us....

As to ENTPs.... Yes, to be a "good ENTP" you must have a very developed Ti and Fe (actually to go into that is nearing the border of MBTI useabilty) , a k a "good judgement". Otherwise the ideas will be "out there" and impractical. I get these too and they are lots of fun coming up with, but I have learned to have a critical eye to my ideas and analyze them to see which ones have realistic potential. But sometimes it is quite nice to be "out there, where no man has gone before..."..... without drugs too...

My experience with INTJs (several close friends) suggests that they get a sudden opinion, dont share why, and stick to it with some form of self assuredness that I lack. I mean, for me there is always other possibilities....


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Might be.... or you are just making assumptions? (bad joke...)


Hehe, I didn't think it was bad. But then again, I could see my ENTP buddy making that same joke.



ENTPreneur said:


> It is logical to think that you would know similar people better... But as you say, S are quite easy to read since they dont prefer to THINK beyond what they see, hear or sense. When they do put their mind to it, they may surprise us....


It always surprises me when they do. Then again, their ability to spot the obvious is also often surprising (and quite helpful seeing as I often don't).



ENTPreneur said:


> As to ENTPs.... Yes, to be a "good ENTP" you must have a very developed Ti and Fe (actually to go into that is nearing the border of MBTI useabilty) , a k a "good judgement". Otherwise the ideas will be "out there" and impractical. I get these too and they are lots of fun coming up with, but I have learned to have a critical eye to my ideas and analyze them to see which ones have realistic potential. But sometimes it is quite nice to be "out there, where no man has gone before..."..... without drugs too...


Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems with the axis dichotomy assumption. If an ENTP develops too much Ti and Fe, they start testing J.



ENTPreneur said:


> My experience with INTJs (several close friends) suggests that they get a sudden opinion, dont share why, and stick to it with some form of self assuredness that I lack. I mean, for me there is always other possibilities....


Yes, Ni jumps to the answer, and is annoyed by possibilities much like a parent is annoyed with kids making messes. Ni is compelled to solve the unknown and Ne is constantly creating unknowns. The assuredness comes from Ni jumping to the answer and Te not caring about the details so long as they understand how the answer relates. At that point, they're done. Not very fun for an ENTP, I'm sure, hehe.

My INTJ / ENTP couple often have this banter... 
ENTP "what if..." 
INTJ "no, it's like this."
ENTP "but what if..."
INTJ "I already told you, it's like this."
ENTP "but what if..."
INTJ "....."
ENTP "I sowwy. I shuddup nows."
ENTP sits there and almost explodes "but what if..."
INTJ breathes fire.
ENTP "ZOMG that's so cool when the vein on your head pokes out!"


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Answer to OP: 

Since logic is supposed to be more of a "universal language" (1+1=2) then Thinkers measure OBJECTIVE data (or put more weight to these) when assessing a situation OR PERSON. 

Feelers are supposed to have a completely private value scale that they measure stuff up against. One might say that every feeler have their own dialect. So they put more weight to SUBJECTIVE (compare things/actions to their own values) data.

Thus, from an objective, scientific standpoint, the Thinkers should be correct in their assumptions more often than feelers. If NOT they cannot comprehend the mindset of a strong subjective feeler in which case the Feeler observer (if they have values close to the subject) can be more correct. But if the feeler have different values then they will be even more wrong. 

So the likelyhood of good reading should favor the thinkers.... Or am I logically wrong? 

All decisions are based on emotions and feelings. Yes, thinkers too. So this is a generalization....

(Then we have the Fe vs Fi etc.... I dont go into that)


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems with the axis dichotomy assumption. If an ENTP develops too much Ti and Fe, they start testing J.


In shorter tests, I have tested ENTJ a couple of times. ENTP is SO fitting for me, I am almost a caricature. But I dont see the worst sides of the stereotype in me.... anymore.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Answer to OP:
> 
> Since logic is supposed to be more of a "universal language" (1+1=2) then Thinkers measure OBJECTIVE data (or put more weight to these) when assessing a situation OR PERSON.
> 
> ...


No.

Te and Fe deal with external standards of judgment. Ti and Fi deal with internal standards of judgment. Ti is no less subjective than Fi. And Fe is no less objective than Te. Ti/Te are linear and Fi/Fe more holistic, but linear ≠ objective.

Thinkers are generally more correct in judgments about logical matters, and Feelers are generally more correct in judgments about non-linear matters, but the degree of understanding comes with the pairing of the function and the matter to be understood.

Don't confuse T, Te or Ti, with being objective.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> No.
> 
> Te and Fe deal with external standards of judgment. Ti and Fi deal with internal standards of judgment. Ti is no less subjective than Fi. And Fe is no less objective than Te. Ti/Te are linear and Fi/Fe more holistic, but linear ≠ objective.
> 
> ...


I actually tried to imply that with my last remark. But isnt Feeling more subjective criteria and Thinking more Objective criteria? I wrote "more" here.....

And I have absolutely NO problem with some other person - or type - being better at reading people than me, so I did not try to make my own inclination towards Thinking look good. It was pure logic deduction, where I tried to make sense of the T vs F thing.

What do you mean by linear vs holistic? That is the only thing that differs from what i wrote (deduction-wise), isnt it?. Oh and yes.... The "No " also....

I am really interested if my analogy about dialects and universal language is wrong.... Generally that is. Of course all persons are unique. But dont pull that one because then we can put this forum to rest (at least MBTI-wise).

