About Thinking and Feeling

[JasonM]

Different MBTI preferences amongst people can be a source of frustration, but I think no difference in preference causes more frustration and upset feelings than the difference along the thinker/feeler axis. Feelers usually feel put off by someone who they perceive as being cold and unfeeling, and thinkers often feel misunderstood by feelers who think that they are being cold, when they are just being objective.

My personal feeling is that each preference has its place, and we have to use our wisdom and will power to understand when to use each preference. For example, suppose your friend plays guitar for you and asks how they did. In reality, they're pretty bad. Some thinkers might not mince words, and will be honest that this individual has no skill. This is an unproductive use of thinking. By not being tactful, you could end up hurting your friend's feelings. This might upset them and cause them to treat you badly in return. If something like this becomes a habit, then it can cause a lot of strain in your personal life. The point is that you should be tactful because you have nothing to gain by being brutally honest. You only end up hurting your relationships with others.

Now, suppose you're a feeler who runs a business and you have an employee that just doesn't treat you with respect. They show up late for work, and when they're at work, they're usually surfing the Internet. A feeler might be afraid to fire such an employee, because they'll hurt their feelings (this might sound unrealistic, but I've actually seen it happen in real life). The fact is, such an employee doesn't respect you. Therefore, it makes no sense to be nice to them and keep them on. There's no advantage to it. Now, if you are a feeler, you might be able to handle the situation by giving them a warning and telling them politely that they aren't respecting you, and if they continue on their path, you're going to have to let them go. But for some feelers, even this is difficult.

The bottom line is that there is no "better" preference. Each preference has its advantages and disadvantages in different situations. Also, a wise individual will learn to go against their natural tendencies and act in such a way as to create the best outcome in any given situation.

[sriv]

It depends on the percentage of situations where T is needed and the percentage of situations where F is needed. In a social society, F is needed much more. In an elitist or isolationist society, T is needed much more.

[BlackHawk]

My question for you is:
Is it easier for Thinkers to feel, or Feelers to think?
A T can always drop the armor, but an F is going to have a tough time with objective rational thought.

[JasonM]

BlackHawk,

In general, I think it would be equally hard for either thinkers or feelers to act out of preference. Feelers aren't less rational than thinkers. It's only when something affects their feelings that they have a hard time dealing with it rationally. I don't believe that 50% of the population doesn't generally use any logic in their thinking. It doesn't make sense.

[sriv]

It would be extremely hard for me to drop my armor. My phobia is loss of control, and I consider dropping my armor a loss of control. It scares me shitless. I would have to disagree with blackhawk and agree with you jason.

[Dystopia]

I think no difference in preference causes more frustration and upset feelings than the difference along the thinker/feeler axis.

The type that most offend me are not the F types, but xSTJs. ESTJs seem to hate the fact that I don't blindly accept all of their silly social rituals, and dare to think for myself. They think I am an anti-social weirdo, and because they can't understand me, treat everything I say as a lie. As for ISTJs in the workplace, I get very infuriated. A typical conversation goes like this:

Me - "Do you think things might work better if we did things this way?"
ISTJ - "But that's not the way we do things."
Me - "But why do we do things this way? Who decided on this procedure?
ISTJ - "That's the way things we've done things for as long as I've been here."
Me - "Procedures are put in place for a reason. If they are not working, then I will find out who would need to authorise things to be changed."
ISTJ - *Terrified look that his/her working practices might be slightly different the next day."
Me - *Bangs head against a filing cabinet.*

Millions of pounds are thrown away in my country by xSTJs using inefficient working practices, simply because that's the way they've always been done, and not daring to think of change.

I think perhaps people get more frustrated when people go against their strongest preference, so an INTJ with a strong N preference would be most frustrated by Ss, and those with a strong T preference would be most frustrated by Fs.

I've also been very annoyed by Ps who always want to "see how things will pan out" at a time when decisive action needs to be taken. "A bad decision is better than no decision" is one of my favourite philosophies.

