# Typology is only a Thinker's attempt at gaining cognitive monopoly



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Typology in essence is the categorization of supposed cognitive functions known as Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition and studying their interplay in the psyche. 

Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultanious obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.

This upsets the thinker and, further encouraged by this failure, they continue to devise a neat system through which control over the other functions can be gained, subjucating them all the while losing their essential nature in translation. Thus only thinking rules superior.

Discuss.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

_Language itself_ imposes certain rules on the game. To be able to communicate with another requires the use of language, a tool that is capable of extraordinary precision when it comes to concepts, ideas, and rigorous analysis, but at the same time is notoriously imprecise when trying to convey highly individual emotional states ... states that often require the use of body language to be fully understood. (This, incidentally, could be why Fi-doms so often make for great writers; they are more in touch with their individual emotional state than any other types.)

To claim that thinkers wish to gain power over feelers quite misses the point here. We want to talk? Fine then. We're limited by what we can and cannot easily express with language.


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Typology in essence is the categorization of supposed cognitive functions known as Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition and studying their interplay in the psyche.
> 
> Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultanious obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.


In a way, one might say a *thinker* (especially if also a sensor) *would be against such a system*: _" There's no real way to fully explain thinking and feeling, or how they connect? It can't be completely rationalized, predicted or measured? Nonsense! Waste of time! Unscientific!)_



> This upsets the thinker and, further encouraged by this failure, they continue to devise a neat system through which control over the other functions can be gained, subjucating them all the while losing their essential nature in translation. Thus only thinking rules superior.


Or the failure is enough for them to deem it too illogical to continue. 

I think many thinkers are all too aware of their less developed feeling side, and as with most things not completely explained or rationalized to them, they may distance themselves from it or, if less mature, fear it. 

*MBTI has always been pretty far from the label of "neat system."* Its almost by design, this near sociological but not quite psychological method of measuring a person's inner self and outer workings on a personal level. It can, and does, contradict itself at many turns and thinkers with the goal of _perfecting_ said system will be doomed to fail over and over again, likely to the point of giving it up if they yield no success practically.



> Thus only thinking rules superior.


CONSPIRACY! (joke)

If thinkers fail at first, then their belief that thinking is superior depends on them ignoring the initial failure that proves them oh so wrong. 



> Discuss


Would love to. May I add a question to the pot?

*What in the MBTI system encourages the idea that thinking is superior?*

And naturally: *What discourages that idea, and/or what encourages other preferences as superior?*

Are thinkers more likely to "succeed/ sound good" when being described in MBTI terms than those who are not thinkers?

I cannot agree with that at present ...


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> Typology in essence is the categorization of supposed cognitive functions known as Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition and studying their interplay in the psyche.
> 
> Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultanious obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.
> 
> ...


You´re assuming that typology was set up with the specific goal to control people. But that's not true. The cognitive functions are mere attempts to understand the human psyche better. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.


People tend to assume that the Thinking types are the controlling types...... but that's actually not true. In fact, Fe and Te are both more controlling types. Where Fe has no problem being mean to people they don't care about. It's often something they enjoy. Makes them feel good about themselves. Where when Te is mean, it's just because it was necessary to reach the goal it is after. But no enjoyment in controling people.

Knowledge has little value if it can't be passed on. But a lot of knowledge about another person isn't passed on in words. Most people are able to determine what's going on with a person without speaking a word. Does that awareness somehow have more value than when it's comunicated through written or spoken language alone?

The limitations of language aren't a barrier if you recognize it's limitations.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Just change your F to a T and act tough a.f.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't like the idea of diving people into "thinkers" and "feelers" or "sensors" and "intuitives". Everybody is a thinker while programming and a feeler when he falls in love. Everybody is a sensor while watching a sunset and an intuitive when he ponders over the meaning of life. Personalities differ, but along a continuum. People can move towards one or another end of this continuum as a result of life circumstances and conscious effort. That's why I don't think identifying as a member of some "personality type" is useful.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

How can you discredit typology when your argument depends on typology?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

willpower is not everything as talent is what lives up to the design


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Eh, I actually think typology appeals more to F types because it allows them to feel special and understand others and then they make their own interpretations of it which they mistake as intuition and subsequently mistype themselves.