On an interesting sidenote, I read somewhere how EQ (think of it how you will, for me this is but interesting statistics) correlates to MBTI: I believe that there were no Fs in the top spots (those with highest "EQ", whatever that is). I have no idea how the test was or what it measures (and I dont give it much credit), but it is called "Emotional Intelligence" by some. I write it here because it COULD be close to the subject of "reading" emotions or people.

So I am really interested in what F vs T is. I thought Subjective vs Objective bias. Now I want to know about Holistic vs Linear...

Ne and Ni I have heard of. What is the definition of No? ....


----------



## brightteyes (Aug 15, 2010)

I appreciate the title of your thread. 
:happy:
I feel as if feelers jump to conclusions all the time, 
that is one of the reasons why I get so frustrated with them.​


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> After reading this post I dont know if we even have different opinions about anything, so I will not continue the debate....
> 
> YOU as well as I, and EVERYONE, have IMPRESSIONS about the people we meet. Yes, even so called first impressions. But as you say, we shouldn't be blindfolded and JUDGE people based on vague ideas. I agree fully. After they have affirmed through action that your perceived image of their "behavior" is largely correct, this will of course effect the IMPRESSION, and PREJUDICE/ASSUMPTIONS about what the person will do the next time. But everyone should ALWAYS be ready to acknowledge fault in themselves, otherwise your self-view will be totally flawed in no time....
> 
> I think we both agree....


I am not entirely sure we do - you seem to place so much emphasis on everyone that you gloss over the serious differences in how much people assume. It's not remotely equal, even as there is a baseline people usually meet. I mean, often I don't care enough about people I meet to have much of an impression or one that I remember a minute later...or remember their name...or their existence. Feelers & Extraverts care more, _generally speaking_, and will, in consequence assume more about people, as they are treating them as relevant. I assume/develop hypotheses more about_ ideas_, it'll expand into a complete system much more quickly. People...meh. It is possible to treat people as so much furniture and assume _next_ to nothing. Apathy. Disinterest. I'm not saying there is no impression whatever, just that hypotheses will be much less in number than for those who actively try to understand, especially those who understand through the continuous postulation of hypotheses (Ne for one). A vague 'they seemed nice.' or 'who again?' versus 'they seem like a person who xyz and etc.etc.etc.'


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

lirulin said:


> I am not entirely sure we do - you seem to place so much emphasis on everyone that you gloss over the serious differences in how much people assume. It's not remotely equal, even as there is a baseline people usually meet. I mean, often I don't care enough about people I meet to have much of an impression or one that I remember a minute later...or remember their name...or their existence. Feelers & Extraverts care more, _generally speaking_, and will, in consequence assume more about people, as they are treating them as relevant. I assume/develop hypotheses more about_ ideas_, it'll expand into a complete system much more quickly. People...meh. It is possible to treat people as so much furniture and assume _next_ to nothing. Apathy. Disinterest. I'm not saying there is no impression whatever, just that hypotheses will be much less in number than for those who actively try to understand, especially those who understand through the continuous postulation of hypotheses (Ne for one). A vague 'they seemed nice.' or 'who again?' versus 'they seem like a person who xyz and etc.etc.etc.'


Ok, I THINK I get you: Since you dont care about others you dont waste energy making assumptions about them. Ok. And people-people who need other people for energy of course is more picky as to whom to interact with - and analyze them. That is of course true. But then it is about Extrovert -Introvert then? Extrovers are better at reading people? That is the theory?

Interestingly, I believe that that was the thing that effected the EQ results most: I BELIEVE I remember that the top scoring Personality types were E, and that that was the key factor from the scientists perspective (first F was in place 3, then 5 and then lower...I think ... unfortunately this is all from memory, and I am not that detail-oriented....

I am not exactly sure of what we disagree upon so .... but If I understood correctly I agree that the theory is plausible...

EDIT: But of course you do the impression thing: To see potential threat or interest. Your deduction is mostly that they are uninteresting and nothing to mind.... but that doesn't mean your brain hasn't made thousand small assessments that made you come to that conclusion


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Ok, I THINK I get you: Since you dont care about others you dont waste energy making assumptions about them. Ok. And people-people who need other people for energy of course is more picky as to whom to interact with - and analyze them. That is of course true. But then it is about Extrovert -Introvert then? Extrovers are better at reading people? That is the theory?
> 
> Interestingly, I believe that that was the thing that effected the EQ results most: I BELIEVE I remember that the top scoring Personality types were E, and that that was the key factor from the scientists perspective (first F was in place 3, then 5 and then lower...I think ... unfortunately this is all from memory, and I am not that detail-oriented....
> 
> ...


Not always better. They just care enough to try more often and get things both wrong and right more often. Same with Feelers. I wasn't trying to make it about skill. Although, as you say, that could translate into EQ as a trend.

And the impression thing - again, not entirely. Mostly it is a default way of acting that has very little to do with the person themselves or how _they_ act - more to do with me. Say, I essentially treat someone as uninteresting/non-threatening until they prove otherwise. I may notice contradictory signs but I don't _rely on positive signs _to generate something that is a default. Hence why it is a default. So any beliefs are rather more about people in general, and not about a person in particular, or about ways of treating people - and even then, I'm not really applying it to _them_ as an assumption, it's not like I _believe_ these things about _them_ (that would require thinking about them), more that it is a functional generic working hypothesis that serves mainly as a guide for action rather than thought, one that I adjust when I care enough to bother. I don't assume they are *genuinely* a nonentity, it is more that I don't feel threatened or interested than that I judge _them _to be non-threatening or boring. My perceiving function is introverted - which is, yes, a bit weird. For you the decision will be _more_ based on intaking information from them and applying conclusions_ to_ them, more about them, more, indeed, about the outside world. _Especially_ on a conscious level - I definitely do less of that. Which I think is more what I attempted to discuss, anyway. So again, assumptions exist but mine will be less _about _the person. They will be more about me and my goals/expectations/etc. - in this situation. Much as people all assume, they derive and apply such assumptions differently and more/less in different cases. It's not black-and-white but distinctions exist.