I'm never particularly offended by the E quality in itself, except when it causes the S or F functions to be extraverted towards me in an offensive way.

[sriv]

I think we can safely say that N is preferable to S. Everything else seems very balanced to me.

[Dystopia]

I think we can safely say that N is preferable to S. Everything else seems very balanced to me.

I agree. I hate the S's inability to look at the big picture. However, I am sometimes impressed by their attention to detail, which I often miss. Perhaps it should be that the Ns are in charge, and have the more robot-like Ss to do the dirty work and look after the details.

[Claptonian]

My personal feeling is that each preference has its place, and we have to use our wisdom and will power to understand when to use each preference. For example, suppose your friend plays guitar for you and asks how they did. In reality, they're pretty bad. Some thinkers might not mince words, and will be honest that this individual has no skill. This is an unproductive use of thinking.

I disagree. By being honest and telling them it didn't sound good, it should (assuming the individual in question is rational) cause them to A) give up the guitar and devote their time to something they're better at or B) work harder at learning the guitar so they will improve. Both of those outcomes are productive.

And yes, I know, that was just a hypothetical example, but I'm an INTJ and reserve the right to tear hypothetical examples apart.

[Dystopia]

That is absolutely correct. You might think that you're saving their feelings, but in the long run, they will end up getting hurt even more. If everyone tells him he's good at guitar, one day he'll get up on stage and play in front of a crowd of people, and get booed and laughed at. It would save a lot more hurt being told the truth by a friend.

It reminds me of women who say "I didn't want to tell him there's no point in our relationship going on, because I don't want to hurt his feelings," building up all his hopes so that he gets even more hurt in future.

In reality, Fs are just being selfish and cowardly. They don't want it to look like they are the bad guy, and secretly hope that someone else will do it.

[JasonM]

I disagree. By being honest and telling them it didn't sound good, it should (assuming the individual in question is rational) cause them to A) give up the guitar and devote their time to something they're better at or B) work harder at learning the guitar so they will improve. Both of those outcomes are productive.

And yes, I know, that was just a hypothetical example, but I'm an INTJ and reserve the right to tear hypothetical examples apart.

This isn't cut and dry, but I don't think that's how people usually react. I think most people would resent being bluntly told that they suck and not change their ways. If you're tactful and say something along the lines of them sounding not bad, but they have a long way to go before becoming Jimi Hendrix, then they might get the picture without being offended.

[Dystopia]

Yes, there is absoultely no harm in putting the truth politely, or giving constructive criticism. However, an F type would be prone to lying under such circumstances and actually telling the guitarist he is good, just to seem "nice" in that moment.

[JasonM]

That is absolutely correct. You might think that you're saving their feelings, but in the long run, they will end up getting hurt even more. If everyone tells him he's good at guitar, one day he'll get up on stage and play in front of a crowd of people, and get booed and laughed at. It would save a lot more hurt being told the truth by a friend.

It reminds me of women who say "I didn't want to tell him there's no point in our relationship going on, because I don't want to hurt his feelings," building up all his hopes so that he gets even more hurt in future.

In reality, Fs are just being selfish and cowardly. They don't want it to look like they are the bad guy, and secretly hope that someone else will do it.

As I said, there are good ways and bad ways of telling someone that they need improvement. If you're tactful, then you're probably not going to hurt their feelings. However, some thinkers are very blunt, and it leaves the impression that they have a nasty disposition. Such people are not helping themselves. Also, I would suspect that most people are aware of how good they are at playing the guitar (you know when you hit the right notes or not), so I doubt that most people who are bad at it would ever get into a situation where they'd play in front of others on stage. Finally, Fs usually don't want anyone to put someone else down, because it hurts the individual's feelings, and Fs are emotionally affected by that. I know of an ISTP who is always blunt with people, and he really ticks me off. In my eyes, he looks like a frontal lobe patient who has lost their inhibitions.

[Dystopia]

Also, I would suspect that most people are aware of how good they are at playing the guitar (you know when you hit the right notes or not), so I doubt that most people who are bad at it would ever get into a situation where they'd play in front of others on stage.

