Do Feelers shun 'demystifying' theories?

[Antares]

From Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins, he brought up the fact that Newton was criticized for explaining the rainbow.

Based on this, I wonder, do feelers tend not to want to hear about such theories and logic. My ISFJ mother said that she thinks it's bad for anyone to not like their country (in this case, mine being China and Hong Kong). I told her that there's no rational reason to like your country any more than others simply because you were born in it. I told her: "The country you're born into is not that special; one among the hundreds of them. Face it. You're not that special either, so what gives the your country a special status? What would lead you to support it even when it's wrong? I know I would be a 'traitor' if I think my country's not doing the right thing. If one of your greatest reasons why you love your country so much is that you were born in it, then it's not very rational. All it comes down to is that you're unique... Just like everybody else." She hated it.

Recently, I gained a new cousin and my mother was joking with my aunt about making him a gift to our family the next time she gives birth to a son (literally, as in adoption). Then the conversation turned and they started talking about whether my aunt would be depressed the newborn child if, hypothetically, was taken away at birth. My aunt answered 'no', and my mother said: "You would, actually. You're just saying this because it hasn't happened." Then I chimed in: "Well, chemically speaking, it is an instinct to do so, just like it's an instinct to reproduce. If mothers do not care for their young, then the species have a low chance of surviving. But seeing humans are advanced enough to resist such instincts, it wouldn't be surprising that you would be able to. For example, oxytocin..." My mother's face darkened and told me not to go on.

Last night, my mother was talking about how she always feel my late grandmother 'helping' her and is 'there' for her in some invisible way, then I started to explain the psychology behind this and she said: "I don't want to hear it. Suffice to say that I'm very satisfied with this feeling alone." And we talked about a supposed Clairvoyant whom she wants me to see to 'open my eyes' and change my mind about mysticism. She claimed that he could see the things around me; he even described my uncle's business partner. I looked for ways to discredit him such as making him describe my Geometry textbook and my Geography teacher (there isn't one. if he 'described' him or her, it would be a total giveaway). She told me not to.

My mother aside, my ISFJ friend was going on about how accurate Astrology was; I referred her to this video that I found insightful that showed why astrology was 'accurate'. She told me she wouldn't care to find out. I was explaining to my ENFP friend scientifically why she likes this guy, and she said it would 'ruin it for her'. Could it be that they don't want to find out as whatever knowledge I can present them would shatter their illusion? They tend to think love and reproduction is 'sacred', at least from what I observed, and when I present the logic behind these in a stoic and methodical way, it just breaks it. Forgive me, but I think this behavior is weak.

Anyone else noticed this?

[LunarMoon]

While this behavior does indeed seem to be common among Fs in general, Guardians seem to be by far the more prone to it especially SFJs. It’s important to understand that though Fs may be fully interested in understanding and changing their views on an issue, that they are less likely to be swayed by purely logical arguments than Rational types; however, there have been a great many Feelers who’ve gone from carnivore to vegetarian based on emotional appeals to the animals’ nature. Your anecdote depicts a scenario in which you argued traditional, emotionally based values such as love to an SFJ and since SJs are more likely to hold dear to traditional values and due to your mother’s Feeling preference, she’s less likely to be swayed by logical arguments its only natural that she acted dismissively towards it. As well, since you formed your conclusion off of a sample of two people there isn’t enough evidence to support the theory either way; your behavior in those incidence could’ve easily affected things. With that said, however, your conclusion seems to go rather well.

[qwerty]

Uhmmmm....
Focusing on NF's I don't think it's a case of shunning facts.

I think that the case you're arguing where all feelers do not want cold hard fact could be reversed to state that T's have no sense of warm fluffy wonder, in all T's think that everything is explainable and there is nothing to debate. Which given many posts in various threads about star gazing and INTJ's is clearly not true.

There are time when knowing the complete answer is not beneficial, where having that wonder and naivety about the world is a good thing. I think that if a person was to know everything about the complete past and future of this universe they would grow extremely depressed. Imagine knowing everything, sure it would be great for a few years... but slowly over time the newness would wear off and you'd be left knowing things before they happen, there would be nothing left to discover and all you'd do is live you're life in misery without suprise or anything to wonder about.

So if the person is an idealist and they prefer to have the mystery to solve for themselves, it's an extremely bold statement to say that all F's have a tendency not to want to 'know' when the thought process of feelers is based on gut feelings of wonder rather than the thinkers pure fact. They may not wish to know from you, until they have their opinions formed.

For myself, yes I like to know... but I have a preference to solve the question myself than have someone give me an answer straight away ;) like you're attempting to do with your friends and family.

[Antares]

They may not wish to know from you, until they have their opinions formed.