I mean, are you making assumptions about the chair in the corner of your room? You may have _seen_ it, but if you care less, these things take less of your attention and one generates less ideas about them. They have to matter on some level first. A chair isn't a person and there will always be a bit more for humans - but less for some than for others. That's all.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Not always better. They just care enough to try more often and get things both wrong and right more often. Same with Feelers. I wasn't trying to make it about skill. Although, as you say, that could translate into EQ as a trend.
> 
> And the impression thing - again, not entirely. Mostly it is a default way of acting that has very little to do with the person themselves or how _they_ act - more to do with me. Say, I essentially treat someone as uninteresting/non-threatening until they prove otherwise. I may notice contradictory signs but I don't _rely on positive signs _to generate something that is a default. Hence why it is a default. So any beliefs are rather more about people in general, and not about a person in particular, or about ways of treating people - and even then, I'm not really applying it to _them_ as an assumption, it's not like I _believe_ these things about _them_ (that would require thinking about them), more that it is a functional generic working hypothesis that serves mainly as a guide for action rather than thought, one that I adjust when I care enough to bother. I don't assume they are *genuinely* a nonentity, it is more that I don't feel threatened or interested than that I judge _them _to be non-threatening or boring. My perceiving function is introverted - which is, yes, a bit weird. For you the decision will be _more_ based on intaking information from them and applying conclusions_ to_ them, more about them, more, indeed, about the outside world. _Especially_ on a conscious level - I definitely do less of that. Which I think is more what I attempted to discuss, anyway. So again, assumptions exist but mine will be less _about _the person. They will be more about me and my goals/expectations/etc. - in this situation. Much as people all assume, they derive and apply such assumptions differently and more/less in different cases. It's not black-and-white but distinctions exist.
> 
> I mean, are you making assumptions about the chair in the corner of your room? You may have _seen_ it, but if you care less, these things take less of your attention and one generates less ideas about them. They have to matter on some level first. A chair isn't a person and there will always be a bit more for humans - but less for some than for others. That's all.


OK, I am sorry but I dont think we have very differing opinions here. Just semantics about what an assumption is, or what we mean by "reading people". 

And I think you don't think that I get the thing that you are not thoroughly as interested in thinking about thoroughly reading peoples thoughts as I would think....

But I do thank you for the explanation of the difference in mindset between you and the perceived me. That is genuinely interesting.... As I am very much outside oriented you are likely correct.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Semantics does seem to be a large part of it.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

I can be like that, I'm not denying it. But I think my ENFP mum surely takes the cake.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> I actually tried to imply that with my last remark. But isnt Feeling more subjective criteria and Thinking more Objective criteria? I wrote "more" here.....
> 
> And I have absolutely NO problem with some other person - or type - being better at reading people than me, so I did not try to make my own inclination towards Thinking look good. It was pure logic deduction, where I tried to make sense of the T vs F thing.
> 
> ...


Sorry to be brief. I am short of time and need to sleep.

I don't know about the connection between MBTI and EQ so I won't comment on that.

As I understand the cognitive functions, the extraverted functions relate to external (i.e. objective) data, the introverted functions to internal (i.e. subjective) data. Maybe we are using the words subjective and objective differently.

Feeling and thinking (as per Jung/MBTI) has nothing to do with being more or less rational, as they are both rational (i.e. judging) function. Both Te and Fe operate rationally on external objective data. What I was trying to hint at using the distinction of linear/holistic is the need to shift the focus of understanding the judging types from a false rational/emotional dichotomy.

I do not disagree with your deduction, but I do question your starting assumptions. You assume that (linear) logic is more objective and from that conclude that a Thinker is more objective. But the definition of objective is not the same as (linear logic). If we understand "objective" as that which is based on an external standard, and describe the Extraverted functions as based on an external standard, then the conclusion seems to me to clearly be that it is Te and Fe that are the objective functions. It is Ti and Fi that do have "private" or internal standards for their judgment, and hence should be called subjective functions. This is all based on a definition of objective or subjective that related to the content of the cognitive process.

As I see it you seem to put more weight in the form of the process itself rather than the data and outcome. This is where I would prefer to use the words linear (or possible logical, but that lies to close to rational to be comfortable in this case) and holistic. The characterisation of Ti/Te as linear focuses on their emphasis on cause and effect in an either practical matters or logical consistency. The description of Fi/Fe as holistic focuses on their emphasis on the general impression of a situation with a more value-based weighting of arguments. I'm sorry I don't know how to explain it better.

Anyway, I guess my point is that you seem to come to the conclusion that Thinkers are more objective, by understanding the linear process of Ti/Te as more objective than the holistic process of Fi/Fe, regardless of the actual extraversion/introversion aspect. But as we are talking about objective and subjective rather in relating to the outer world, and specifically other people here, I think this line of reasoning is going down the wrong alley... (Or I'm just tired...)

As for your comment on the language and dialect thing, I think, again, that this is even more clearly Te/Fe vs. Ti/Fi as the extraverted functions are the ones that are interested in understanding and doing things in a way consistent with the outer world, whereas Ti and Fi rely on their own judgment. Which paradoxically also is why Fi and Ti apparently tend to have I higher view of their own objectivity than Te and Fe. Oh the irony...