You would like to think so. However, there are a lot of people who get into music, especially a "cool" instrument like guitar, just for an image thing. Often they aren't musical. They won't know that they sound terrible, or what their weaknesses are, and will rely on others for feedback. I have actually been in this exact situation several times, as a musician, with potential band members. Sometimes they really don't take the hint and you just have to be blunt. As music is something very important to me, I take offense at people who pick up an instrument, hoping to use it to look cool, as it is an insult to music as an institution.

[sriv]

As I said, there are good ways and bad ways of telling someone that they need improvement. If you're tactful, then you're probably not going to hurt their feelings. However, some thinkers are very blunt, and it leaves the impression that they have a nasty disposition. Such people are not helping themselves. Also, I would suspect that most people are aware of how good they are at playing the guitar (you know when you hit the right notes or not), so I doubt that most people who are bad at it would ever get into a situation where they'd play in front of others on stage. Finally, Fs usually don't want anyone to put someone else down, because it hurts the individual's feelings, and Fs are emotionally affected by that. I know of an ISTP who is always blunt with people, and he really ticks me off. In my eyes, he looks like a frontal lobe patient who has lost their inhibitions.

Jason

In that case the F should stop jumping to conclusions so fast. The wise person would take all criticism as constructive and try harder. Fs have a hard time in life learning this. I would want someone else to be just as blunt with me as I am with him/her. It reveals the truth for what it is instead of euphemising it. Tactful? Is that a way to say "deceptive" or "good at telling half-truths"?

[Uytuun]

Also, a wise individual will learn to go against their natural tendencies and act in such a way as to create the best outcome in any given situation.

True, true...

[JasonM]

In that case the F should stop jumping to conclusions so fast. The wise person would take all criticism as constructive and try harder. Fs have a hard time in life learning this. I would want someone else to be just as blunt with me as I am with him/her. It reveals the truth for what it is instead of euphemising it. Tactful? Is that a way to say "deceptive" or "good at telling half-truths"?

The problem is that most people don't like to be bluntly told the truth (including some thinkers). It tends to hurt people's feelings. You can talk about what you want for yourself, but it's what other people want that will make your social life run smoothly. But if you want to cause problems and end up making yourself a target in the name of being blunt, then, by all means, go ahead.

[sriv]

Why hate the truth?

[JasonM]

Why hate the truth?

I don't know why. It' s just the way people are. You also have to be careful. Sometimes what seems to be "truth" is merely opinion. Should you force your opinion on someone when it may not even be true?

[sriv]

1. If you expect the person to be smart enough to recognize it is an opinion.
2. If the opinion is commonly shared by many.
3. If F specifically asks for *your opinion*.

My conditions for truth-telling.

[JasonM]

1. If you expect the person to be smart enough to recognize it is an opinion.
2. If the opinion is commonly shared by many.
3. If F specifically asks for *your opinion*.

My conditions for truth-telling.

Like I said, I don't see a problem with telling the truth as long as it's tactful. You believe in being blunt. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. And by the way, I just thought of why feelers have a problem with the truth. The problem that they have is that feelers don't look at being blunt as just being honest. To them, it seems that the person being blunt has an angry disposition or that they don't treat people with respect because they ignore others' feelings. That's just the way they're wired. I highly doubt that one function is superior to another. They are just different ways of looking at the world, and, as I said, each has its advantages and disadvantages.

[sriv]

Cool, I am good with agreeing to disagree.

[Dystopia]

I believe that Fs have a natural tendency for dishonesty and are completely lacking in principles, in my experience. I will exaggerate and stereotype slightly in the next few statements to demonstrate, so please don't take the following completely literally.

1. Fs can steal from people, so long as they don't notice it's gone, because what matters is how people feel, so if they don't notice, no harm has been done.