I am, of course, referring to more immature F types, I'm well aware you guys are not all like this and many thinkers can be sanctimonious little shits. Although many T types that I have talk about this to, feel like it's too subjective and horoscope-like for them.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> Typology in essence is the categorization of supposed cognitive functions known as Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition and studying their interplay in the psyche.
> 
> Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultanious obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.
> 
> ...


You do know Isabel Briggs(co-creator of MBTI) was an INFP right?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

knife said:


> (This, incidentally, could be why Fi-doms so often make for great writers; they are more in touch with their individual emotional state than any other types.)


Sounds pretty anti-jungian, to him EF types were the most in tune with emotional states. Introverts were supposed to lack affectivity.



Librarian said:


> CONSPIRACY! (joke)


You got the right idea there :wink:



> If thinkers fail at first, then their belief that thinking is superior depends on them ignoring the initial failure that proves them oh so wrong.


Agreed.



> *What in the MBTI system encourages the idea that thinking is superior?*
> 
> And naturally: *What discourages that idea, and/or what encourages other preferences as superior?*
> 
> ...


In the system itself the superiority doesn't seem obvious, not really, it is in the background. Granted, this may be more about speculating on the motivations and biases of Jung and general criticism of testing for (observable) personality traits that MBTI is more about. But... first off, creating the theory comes from Ti, and secondly, verifying it through gathered facts comes from Te. It is mainly a T language, which doesn't always justice to the other functions. And by default, it couldn't do, which is why I am critical of it.

Also, I type as a feeler. Not due to MBTI, mind you. My preference would still be a T type. Because I value thinking, ironically. I have read some articles that try to describe feeling, but it usually remains... elusive, you cannot really dig into the experience by thinking methods (as much as I enjoy attempts at doing so, I love it when someone tries to make feeling intelligent and rational).



Peter said:


> You´re assuming that typology was set up with the specific goal to control people.


I'm not thinking about villainous, "wanting to control everything". More like... wanting to intellectually control something you cannot understand or comprehend, a reaction which is perfectly human. Like how we name things so they have no power over us.

I don't think I'm talking about which type wants to control others the most, no. Specific form of control, yes.



> Knowledge has little value if it can't be passed on. But a lot of knowledge about another person isn't passed on in words. *Most people are able to determine what's going on with a person without speaking a word.* Does that awareness somehow have more value than when it's comunicated through written or spoken language alone?


It interests me you'd have such a notion. See, what I most often witness is misunderstandings because people either 1. do not verbally communicate or 2. do not "share a language", in the sense that what you could almost call 'cognitive' language does match the others'. And the latter has typically been a difference specifically in the "thinking area" so to say, for example different definitions for words... values, on the other hand, CAN be communicated without words. Because the meaning isn't in the words, it is behind them and between.



Turi said:


> Just change your F to a T and act tough a.f.


Will do, thanks a bunch <3



RoseTylerFan said:


> I don't like the idea of diving people into "thinkers" and "feelers" or "sensors" and "intuitives". Everybody is a thinker while programming and a feeler when he falls in love. Everybody is a sensor while watching a sunset and an intuitive when he ponders over the meaning of life. Personalities differ, but along a continuum. People can move towards one or another end of this continuum as a result of life circumstances and conscious effort. That's why I don't think identifying as a member of some "personality type" is useful.


Interesting perspective. I kinda think MBTI allows for this since it is only an indicator, and your test results can vary depending on your preference. However, I do think it's in conflict with trying to claim that type is inherent, genetic whatever. If seeking for such a type, one needs to be extra cautious as not to be thrown off by preferences that change.



dizzycactus said:


> How can you discredit typology when your argument depends on typology?


Valid question.

1. I don't really discredit it as much as I am critical of it being from a narrow perspective (categorization) of something that cannot be categorized?? Or can, but doing so is actually a forceful act that chips away parts of it.

2. Also it could be that typology is only a delusion that has been built upon, but it's not really something I am arguing for as Jung explained a lot of things I had been struggling with and made sense of some observations that I couldn't have been able to explain on my own.