That's all for now. Feel free to disagree or question, and if needed I'll give this another shot when my mind is clearer. :happy:


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

This article does a good job of explaining how Ti assumes it is objective, when it is actually subjective.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/3074-ti-v-fi-closer-look.html

The opposite implication is also true. Fe can assume it is subjective, when it is actually objective.

The end result is everyone has the capacity to make correct or incorrect deductions. Cognitive functions simply indicate the type of deductions, and therefore the type of strengths and weaknesses in those deductions. People with similar functions are likely to make similar deductions and therefore agree with one another - whether correct or incorrect. People with dissimilar functions are likely to come to different deductions - even if both parties come up with a correct answer that focuses on a different aspect, leading them to disagree even though they're both accurately assessing what they are each looking at - unable that their answers are not mutually exclusive. However, this also means that people with different functions can both come to incorrect answers, and insist that they are both right. 

Or the short version... cognitive functions only indicate *how* someone thinks, not how* well *they think.

However, the better developed and integrated a person's cognitive functions are, the more likely they are to think well. When a person only has their dominant and secondary functions well developed, they are likely to come to shortsighted deductions - where as someone with well developed tertiary and inferior functions is much more likely to come to more astute deductions. Each function has a balance function. Ni is balanced and enhanced by Se. Ne is balanced and enhanced by Si. Ti is balanced and enhanced by Fe. Fi is balanced and enhanced by Te. When only one of these functions is well developed, it leaves the other function without a 'second opinion' to compliment it.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> Sorry to be brief. I am short of time and need to sleep.
> 
> I don't know about the connection between MBTI and EQ so I won't comment on that.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this.. always interesting. I dont think our opinions differ that much actually. Which implies that I must learn to communicate better since I had the same problem with Lirulin.

I state that ALL decisions are based on feelings on a deeper level, but some put more weight to "feely" values than "rational (pragmatical/non-empathic)" data. And that Ti (I really tried NOT to go into this as I think it nears the usability of MBTI) though based on an internal model, still uses pragmatical data such as 1+1, which should make other logical thinkers models the same. This means you are of course correct in that thinkers should be better at reading thinkers. BUT feelers are supposed to have internal, personal value scale from which stems their logical "model". Thus the common ground between feelers should be harder to find, as well as different cultures, experiences, upbringing would have more impact. 

Since pragmatic thinkers look at what really happens and deduce logical presets and consequenses, also based from experience and observation of the subject AND SIMILAR SUBJECTS from past experiences, they would possibly be MORE accurate. Feelers DO NOT NECESSARILY share common value systems, such as thinkers logic (that of course can be flawed).

OR; I might just not be able to see your point. As I understand it, I am Ti judgement and Ne and Fe gathering. 

An any case, I obviously have a hard time explaining these thoughts....


----------



## Random Ness (Oct 13, 2010)

Not type related.

Ts jump to conclusions just as often.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Random Ness said:


> Not type related.
> 
> Ts jump to conclusions just as often.


Yes we ALL "jump to conclusions", I agree. I was speculating whether F or T types were correct in their assumptions more often....


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Or the short version... cognitive functions only indicate *how* someone thinks, not how* well *they think.


This is a very good point. It needs to be emphasized.

MBTI just describes how your thinking is slanted, what kinds of things you minds tends to value and pay attention to. It has nothing do with who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Yes we ALL "jump to conclusions", I agree. I was speculating whether F or T types were correct in their assumptions more often....


For the record, I don't know any type that is more incorrect in their assumptions more often than ENTPs. They will throw out a volume of incorrect assumptions before they end up at the correct one. Kinda like now. Funniest part about it is that the ENTPs discard all the incorrect assumptions once they get to the right one, and then incorrectly assume they have a much better record of correct assumptions than they do. Don't get me wrong, ENTPs excel at ending up at the correct assumption, but they talk out loud the whole way through the process turning over all the wrong stones until they get to the right one. It's how you guys think with that Ne (possibilities) and Ti (clarifying) of yours. It works for you, but maybe you're not paying attention to how much you assume out loud while you're doing it?


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> For the record, I don't know any type that is more incorrect in their assumptions more often than ENTPs. They will throw out a volume of incorrect assumptions before they end up at the correct one. Kinda like now. Funniest part about it is that the ENTPs discard all the incorrect assumptions once they get to the right one, and then incorrectly assume they have a much better record of correct assumptions than they do. Don't get me wrong, ENTPs excel at ending up at the correct assumption, but they talk out loud the whole way through the process turning over all the wrong stones until they get to the right one. It's how you guys think with that Ne (possibilities) and Ti (clarifying) of yours. It works for you, but maybe you're not paying attention to how much you assume out loud while you're doing it?


He he. Yes. Or "write out loud" in my case. Actually, I do like the debate regarding different theories, and I have never really understood the need of some who want ONE, definite conclusion that is the TRUTH. As possibility-seeking ENTP, I look for different theories that would explain it, and then I can ask for input to see which one fits best. Like your input.

For me, and ENTPs in general from the descriptions, I dont invest much feeling or energy in ONE conclusion or the other. I just want the most likely one as it gives insights into how the world works. To know that others have different opinions and outlooks also is of value. I might even consider your input completely wrong-headed (not so in this case) but I would respect the view, and learn from that.

After turning all the wrong stones, I can find the right one as you say, and I build models from there. So the next time I might be able to use that model (jumping to conclusions without judging, merely observing until I know it is correct or that the model doesnt apply or needs to be refined/widened).