2. Fs can cheat in a relationship, on the grounds of "What [he/she] doesn't know won't hurt [him/her]."

3. They can pretend to be something they are not if it creates a sense of general harmony.

4. Fs, and especially SFs, will only ever look at the short-term sense of social harmony. NTs, when they decide that harmony is important can look at the big picture, and aim for long term harmony by finding systems that will reduce conflict in the long run, even if short-term bluntness is one step towards achieving this goal.

I have come to the conclusion that INTJs are, by nature, the most principled and moral personality type. Some people seem to miss that, because they think being moral is the same as always being "nice."

[JasonM]

1. Fs can steal from people, so long as they don't notice it's gone, because what matters is how people feel, so if they don't notice, no harm has been done.

Principled Fs won't steal, because they know being stolen from will hurt the other person's feelings.


2. Fs can cheat in a relationship, on the grounds of "What [he/she] doesn't know won't hurt [him/her]."

Some Fs might be this way, but I think having morals supersedes type - in reality, any type can be moral/immoral. If I was in a relationship, I wouldn't cheat.

3. They can pretend to be something they are not if it creates a sense of general harmony.

A lot of Fs are guilty of this, but how is that an ethical issue? For example, if I pretend to like bowling just to please you, then how am I acting unethically? No one is being harmed by it. Would anyone take offense if they found out that they were pretending only to please?

4. Fs, and especially SFs, will only ever look at the short-term sense of social harmony. NTs, when they decide that harmony is important can look at the big picture, and aim for long term harmony by finding systems that will reduce conflict in the long run, even if short-term bluntness is one step towards achieving this goal.

I'm not really sure how you can set up a long-term moral system, in which acts aren't taken into account individually. (I'm not saying it's impossible, I've just never seen a moral system like this.)

I have come to the conclusion that INTJs are, by nature, the most principled and moral personality type. Some people seem to miss that, because they think being moral is the same as always being "nice."

Some people think that way, but the two most common philosophical systems of morals are utilitarianism - acting in such a way as to promote happiness, and Kantianism - acting on principle; acting in such a way that how you ideally should act would apply to everyone. These systems involve more than simply being nice.

[sriv]

I find that most F's are moral simply because they turn to religion (which greatly encourages feeling) as an excuse.

[Dystopia]

Principled Fs won't steal, because they know being stolen from will hurt the other person's feelings.

My point was that it will not hurt the other person's feelings if they don't find out.

Some Fs might be this way, but I think having morals supersedes type - in reality, any type can be moral/immoral. If I was in a relationship, I wouldn't cheat.

Yes, you are right. As I said, I was exagerrating a little to demonstrate the point. Perhaps it's more fair to say that different types have a different idea of what morality is. I was being a little provocative to try and find a little more about the type/morality relationship.

A lot of Fs are guilty of this, but how is that an ethical issue? For example, if I pretend to like bowling just to please you, then how am I acting unethically? No one is being harmed by it. Would anyone take offense if they found out that they were pretending only to please?

Yes, because if I found out, I would start to wonder, "if this is not true, then perhaps other things you tell me are not true?" Therefore destroying a little bit of trust. If someone feels that even a trivial issue like bowling is worth lying about, then what about the big issues?

I'm not really sure how you can set up a long-term moral system, in which acts aren't taken into account individually. (I'm not saying it's impossible, I've just never seen a moral system like this.)

In every part of my life, I am thinking of the long-term greater good, and how I can best do my part to achieve this, without having to lie or compromise my principles. If more people did the same, the world would be a better place. It's just about thinking through all possible consequences of an action before doing it. And not just the immediate consequences.

Some people think that way, but the two most common philosophical systems of morals are utilitarianism - acting in such a way as to promote happiness, and Kantianism - acting on principle; acting in such a way that how you ideally should act would apply to everyone. These systems involve more than simply being nice.

True, these ideas are very common in philosophy. If only they were more common in reality.

I'm sorry to sound confrontational. I'm not attempting to start a flame war. One of my best friends is an INFP actually. I'm just trying to get a wider perspective on the issue. Thanks for the input.





Dystopia added to this post, 4 minutes and 40 seconds later...

I find that most F's are moral simply because they turn to religion (which greatly encourages feeling) as an excuse.