Robopop said:


> You do know Isabel Briggs(co-creator of MBTI) was an INFP right?


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Sounds pretty anti-jungian, to him EF types were the most in tune with emotional states. Introverts were supposed to lack affectivity.


ExFPs are Fi-users. And if that's anti-Jungian that's something I disagree with Jung on. Being _expressively_ emotional is not the same thing as being emotional. You can be emotional all the hell you want and no one will ever notice if it stays inside your own head.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

knife said:


> ExFPs are Fi-users. And if that's anti-Jungian that's something I disagree with Jung on. Being _expressively_ emotional is not the same thing as being emotional. You can be emotional all the hell you want and no one will ever notice if it stays inside your own head.


Well you said Fi-doms, not EXFPs / other Fi users.... sooo.....

Feeling isn't about emotion either. Maybe you disagree about that as well? Feel (no pun intended) free.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Well you said Fi-doms, not EXFPs / other Fi users.... sooo.....
> 
> Feeling isn't about emotion either. Maybe you disagree about that as well? Feel (no pun intended) free.


True, but my point was that was probably confusing expressiveness with affectation when he suggested that EFs were better Feelers. It's more in the preferred mode of self-expression ... not everyone is upfront with their worldview, is my point.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

knife said:


> True, but my point was that was probably confusing expressiveness with affectation when he suggested that EFs were better Feelers. It's more in the preferred mode of self-expression ... not everyone is upfront with their worldview, is my point.


Well he didn't say BETTER feelers... in fact he said something like introverts are unconsciously more genuinely passionate, just detached, whereas extroverts are affective only on the surface, we are essentially hollow on the inside or something like that.... dunno about you, but I don't exactly take that as a compliment.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Well he didn't say BETTER feelers... in fact he said something like introverts are unconsciously more genuinely passionate, just detached, whereas extroverts are affective only on the surface, we are essentially hollow on the inside or something like that.... dunno about you, but I don't exactly take that as a compliment.


Not a compliment but it also doesn't exactly ring false ... I think a better and more emotionally stripped way to put it would be in terms of inputs. Introverts are better able to analyze inputs they already have. Extraverts always need more inputs to build their systems of being (whether they be social or analytical or whatever...)


----------



## SpaceMan (Dec 11, 2014)

Thus spake the thinkers: "Deus lo vult".

But what would the alternative be? 

Ideally the language of communication would convey all states of mind and cognition: sensations, thoughts, feelings and intuition and so forth. To convey such would require the voice of god: telepathy. To note and to physically file, and categorize such, would also require organizing something similar to telepathy on paper? Assuming that you want to capture everything on paper.

How would feelers attempt to gain cognitive monopoly?


----------



## ANAXEL (Feb 16, 2017)

RoseTylerFan said:


> I don't like the idea of diving people into "thinkers" and "feelers" or "sensors" and "intuitives". Everybody is a thinker while programming and a feeler when he falls in love. Everybody is a sensor while watching a sunset and an intuitive when he ponders over the meaning of life. Personalities differ, but along a continuum. People can move towards one or another end of this continuum as a result of life circumstances and conscious effort. That's why I don't think identifying as a member of some "personality type" is useful.


I agree with this sentiment to an extent. 
It's not useful for me to say "Well, I do XX and always think this XX way because I am an ENTP" and stick to that, like the 4 letters were 4 walls forming my little box in which I choose to confide myself in.
But I think it's super useful when I think "Dang it! Made the same mistake, thought the same stupid way, what am I doing wrong? Oh, that's right! I am an ENTP, I have fit into this label precisely because I am stuck in this pattern of thinking. If I want different results, I have to change the way I'm processing and perceiving this situation"
If MBTI's goal was to label everyone and give them some sublime form of destiny ("you are what you are"), then I don't agree with MBTI. Regardless of its intentions, what it has proven is that human behavior repeats itself, it's pattern based, and if we are aware of that fact, we can break that pattern.
That's what's really important here.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> It interests me you'd have such a notion. See, what I most often witness is misunderstandings because people either 1. do not verbally communicate or 2. do not "share a language", in the sense that what you could almost call 'cognitive' language does match the others'. And the latter has typically been a difference specifically in the "thinking area" so to say, for example different definitions for words... values, on the other hand, CAN be communicated without words. Because the meaning isn't in the words, it is behind them and between.