But what pisses me off is when someone just dismisses my thoughts or theories with a gesture without giving them any thought (judging them). There is lots of thought invested in producing these models, so they are really thought through, but might be flawed. In which case I welcome feedback to better it. Or sometimes, like now, I throw out an possible logical deduction and wish to see if others think there is anything to it. 

But in all: You wish that the ENTP process would be more "silent" and not include throwing out theories for feedback? I am slightly baffled by this. Strong sensors would of course find theorizing a bore, and maybe introverts find my verbal/written spamming exhausting?

In any case, I thank you for the response(s).


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

vel said:


> This is a very good point. It needs to be emphasized.
> 
> MBTI just describes how your thinking is slanted, what kinds of things you minds tends to value and pay attention to. It has nothing do with who is right and who is wrong.


Hmmm. Well, if you look at someone and say "I see you are really sad, but hiding it. How are you?" And they say/show it is correct etc. Then you are "right". But if your "reading" is wrong .... well it is "wrong" , isnt it?

And it is just a small theory about whether some personality types/slanted thinking could be better at doing this reading. Posted because the OP wondered about our thoughts of the matter.

ExFxs should be better at reading people, but I cant find the logical model to support it. I am too logical perhaps... They are perhaps more interested in every aspect of people and so have more experience seeing details...?


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> He he. Yes. Or "write out loud" in my case. Actually, I do like the debate regarding different theories, and I have never really understood the need of some who want ONE, definite conclusion that is the TRUTH. As possibility-seeking ENTP, I look for different theories that would explain it, and then I can ask for input to see which one fits best. Like your input.


Until I understood my ENTP buddies, I mistook this process for sincere debate and assertion of a correct answer. Now that I get it, it doesn't bug me so much, especially since my ENTP buddies have explained how crucial my feedback has been to helping them getting to the right answer. As an ENFJ, I simply can't turn down a request for help, hehe.



ENTPreneur said:


> For me, and ENTPs in general from the descriptions, I dont invest much feeling or energy in ONE conclusion or the other. I just want the most likely one as it gives insights into how the world works. To know that others have different opinions and outlooks also is of value. I might even consider your input completely wrong-headed (not so in this case) but I would respect the view, and learn from that.
> 
> After turning all the wrong stones, I can find the right one as you say, and I build models from there. So the next time I might be able to use that model (jumping to conclusions without judging, merely observing until I know it is correct or that the model doesnt apply or needs to be refined/widened).
> 
> But what pisses me off is when someone just dismisses my thoughts or theories with a gesture without giving them any thought (judging them). There is lots of thought invested in producing these models, so they are really thought through, but might be flawed. In which case I welcome feedback to better it. Or sometimes, like now, I throw out an possible logical deduction and wish to see if others think there is anything to it.


Yup, that's exactly how my ENTP buddy describes it. It's always interesting watching him narrow down - since he does it out loud, it's very clear. 



ENTPreneur said:


> But in all: You wish that the ENTP process would be more "silent" and not include throwing out theories for feedback? I am slightly baffled by this. Strong sensors would of course find theorizing a bore, and maybe introverts find my verbal/written spamming exhausting?


The problem with it for me is that every time his Ne comes up with another possibility, that forces my Ni to solve it to a singularity. 

I don't at all mind the theorizing. In fact, it's one of my favorite things to do with my ENTP buddy, since he's very theoretical like myself and his INTJ wife. We will sit and theorize for hours on end about all sorts of things. However, at a certain point, he's not using his Ne to generate answers, so much as just throwing out more possibilities for the sake of throwing them out there. 

My Ni actually enjoys solving legitimate problems and puzzles. It gets annoying at having to ponder things that have no constructive direction because it will reflexively attempt to do so with whatever it encounters. In a way, his Ne can spam my Ni until I'm really annoyed. 



ENTPreneur said:


> In any case, I thank you for the response(s).


Aww, you're welcome. /hugs



ENTPreneur said:


> ExFxs should be better at reading people, but I cant find the logical model to support it. I am too logical perhaps... They are perhaps more interested in every aspect of people and so have more experience seeing details...?


I'd be inclined to say that ENFJs are the best people readers, but that's because I am one and I'm freakishly good at it. The logic is simple. Fe provides the drive and focus to pay attention to people. Ni provides the drive and ability to see 'the' pattern. I have a few ENFJ friends, and we're all nigh psychic in our ability to read people. I can't tell you how many friends I have who've said things like "How could you possibly know that?" or "How did you pick up on that? I didn't notice anything at all." Of all the types, I think this is "our thing". This is also where our charisma comes from. We are reacting to what we are picking up on.

INFJs tend to be alarmingly insightful when they actually do pay attention, sometimes even more insightful than us ENFJs, but they seem to have to have a reason to poke their heads out and look. The INFPs and ENFPs I know are also really good at picking up on stuff, but at least in my own experience are terrible at pinning down what it is. For example, my favorite ENFP (whom I just adore) picked up on the fact that I was upset with her, even though I was trying to hide it (and can hide my feelings from almost everyone) but instead of saying something like "What's wrong?" or even addressing what was actually the issue, she blurts "Oh my god, are you going to take me out to a creek and kill me?!" I'd never been so boggled in my life. I asked in utter dismay, "What in the world would make you think I'd ever hurt you, let alone kill you? Sheesh... and how the hell did a creek get brought into this?" She had no answer, but I knew it was her Ne going bananas.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> Until I understood my ENTP buddies, I mistook this process for sincere debate and assertion of a correct answer. Now that I get it, it doesn't bug me so much, especially since my ENTP buddies have explained how crucial my feedback has been to helping them getting to the right answer. As an ENFJ, I simply can't turn down a request for help, hehe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was an extensive, informative answer.... many thanks. And i am envious of your "theory-loving" debate buddies....