I personally think that introverted (or less so, extroverted) intuition is the key to religious feeling in the sense of perceiving the gods and having spiritual experiences. However, the moral codes associated with religions are more bound up in the F/T axis. As to which way, it probably depends which religion you are referring to.

[sriv]

Yes, because if I found out, I would start to wonder, "if this is not true, then perhaps other things you tell me are not true?" Therefore destroying a little bit of trust. If someone feels that even a trivial issue like bowling is worth lying about, then what about the big issues?


This has happened exactly as you have described it to me in real life. It was an ENFP who done it. Slowly, trust was destroyed to the point where I had to be almost paranoid with everything he said analyzing the probability of it being true or false. We made up our differences and he promised not to lie like that. You just have to make the F aware of it.

I personally think that introverted (or less so, extroverted) intuition is the key to religious feeling in the sense of perceiving the gods and having spiritual experiences. However, the moral codes associated with religions are more bound up in the F/T axis. As to which way, it probably depends which religion you are referring to.

Yes, I agree. N tends to start skeptic and might stay skeptic or go religious. S tends to start whatever he/she was told and usually sticks to it. The F/T definitely plays a part in it the follow-up decision. The strong P might remain agnostic forever.

[JasonM]

I'm sorry to sound confrontational. I'm not attempting to start a flame war. One of my best friends is an INFP actually. I'm just trying to get a wider perspective on the issue. Thanks for the input.

No offense taken. I'm not really sure whether Ts are more principled than Fs. I would assume that it's based on how you're raised and other factors aside from type, but you might be right that Ts, in general, are more principled. What I am sure of is that Ts and Fs tend to break different moral rules. Fs are often involved in "crimes of passion" - murders out of rage, bar fights, passionate affairs, etc. - anything that involves feelings. Ts are more likely to commit cold-blooded crimes, such as calculated murders, planned bank-robberies, etc.

[Dystopia]

Perhaps the F/S axis is not the only factor.

E/I - I's are less likely to commit crimes on other people for material gain, because their internal world is more important than real life possessions. They are also less likely to commit crimes of passion because their passions are internal.

N/S - S's are more likely to cheat in relationships due to the fact that they constantly seek new sensory experiences. N's perhaps have a higher chance of psychotic episodes, or committing crimes due to a very personal moral code that does not fit in with society.

T/F - We've already covered this one, and I still stand by my previous comments.

J/P - P's are more likely to let bad things happen due to inaction. Not immorality in the usual sense, but in the sense that "evil prevails because good men do nothing." P's may wait and see how things pan out, and especially xSxP's, who will wait for lots of evidence to make a decision, while the xNxJ's will have already predicted the future and acted.

I know that the general consensus is that no one type is be better than another, but then everyone is entitled to be incorrect.

[Claptonian]

Also, I would suspect that most people are aware of how good they are at playing the guitar (you know when you hit the right notes or not), so I doubt that most people who are bad at it would ever get into a situation where they'd play in front of others on stage.

I couldn't disagree with this more. :laugh: I'm a self-taught guitarist and it's nearly impossible for me to gauge my own level of ability. Without feedback from other people, I'll fluctuate from thinking I'm great to thinking I'm absolute rubbish, usually the latter more than the former.

One need only look on YouTube to see that there are many, many horrible guitarists who think they kick ass.

[Dystopia]

I'm a self-taught guitarist and it's nearly impossible for me to gauge my own level of ability.

Then either you are playing guitar for all the wrong reasons and should give up, or perhaps you are just being too harsh on yourself. What matters is this. Do you enjoy hearing yourself play? Could you listen to yourself playing after hearing some artist that you do like, and compare yourself favourably? Do you feel like you are getting better and can see yourself getting towards something you are happy with? Who are you comparing yourself to?

[onlyparallel]

I honestly think that it is just as useful to be an S as an N and so on. If those are your preferences you put yourself in situations that are the best for you. This is why INTJs might be scientist where other types are less likely to be. So I don't think that either is better over the other, you will always lead a life where you can come out on top using your particular skills.