The main reason that people have misunderstandings is because they have different goals. Many conversations are actually debates. The problem isn't lack of comunication, it is the (willing) lack of understanding the other's point of view. More comunication isn't going to change that. What changes things is openness to the other point of view. That doesn't mean that then all the sudden everyone agrees with eachother, but there won't be any misunderstandings anymore.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultaneous obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.
> 
> This upsets the thinker and, further encouraged by this failure, they continue to devise a neat system through which control over the other functions can be gained, subjugating them all the while losing their essential nature in translation. Thus only thinking rules superior.



Well this is something I can admit I agree with, certainly. However, isn't the very nature of a thinker to make the attempt to try an improve a preset structure? Though I can see your perspective on the thinker's approach towards the functions that aren't specifically logical in nature, though I suppose anything can be rationalized if you try hard enough to do it. Though rather if the approach holds any weight is something I would still have to say holds merit. Afterall, not every thinker would observe a feeling function as if it were a strange, misshapen creature huddled in the corner of their room. 

Also, I corrected the two misspellings in your post..Because the 1 in me despises grammar issues.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

MBTI was created by Myers-Briggs to quickly classify women during WWII, to slot them into jobs that their talents best met.

Jung's perspective was one of psychological analysis for mental health issues, the forefather to the DSM.

Your conclusion appears to be seek malice where none was intended.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> MBTI was created by Myers-Briggs to quickly classify women during WWII, to slot them into jobs that their talents best met.
> 
> Jung's perspective was one of psychological analysis for mental health issues, the forefather to the DSM.
> 
> Your conclusion appears to be seek malice where none was intended.


As someone pointed out, miss Isabel was INFP so it is not like I am talking about her, anyway 

Not sure where you got my assumption of malice, see my response to Peter for instance. I am sure there is no malice in it.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> Typology in essence is the categorization of supposed cognitive functions known as Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition and studying their interplay in the psyche.
> 
> Yet there is something ominous about this: defining them can only be achieved through the language of thinking; yet it is simultanious obvious that while functions can be understood through their "opposites", intellectual and supposedly "logical" definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling, as it can't quite capture the fleeting nature of perception either.
> 
> ...





DOGSOUP said:


> As someone pointed out, miss Isabel was INFP so it is not like I am talking about her, anyway
> 
> Not sure where you got my assumption of malice, see my response to Peter for instance. I am sure there is no malice in it.


Relative to the first two paragraphs of your opening post, every thinker has sensory and feeling functions. Every feeler has thinking and sensory functions. Logically organizing/categorizing doesn't preclude full descriptions of each function within each category. 

Refer to your opening post. It's fair to say that you didn't intend malice but the essence of the bolded is one of deliberate control which really is b/s.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Too much over emphasis on the uselessness of language. You’re fired!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Relative to the first two paragraphs of your opening post, every thinker has sensory and feeling functions. Every feeler has thinking and sensory functions. Logically organizing/categorizing doesn't preclude full descriptions of each function within each category.
> 
> Refer to your opening post. It's fair to say that you didn't intend malice but the essence of the bolded is one of deliberate control which really is b/s.


Well don't go from saying I saw it as malicious to saying I saw it as deliberate

I don't see control over other functions as the goal... just as what follows from the overemphasis of thinking. 

Also "full descriptions" I am saying you can't have "full" descriptions of feeling, sensing & intuition through intellectualized (thinking) language. that was a big part of my argument??


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> Yay I am still quite proud for having produced this conclusion... but man there really were a bunch of typos in that post...


Haha 😊 Honestly I didn’t notice. My Se is dead lol
Are you NT? I was trying to find your type because I’m pretty mind blown that you said this when I was thinking this but couldn’t articulate it. So now I’m stalking you like a groupie 😂 jk jk... It’s not that bad lol


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> I don't see control over other functions as the goal... just as what follows from the overemphasis of thinking.


The emphasis on logic is cultural.



> Also "full descriptions" I am saying you can't have "full" descriptions of feeling, sensing & intuition through intellectualized (thinking) language. that was a big part of my argument??