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> That was an extensive, informative answer.... many thanks. And i am envious of your "theory-loving" debate buddies....


I am really lucky in that the city where I live has somehow caused about a hundred N types to gravitate together as a rather tight knit group of friends. It's been a real blessing to have a dozen N types to hang out with at any given time. I wouldn't trade it for much at all.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Thanks for this.. always interesting. I dont think our opinions differ that much actually. Which implies that I must learn to communicate better since I had the same problem with Lirulin.
> 
> I state that ALL decisions are based on feelings on a deeper level, but some put more weight to "feely" values than "rational (pragmatical/non-empathic)" data. And that Ti (I really tried NOT to go into this as I think it nears the usability of MBTI) though based on an internal model, still uses pragmatical data such as 1+1, which should make other logical thinkers models the same. This means you are of course correct in that thinkers should be better at reading thinkers. BUT feelers are supposed to have internal, personal value scale from which stems their logical "model". Thus the common ground between feelers should be harder to find, as well as different cultures, experiences, upbringing would have more impact.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'm with you, but only so far...

I think that where your model goes wrong is that you assume that decisions are basically made based on feelings, and that then some people add a rational perspective to a greater or smaller degree. Remember, both F and T are rational functions. But let's assume you mean logical. You also still equate what you call "pragmatic" data, with objectivity, or at least intersubjectivity. This, and your reference to T being less culture-specific than F, makes me think that you still somehow see T as more objective than F. This is not the case. The two more objective functions are Te and Fe, while Fi and Ti are in themselves equally subjective. As for the conclusion of the judging function obviously Fi and Ti, as well as Fe and Te, are able to come to a conclusion that is in line with other people's opinions and/or reality.

It is true that Ti uses linear logic with its data. But firstly, the data is not in itself necessarily objective, since Ti uses internal data, rather than external pragmatic data, as Te; and secondly, the logic of Ti is inherently self-contained, so that what seems logical and rational to one Ti, is not necessarily so to another Ti. The reason that a Ti user will think of his own cognitive system as completely objective, is that it all is very clear to themself how it all fits togheter, and thus they expect everyone else to see things the same way. Ti types are probably the types that will have the hardest time accepting that their own perception might be just that, since their frame of reference is strictly subjective despite having the appearance of following objective rules. 

Feelers on the other hand are of two different kinds as well. A Fi dominant will have a similar disposition as the Ti dominant, whereas the Fe user will be more like the Te user. Neither Fi nor Fe use linear logic, but rather holistic thinking, but where Fi is concerned with internal frames of reference, Fe deals with external reference points. A Fi user is subjective, but a Fe user put just as much weight on external circumstances as the Te user.

Where I think you confuse things are with drawing the line between perceiving and judging. Looking at what really happens is and from that deducing a system of logic, is precisely your own combination of external perception and internal judgment. The extraverted perceiving part is what makes you feel that you work with objective data, which you do, but you compare the objective data to your own internal framework of logic. A true pragmatic thinker (Te, as opposed to the analytical thinker Ti) would care a lot less about being logical and go for what simply works instead (in exactly the same way a Fe dominant puts a lot less weight on their own values than a Fi dominant, and could be seen as plainly more opportunistic). They would also be more concerned with memories of past events, as they use intraverted perception. A Ti dominant is really relying more on the synthesized structure derived from past events than the events themselves. And if the synthesis is off, the the judgment is off.

Still though, this is not in general a matter of any type being more objective than the other. If there is higher objectivity in taking in the situation, there is less objectivity in the syntesizing of the judging of it, and vice versa. It has to be this way since alternating between external objects and mental models is the only way for the human mind to create understanding of the world. Real objectivity is more about how well you use your functions, and how balanced you are in them, rather than which set you have. And this goes for understanding other people as well as understanding anything else in the world.

The shortcut that you are trying to point out by claiming higher universality for Thinking rationality than for Feeling rationality is based on T being more uniform than F. But just as feelers do not necesarily share the same value system, neither do thinkers necessarily share the same logic. If they do, this is a result of cultural conformity, and since our western world is highly scientific and that is what children are primarily taught, then maybe you are right as a matter of fact. But your arguments are flawed. Sorry.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm going to post some examples to illustrate that people are good with their own functions, and not so good with their inverses - when dealing with other people.

As an NFJ, I'm good with Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se. I am frequently having to translate my ENTP buddy to his INTJ wife when they have a communication glitch. I speak Ti so I understand him and I speak Ni, so I understand her. We have an ISTP friend who I can read like a book, and yet my INTJ friend is constantly taken back by my insights about her. She can't read her half as well as I can.

We have an ESFJ friend who my INTJ friend kept assuming was up to no good. I told her that this wasn't the case and explained in detail what she was actually thinking/doing, but my INTJ didn't want to believe me, but it turned out that I was exactly right. 

As an INTJ, she's good with Ni, Te, Fi, and Se. She frequently explains the motivations of our mutual INFP friend (whom I dated for 3 years in college) to me. I have close to 20 years of good friendship with this INFP including an extremely intimate relationship, and yet my INTJ friend could read her almost instantly upon meeting her, and was able to translate because she speaks Fi and Ni. (I know this because my INTJ has explained things to me in front her her, and the INFP was nodding enthusiastically.) 