[JasonM]

I honestly think that it is just as useful to be an S as an N and so on. If those are your preferences you put yourself in situations that are the best for you. This is why INTJs might be scientist where other types are less likely to be. So I don't think that either is better over the other, you will always lead a life where you can come out on top using your particular skills.

I definitely agree with you.

[EsoteriEccentri]

People too often combine F with E and T with I.

For example - "It depends on the percentage of situations where T is needed and the percentage of situations where F is needed. In a social society, F is needed much more. In an elitist or isolationist society, T is needed much more."

Since when did F make people social or make them needed more in a social society?
I understand what you're saying though.
And another thing you have to remember is that there is a difference between Fe and Fi.
Perhaps it's Fe that's needed in the social society?

And so many of the things that have been said in this thread aren't really anything to do with being a feeler at all.

Eh.
My values are extremely strong, those beliefs, principles and values (all very carefully THOUGHT out, for extended periods of time - logically) are my foundation.
How can you just suggest that feelers are less principled? I don't think F/T has anything to do with it, but effects instead what your principles and values actually are.

[Claptonian]

Then either you are playing guitar for all the wrong reasons and should give up, or perhaps you are just being too harsh on yourself. What matters is this. Do you enjoy hearing yourself play? Could you listen to yourself playing after hearing some artist that you do like, and compare yourself favourably? Do you feel like you are getting better and can see yourself getting towards something you are happy with? Who are you comparing yourself to?

A lot of it was me being too harsh on myself. I've always enjoyed playing and I know when I like what I hear and when I don't. But it was very difficult for me to tell if I was "good enough" to be in a band, "good enough" to play shows, "good enough" to be professional, etc., partly because I'm too hard on myself and partly because I'm very aware of my own biases. And, quite honestly, to make a living playing guitar, you have to be held accountable to a judge other than yourself. Even if I thought I was brilliant, if everyone else thinks I'm crap, I'm not going to make much of a living. ;)

My main point was that it's very difficult to judge your own ability. I remember seeing an interview with Mark Knopfler from a couple years ago where he said he didn't think he was much of a guitarist. I'm paraphrasing, but he went on to say, "If you're any good as a musician, you nearly always feel as though you're no place." I've found that the reverse of this is that many people who absolutely suck seem to think they're quite good.

Which goes back to my original point: honesty is the best policy in areas such as this. Honest feedback is far more useful than dishonest flattery.

[Dystopia]

I guess the only way to find out if you're good enough to play in a band is to track down some potential band members and see if they think you're good enough to play with them. Otherwise do some solo stuff and send it to some record companies and see what they think.

[Claptonian]

I guess the only way to find out if you're good enough to play in a band is to track down some potential band members and see if they think you're good enough to play with them.

I've done that and it turned out quite well, which is why I was talking in past-tense before. ;)

[pensivemuse7]

That is absolutely correct. You might think that you're saving their feelings, but in the long run, they will end up getting hurt even more. If everyone tells him he's good at guitar, one day he'll get up on stage and play in front of a crowd of people, and get booed and laughed at. It would save a lot more hurt being told the truth by a friend.

It reminds me of women who say "I didn't want to tell him there's no point in our relationship going on, because I don't want to hurt his feelings," building up all his hopes so that he gets even more hurt in future.

In reality, Fs are just being selfish and cowardly. They don't want it to look like they are the bad guy, and secretly hope that someone else will do it.

In my reality, I do not want to be the 'bad guy', but if I have to I will. I believe in brutal honesty. However, it does depend on who it is and the situation. I don't see the point of not being honest if its not going to help (ie tell the bad guitar player that he plays well). But i also don't see the point of being completely honest to the extent that it can come off offensive (ie. you should just give up the guitar). Instead, find a balance (ie you're not great, but practice can definitely help...or I think you should try a different instrument).

And if no one else will tell the truth, I am always first to do it usually. But I do it because I know I can convey what I mean without sugar coating it and without hurting the other person.