Wut? There's no such thing as 'intellectualized language'. Each field has its own set of terminology, whether ivory tower or not. The intent of having specific terminology isn't to exclude. It's to be more explicit about concepts that are field specific. Look to non-stem and non-academic fields like carpentry, art or music.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Lauren222 said:


> Haha 😊 Honestly I didn’t notice. My Se is dead lol
> Are you NT? I was trying to find your type because I’m pretty mind blown that you said this when I was thinking this but couldn’t articulate it. So now I’m stalking you like a groupie 😂 jk jk... It’s not that bad lol


I might pass as a NT on a good day but probably am a feeler
(Which is what made me so salty about this whole issue lol)
I kinda gave up on finding a specific type though


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> The emphasis on logic is cultural.


For ET types probably yes


> Wut? There's no such thing as 'intellectualized language'. Each field has its own set of terminology, whether ivory tower or not. The intent of having specific terminology isn't to exclude. It's to be more explicit about concepts that are field specific. Look to non-stem and non-academic fields like carpentry, art or music.


And the field of typology is specific to thinkers. No feeler would come up with this sort of stuff in the first place.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> I might pass as a NT on a good day but probably am a feeler
> *(Which is what made me so salty about this whole issue lol)*
> I kinda gave up on finding a specific type though





DOGSOUP said:


> For ET types probably yes
> 
> And the field of typology is specific to thinkers. No feeler would come up with this sort of stuff in the first place.


Whatever.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Whatever.


Yeah, bye bye.


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> I might pass as a NT on a good day but probably am a feeler
> (Which is what made me so salty about this whole issue lol)
> I kinda gave up on finding a specific type though


Hmmm Interesting. Maybe you’re INFJ... 🙂

Lols @ some of the other replies here. So predictable: “Noooo Don’t take the T away from me! It’s my whole literal life”


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Lauren222 said:


> Hmmm Interesting. Maybe you’re INFJ... 🙂
> 
> Lols @ some of the other replies here. So predictable: “Noooo Don’t take the T away from me! It’s my whole literal life”
> 
> View attachment 881472


What was interesting is that some IT types engaged with this idea and seemed to understand what I was getting at. Te types read this negative "intent" on it. Maybe they resist being perceived as controlling/bad actors? But the control I am talking about is less obvious than that.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't think it's so ridiculous to assume that someone who is "attempting to gain cognitive monopoly" has some kind of malicious intent.

It at least sounds like there is intention involved. And gaining cognitive monopoly sounds a lot like subjugating others--which sounds rude, at least, even if it isn't malicious.

And your response to Peter isn't clear--I've never heard of anyone naming things so that the things don't have power over them.

I think it is common for people to name things so that they know what to call them when talking to other humans about them.

I also do not agree with the idea that thinkers (or Te types), particularly, resist being perceived as controlling/bad actors, any more than any other type.

There is a negative association with terms like "controlling" and especially "bad actor"--most people probably resist being perceived that way, especially when they are not intending to be controlling or to act in a bad way.

I think it is much more of an outlandish assumption, to suggest that the only reason someone might interpret "attempting to gain cognitive monopoly" as "malicious" is because they "don't want their T taken away because it's their whole literal life."

I mean--that would be interesting if the difference between our perception of this is because of Te--as I do think I'm an FP and so I wouldn't have Ti. But this is how I see it.


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> What was interesting is that some IT types engaged with this idea and seemed to understand what I was getting at. Te types read this negative "intent" on it. Maybe they resist being perceived as controlling/bad actors? But the control I am talking about is less obvious than that.



Te Intuitives seem to have an emotional attachment (Fi) to theories and texts that are logically coherent and strike them as theoretically beautiful (totally irrespective of their practicality). 

I’ve reached the conclusion that this is an emotional attachment.. So if you are dismissing the theory, the reaction will be Fi-like. 
It’s as if you told a child whose favourite books ever are the Harry Potter series that you never read any of them, and have no interest... They take it very personally. 

But they also have a point... lol

It goes something like: 

Te/Fi: Go and read the important things that have been written on this subject, and figure out what sounds most theoretically consistent and beautiful 

Ti/Fe: Get out of the house and meet/connect with people (Fe) then come to your own conclusions about what is accurate and what isn’t 

But both are right and both are wrong. 