We also have an ISTJ friend who I thought I could read. My INTJ told me that he was up to no good. I couldn't see it because it was Te version of no good, but she could. Turns out she was right to an alarming degree.

If this were as simple as a T vs F issue, these things could not be the case.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> The shortcut that you are trying to point out by claiming higher universality for Thinking rationality than for Feeling rationality is based on T being more uniform than F. But just as feelers do not necesarily share the same value system, neither do thinkers necessarily share the same logic. If they do, this is a result of cultural conformity, and since our western world is highly scientific and that is what children are primarily taught, then maybe you are right as a matter of fact. But your arguments are flawed. Sorry.


Your answer would deserve thanks just because of the exhaustive and well put post. As you say I tried to be universal and simplistic. I didnt think the differences to be that large anyway.

To reply to your answer - in most aspects completely accurate when it comes to what I implied - I speculated that T users are more INCLINED to seek/use non-personal data (dared not write "objective") and not value it vs internal values. My models (Ti) also use "rational, non-personal data" as far as possible. Of course everything is filtered through my brain so there is always "subjectivity". But I try to build my models on a logical foundation,. Feelings (as I know them from myself and others/experience) are but logical pieces/data of its puzzle.

So I think I do my best to be rational and not apply "irrational" values. I havent the time/energy to go into the Te/Ti thing right now.... You seem much more into it.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> I'm going to post some examples to illustrate that people are good with their own functions, and not so good with their inverses - when dealing with other people.
> 
> As an NFJ, I'm good with Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se. I am frequently having to translate my ENTP buddy to his INTJ wife when they have a communication glitch. I speak Ti so I understand him and I speak Ni, so I understand her. We have an ISTP friend who I can read like a book, and yet my INTJ friend is constantly taken back by my insights about her. She can't read her half as well as I can.
> 
> ...


There seems to be an ongoing debate on the Type thing and Xi vs Xe, just as you write. That the divides and similarities are more about what you write. I think it might. I havent gone into it that deep, since I believe(d) that MBTI has limited use when going into this level of murky detail: I think that it is interesting but might not be as useful as the quick generalisation of 16 types.... But you are on to something I guess....


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> But just as feelers do not necesarily share the same value system, neither do thinkers necessarily share the same logic.


I think this could be up for some debate in itself... Logic being universal logic is a common topic in NT forum. But I just drop it...


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> There seems to be an ongoing debate on the Type thing and Xi vs Xe, just as you write. That the divides and similarities are more about what you write. I think it might. I havent gone into it that deep, since I believe(d) that MBTI has limited use when going into this level of murky detail: I think that it is interesting but might not be as useful as the quick generalisation of 16 types.... But you are on to something I guess....


Jung was onto something. I'm just using what he came up with in real life. All of this MBTI stuff is based on the cognitive function work of Carl Jung. You should really look into this theory more. It's far more accurate than the 16 personality types, and might just be what you're looking for.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Your answer would deserve thanks just because of the exhaustive and well put post. As you say I tried to be universal and simplistic. I didnt think the differences to be that large anyway.
> 
> To reply to your answer - in most aspects completely accurate when it comes to what I implied - I speculated that T users are more INCLINED to seek/use non-personal data (dared not write "objective") and not value it vs internal values. My models (Ti) also use "rational, non-personal data" as far as possible. Of course everything is filtered through my brain so there is always "subjectivity". But I try to build my models on a logical foundation,. Feelings (as I know them from myself and others/experience) are but logical pieces/data of its puzzle.
> 
> So I think I do my best to be rational and not apply "irrational" values. I havent the time/energy to go into the Te/Ti thing right now.... You seem much more into it.


Again, no. Ti users seek out external (non-personal) data AND judge the data according to internal values. These are not to opposites, but are both ways any normal P type functions. A normal J type would do neither, but rather seek out internal data to judge according to external models. So this is not an F vs. T thing; it is Fi/Ti vs. Fe/Te.

Also, a Fi user will try just as hard as you do to be objective in their judgment. Striving for objective values is no different from striving for objective logic in that aspect. Still neither of you have objective judgment, since that's an extraverted function.

What you still seem to do is to think that Ti models are more objective than Fi models, due to being structured in a more linear/logical way. But this is the bias of your Ti. Objectivity is not found in how the inner judging model is formed. Objectivity in judgment is only reached with an external judging model.

Lastly, the "feelings" you are talking about as the pieces of your puzzle is more likely something from Ne or Si, than Fi, in my view.

And sorry to bother you with even more text to read... :laughing:


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> Again, no. Ti users seek out external (non-personal) data AND judge the data according to internal values. These are not to opposites, but are both ways any normal P type functions. A normal J type would do neither, but rather seek out internal data to judge according to external models. So this is not an F vs. T thing; it is Fi/Ti vs. Fe/Te.
> 
> Also, a Fi user will try just as hard as you do to be objective in their judgment. Striving for objective values is no different from striving for objective logic in that aspect. Still neither of you have objective judgment, since that's an extraverted function.
> 
> ...


Actually I find the bias in WHAT data to put WHAT value to. In reply also to Noblehearts post, I must say that I have read a bit of the Xe, Xi: Particularly NE/Ni etc. It is interesting. Actually there is a thread that Nobleheart (or you?) refer to earlier "Why Ti is subjective" or something. Where they explain that Ti is holistic too. I have read it and the conclusion as to how it works seem to fit with me. But I think that we are using semantics again: OK, every human alive is subjective , of course. OK, the subjective-objective words in language and when used in these theories have different meaning. 

External judgement that gives objectivity is objective because of it isnt filtered? Because otherwise it would also be subjective. 