... Or they might not wish to know at all... My ISFJ friend clearly wants to keep believing that astrology has everything right on, but that might be due to her SJ nature. Well, my SJ mother has a strong believe in 'pure' and 'simple' beauty, and with her disgust at the world's apparently 'tainted' people and her own misfortunes, she might want to believe that there are something pure and inexplicable out there in the world, such as her dead mother being there for her; it just makes everything easier. To her, love is that pure and sacred thing and maybe hearing me put it in such scientific manner offends her. My ENFP friend, in my opinion, likes the feeling of being in love and she might be afraid that the idea of love being put in chemical terms might extinguish whatever fantasies she have about love. This was my case, actually, when I was head over heels. Reading about the 'science' killed my fantasies and it was no longer in terms of 'love at first sight' or 'destiny', but serotonin and vasopressin. And I figured that my longing for such an emotion decreased drastically after I read about it.

These are just my theories, and I'm often wrong when it comes to emotions, so... :thinking:

[Richard0612]

I'm not sure about the general theory, but I have certainly noticed similar behaviour in people. For example, a friend [xSFP?] recently 'asked out' [hate that expression!] someone he had liked for a couple of years, was telling me about how wonderful it all was, and asked why he felt that way. I explained as Antares did about hormonal responses and the theories of attraction. He said that he felt a lot less 'in love' after my explanation and wished that he hadn't asked.

I think that it has more to do with control than mystery. When you know why and how something happens, you can attempt to control it. When something is 'mysterious', any attempts to control it seem futile. Some people want love to be mysterious so that the responsibility of controlling their love lives is not in their hands but in the hands of destiny/God/the cosmos/astrology. This makes things less complex and less worrisome. Some people don't want the burden of knowledge/control pressing on them, they want to 'have it done for them', for want of a better phrase. As for MBTI, I would suggest that SPs are the types most prone to this kind of behaviour, but I don't know.

EDIT: Don't get me started on how astrology=bull!

[md21017md]

I bounce between ESFP and ENFP. I for one laugh my ass of at astrology. I can't stand the thought of it and the onse that base thier lives on make my skin crawl. I also love learning "WHY" things happen. It might or might not change how I feel. I think for me a lot of my beliefs are feelings supported by logical findings. I don't for example feel the world is flat and no ammount of explanation is going to sway me. I will research it logically, and once understood, now feel it internally. In that way I guess, I have a logical knowledge supported by internal feelings (or the other way around).

[TheLastMohican]

Antares, I find the dynamics between you and your mother quite amusing. That is a very unfair thing for me to say, because I only find it so because I am no the one having to deal with it. But it is true nonetheless.
(I laughed at the narrative of your attempt at a scientific explanation of a mother's love to your aunt. You were on the verge of launching into a lesson on oxytocin, and then your mother's dark look... :laugh: )

I think your theory is correct, but I think feelers are not the only ones who do this. We probably have those tendencies, though to a lesser degree. I think Sensors would want to demystify as much as possible so that they could rely only on the facts that they could directly experience, and not have to wander into the iffy realms of Intuitive-style theory. We, as intuitives, probably hold a greater appreciation for the fascinating qualities of mystical ideas, since they constitute a great big puzzle that is very difficult, or sometimes impossible to solve.

Feelers, at the other end of the spectrum, might prefer to leave it alone entirely so that they can merely wonder. The combinations of these three letters create the more elusive mental tracks. INFJ's are probably the rarest type, followed by INTJ's. INFJ's have a peculiar yet intriguing way of reasoning things...oh, I'm getting way off topic. But those are my two cents.

[Antares]

Feelers, at the other end of the spectrum, might prefer to leave it alone entirely so that they can merely wonder. The combinations of these three letters create the more elusive mental tracks. INFJ's are probably the rarest type, followed by INTJ's. INFJ's have a peculiar yet intriguing way of reasoning things...oh, I'm getting way off topic. But those are my two cents.

Well, it is commonly said that feelers want to 'feel' love while thinkers want to 'understand' it, but there are exceptions, such as md21017md. When I was inexplicably in love with a fellow classmate, I sought to explain this in a scientific manner, you see.

(please note that I refer to myself in second person)
"Well, usually, romantic love comes with the instinct to copulate; call it sexual desire if you like. And usually, we tend to seek out those with 'good genes'. Fair look, good body etc. But hey, he isn't that buff nor is he the best looking around, so it wouldn't make sense, biologically, that you'd want to have sex with him, and you don't anyway, so could this be a 'preview' of what's to come once you're sexually mature? Heck, he isn't even the smartest."

Of course, I used to view love in a totally irrational way (I might have been feeler back then. I'm not sure). Before, love was inexplicable and mysterious. We can't explain why we fall for this individual; there's nothing that makes him (or her) that outstanding, but one look then you 'knew'. Destiny? Hard to say. Written in the stars? It's appealing to believe that to say the least. It's so mysterious and beautiful; well beyond our logical comprehension. Of course, then comes the 'Science of Love'.