In your initial post I wholeheartedly agree that “logical definitions can never fully express the holistic nature of feeling”... but that doesn’t mean they can’t express or explain it -at all-. 

It is just that explanations coming through a clearcut Thinking lens, are lacking substance (from the F perspective). It’s a shallow way of explaining something that can’t actually be reduced mathematically. Because emotion is not mathematical. 

But there are other aspects to life that are mathematical. I still find the MBTI types useful but my understanding of the different ways people use their functions and their “type” is definitely coming more from an F perspective. 
So I guess I’m trying to compensate for the lack of substance by creating my own models and theories within the theory.


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> much more of a ridiculous assumption, to suggest that the only reason someone might interpret "attempting to gain cognitive monopoly" as "malicious" is because they "don't want their T taken away because it's their whole literal life


I was joking 😛


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Lauren222 said:


> I was joking 😛


Oh--it did seem a bit dishonest. I suppose that's the funny part.


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

Or maybe the truth hurts... that could also be the funny part... 😁

Lol

I’m just messing around.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Lauren222 said:


> Or maybe the truth hurts... that could also be the funny part... 😁
> 
> Lol
> 
> I’m just messing around.


Ah--"the truth" must be far above my understanding because I missed that insight. To me it seemed like something else. Sometimes I don't get certain types of humor though.

What I really don't understand is (and this is more a question for @DOGSOUP) how could the other functions be defined in a satisfactory way?

So like what would be an example of an equivalent typology system designed by a sensing dominant or an intuitive or a feeler? In a situation in which they weren't being monopolized.

I do struggle with understanding some things--I thought this entire thread was in SPAM at first, but I see you are earnestly trying to solve a problem here, so I'd like to figure out what you are talking about (preferably without having to read through the entire thread).

You genuinely feel that thinking has a monopoly over typology? How would it be if that wasn't so? Would it be expressed in other ways? I should probably read through the rest of the thread because I saw Knife talked about body language, but I have a hard time imagining what a typology designed by a feeler would be like--or an intuitive dom.

While Isabell Briggs was a feeler--an INFP. So a feeling dominant, she still lived in a world that probably valued thinking over feeling (especially how thinking tends to be associated with masculinity and feeling femininity, and she probably did have to overcome obstacles that men in her position wouldn't have). So I am curious what typology might look more like were it to be more feeler, in your opinions.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> I don't think it's so ridiculous to assume that someone who is "attempting to gain cognitive monopoly" has some kind of malicious intent.
> 
> It at least sounds like there is intention involved. And gaining cognitive monopoly sounds a lot like subjugating others--which sounds rude, at least, even if it isn't malicious.


the title is a bit tongue in cheek, but yeah a Ti dom reprimanded me for it. Hmm I guess for me I can't see malice in it; it more so seems like a defense almost.



> And your response to Peter isn't clear--I've never heard of anyone naming things so that the things don't have power over them.
> 
> I think it is common for people to name things so that they know what to call them when talking to other humans about them.


I thought that "naming things", finding their "true name" was a whole thing. But maybe this is Ti vs Te then... Ti not directly taking any object, rather so placing it among categories of their own making... Te being more focused on the way objects interact and what can be done about them... (though I remember someone suggested that beyond the obvious expressiveness of language, that would be Fe, the way language is used to describe relationships between things, maybe in the way you describe, would be more so Fi... sigh, back to the drawing board)



> I also do not agree with the idea that thinkers (or Te types), particularly, resist being perceived as controlling/bad actors, any more than any other type.
> 
> There is a negative association with terms like "controlling" and especially "bad actor"--most people probably resist being perceived that way, especially when they are not intending to be controlling or to act in a bad way.


But most people did not have that reaction to this thread though. Yes they did question some of my thinking but 'control' was seen as more neutral.


> I mean--that would be interesting if the difference between our perception of this is because of Te--as I do think I'm an FP and so I wouldn't have Ti. But this is how I see it.


My impression is that we rarely have massive differences in perception, but it would be interesting if this was one of them.


----------