It might be right in a theoretical level, but pragmatically you even say your self that "Subjective logics" might be a bit more "universal" than "A personal, subjective value-scale logic". So there is a difference in how many other persons would see" the common sense" or "understand your points" or motifs.

I also concur that similar-functioning individuals have better predisposition to understand each other. But even there, the logic ones should be able to understand each other better since logic per linguistic definition is without subjective bias. 

Or... I think we will not get any further. I agree with almost everything you say, and I think you understand me. But perhaps we are biased towards different ends of the spectra, and I actually dont know anymore what I want to say, or how you want to edit my model. 

And I am very bad at Fi... But strong in Fe. Which would imply that I can read people well, but not myself when it comes to these "feely" matters. Ill just have to take your reasoning and word for it!


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> I think this could be up for some debate in itself... Logic being universal logic is a common topic in NT forum. But I just drop it...


Didn't see this until now, and since you posted, I'll comment on it. :laughing:

No. I don't mean that the basic logical operators are not universal. This is why not even "logical" is the best way to describe T in my opinion. F also stays within the limits of the basic foundations of logic, but the process of getting to a judgment is different. The best attritubes I have found so far is labeling T as _linear_ and F as _holistic_.

So yeah, absolutely, the basics of logic are universal. But that is true for F types as well, also F is bound by the limits of logic.

What differs between the two is the way to arrive at a conclusion that is within the confines of logic, and the way in which logic is deployed in the process.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> Didn't see this until now, and since you posted, I'll comment on it. :laughing:
> 
> No. I don't mean that the basic logical operators are not universal. This is why not even "logical" is the best way to describe T in my opinion. F also stays within the limits of the basic foundations of logic, but the process of getting to a judgment is different. The best attritubes I have found so far is labeling T as _linear_ and F as _holistic_.
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Actually I find the bias in WHAT data to put WHAT value to. In reply also to Noblehearts post, I must say that I have read a bit of the Xe, Xi: Particularly NE/Ni etc. It is interesting. Actually there is a thread that Nobleheart (or you?) refer to earlier "Why Ti is subjective" or something. Where they explain that Ti is holistic too. I have read it and the conclusion as to how it works seem to fit with me. But I think that we are using semantics again: OK, every human alive is subjective , of course. OK, the subjective-objective words in language and when used in these theories have different meaning.


The thread was nobleheart's and I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list... Ok, now I have read it. But as I read it, the description "holistic" was used in the thread to characterize Fi, not Ti.



> External judgement that gives objectivity is objective because of it isnt filtered? Because otherwise it would also be subjective.


Sort of. Any Judging function is a way of filtering. But extraverted judging is filtering through interaction with the objective/external world.



> It might be right in a theoretical level, but pragmatically you even say your self that "Subjective logics" might be a bit more "universal" than "A personal, subjective value-scale logic". So there is a difference in how many other persons would see" the common sense" or "understand your points" or motifs.


My point is that this is not inherent in T itself, but that is a cultural thing.



> I also concur that similar-functioning individuals have better predisposition to understand each other. But even there, the logic ones should be able to understand each other better since logic per linguistic definition is without subjective bias.


Again, both T and F are logical in the sense of rational. I think you fail to make a distinction between pure logic and applied logic.



> Or... I think we will not get any further. I agree with almost everything you say, and I think you understand me. But perhaps we are biased towards different ends of the spectra, and I actually dont know anymore what I want to say, or how you want to edit my model.


Hmm... we started with the question it was easier for T types than for F types to read eachother's minds. I think you have opened me up to the possibility that that might be the case, but I don't know whether you agree with my argument that this is not achieved by anything inherent in T itself. And our disagreement seems to be about the understanding of the characterisation of Ti as logical and/or objective.



> And I am very bad at Fi... But strong in Fe. Which would imply that I can read people well, but not myself when it comes to these "feely" matters. Ill just have to take your reasoning and word for it!


I'm probably to strong Ti to make any sense of Fi in myself... But my Fe generally makes me look to others for confirmation and approval. For self-assessment, I am convinced that I use Ni and a quite inferior Se. :happy:


----------



## MissNobody (Aug 23, 2010)

I'll often make judgements in my head but not say anything and wait until those judgements are confirmed to me or until someone else verbalises a similar thought. Then I will discuss the assumptions with that person and try and work out why we both came to the same conclusion.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> Hmm... we started with the question it was easier for T types than for F types to read eachother's minds. I think you have opened me up to the possibility that that might be the case, but I don't know whether you agree with my argument that this is not achieved by anything inherent in T itself.


I must say that I haven't got the data necessary to draw any real conclusion about this. Culture will have impact on both T and F... But I thought that Ts would be more .... critical of the Status quo when it doesnt fit with scientific data, for instance. Copernicus, Brahe etc. They saw that he status quo didnt fit the model of reality (and that reality didnt fit status quo either), and they had the nerve to object to established norms! I would say T. They put so much weight to the scientific data that it easily overcame their value of social norms. Fs would perhaps go along anyway (well.... what is a revolutionary world view anyway compared to harmonious life  because of more weight put to personal harmony, others well being, fear of conflict etc. (This is trolling a bit, so dont take the bait.)




penchant said:


> And our disagreement seems to be about the understanding of the characterisation of Ti as logical and/or objective.


Yes perhaps. Bt I also think we just use different words.... I also state that all judgement is subjective. Merely that T would put more weight to for instance scientific data (see above)....

I think we both have had impact on each others thoughts in this matter. I thank you for your input!


----------

