F vs T wars

[Pizzabeak]

Who would kill the other? Not to mention Fi vs Fe in any stack position, which is more inclined to have the first instinct to kill someone instead of trying to work together as long as possible?

 

[Black Rose]

Se

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

T people are merciless and ruthless.

 

[Niclmaki]

T would just find the softspot of F’s and exploit it at every turn to win.

Like Pirates of Penzance never killing orphans, hah.

 

[redbaron]

murder is typically an impulse crime, so the F will have already stabbed the T

sorry nerds you lose this round

 

[DolceGuevara]

We all know how powerful F is

 

[Cognisant]

High altitude bombing is a dispassionate and analytical, stabbing someone with a shiv is much more intimate.

 

[sat2493]

This discussion is stupid to begin with lol. But it still triggers some observations I've actually made.

I've come across more F types that prefer psychological tactics in order to win (guilt, anger, jealousy). Basically they apply their twisted sense of empathy to get back at the other person.

The workplace environment is where these F types tend to win. Establishing friendships and crushing less popular adversaries. Petty shit. This all occurs naturally to them; some might not even think of it as a game. Sometimes I've even seen T types get sucked into this unavoidable game.

In terms of actual war, I see the T types actually winning in that arena. From my experience at the U.S. military, xSTx's are the ones that see the most promising careers and just fit in naturally in objectively tense environments. Although I've seen an ISFJ Lt Col with the ability to be both tactful, and liked by pretty much everyone.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

What on earth can feelers do against thinkers in a war? Charm them to death?

 

[QuickTwist]

What on earth can feelers do against thinkers in a war? Charm them to death?

Although this is kinda glorifying war, which I don't particularly like, I did get a chuckle out of this.

As stated, it really depends on if the killing is personal or not irt T/F killing someone. T's can kill in a dispassionate way and I'd argue that a lot of serial killers were probably Ts. I think a better metric to go by in terms of killing is Agreeableness from Big 5 in which case, the lower the agreeableness score, the more likely they are to kill someone. Why? Because highly agreeable people avoid conflict and disagreeable people like conflict.

 

[Black Rose]

 

[The Gopher]

Okay so you say F is more likely to kill because of emotions and shit but keep in mind people with high F are probably better at managing those emotions when they happen. Where as you fucks with low F as soon as any emotion happens freak out and act all irrational and dangerous.

The Empire did nothing wrong.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

What on earth can feelers do against thinkers in a war? Charm them to death?

Although this is kinda glorifying war, which I don't particularly like, I did get a chuckle out of this.

As stated, it really depends on if the killing is personal or not irt T/F killing someone. T's can kill in a dispassionate way and I'd argue that a lot of serial killers were probably Ts. I think a better metric to go by in terms of killing is Agreeableness from Big 5 in which case, the lower the agreeableness score, the more likely they are to kill someone. Why? Because highly agreeable people avoid conflict and disagreeable people like conflict.

Dude, we're never gonna kill a single feeler. We won't have to. We'll simply destroy their society from the inside, starting with infusing their curricula and academic institutions with all kinds of fucked-up ideas like Marxism, feminism, "equality", etc. Feelers are gonna be suckers for this stuff.

 

[QuickTwist]

What on earth can feelers do against thinkers in a war? Charm them to death?

Although this is kinda glorifying war, which I don't particularly like, I did get a chuckle out of this.

As stated, it really depends on if the killing is personal or not irt T/F killing someone. T's can kill in a dispassionate way and I'd argue that a lot of serial killers were probably Ts. I think a better metric to go by in terms of killing is Agreeableness from Big 5 in which case, the lower the agreeableness score, the more likely they are to kill someone. Why? Because highly agreeable people avoid conflict and disagreeable people like conflict.

Dude, we're never gonna kill a single feeler. We won't have to. We'll simply destroy their society from the inside, starting with infusing their curricula and academic institutions with all kinds of fucked-up ideas like Marxism, feminism, "equality", etc. Feelers are gonna be suckers for this stuff.

So what you're saying is, is that T's control everything? Are you also saying that you have to be a T to be an Illuminati? Something tells me this is probably not to far off the mark, but maybe I am mixing up the Illuminati with the Church of Scientology.

 

[Minuend]

Depends on what you imagine t vs f would be like. Even people who want to and consider themselves rational have their values based in feelings. Meaning, the need or want to have "logical" values is a personal preference and an emotional choice. There's no truth being logical is the true truth, it's the personal preference of an individual.

Erm, a bit clumsily said, but if you value logical consistency, that's your personal preference, not a objective truth. It's what you want to be true and it's what you want to prioritize when forming your values. You are just as much as slave as to your preference when choosing values as those who choose based on "feelings"

Oh, this might be misunderstandable. I'm not saying there doesn't exist some objective truths, I'm saying your value system is not objective. There being objective truths doesn't dictate what our values "should" be, is what I'm saying.

 

[Reluctantly]

Wars of attrition. Each side misunderstands and underestimates the other.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Depends on what you imagine t vs f would be like. Even people who want to and consider themselves rational have their values based in feelings. Meaning, the need or want to have "logical" values is a personal preference and an emotional choice. There's no truth being logical is the true truth, it's the personal preference of an individual.

Erm, a bit clumsily said, but if you value logical consistency, that's your personal preference, not a objective truth. It's what you want to be true and it's what you want to prioritize when forming your values. You are just as much as slave as to your preference when choosing values as those who choose based on "feelings"

Oh, this might be misunderstandable. I'm not saying there doesn't exist some objective truths, I'm saying your value system is not objective. There being objective truths doesn't dictate what our values "should" be, is what I'm saying.

The problem for most people is not that they choose their values based on feelings. It's rather that they don't have any values at all and choose actions based on feelings – resorting to use their rationality to validate their actions post-hoc. That's quite different from saying: I carefully choose certain values based on my sense of aesthetics or feelings, and then consistently live by those values even when I don't feel like it.

 

[QuickTwist]

Depends on what you imagine t vs f would be like. Even people who want to and consider themselves rational have their values based in feelings. Meaning, the need or want to have "logical" values is a personal preference and an emotional choice. There's no truth being logical is the true truth, it's the personal preference of an individual.

Erm, a bit clumsily said, but if you value logical consistency, that's your personal preference, not a objective truth. It's what you want to be true and it's what you want to prioritize when forming your values. You are just as much as slave as to your preference when choosing values as those who choose based on "feelings"

Oh, this might be misunderstandable. I'm not saying there doesn't exist some objective truths, I'm saying your value system is not objective. There being objective truths doesn't dictate what our values "should" be, is what I'm saying.

The problem for most people is not that they choose their values based on feelings. It's rather that they don't have any values at all and choose actions based on feelings – resorting to use their rationality to validate their actions post-hoc. That's quite different from saying: I carefully choose certain values based on my sense of aesthetics or feelings, and then consistently live by those values even when I don't feel like it.

Indeed. Most people don't actually use their values as a compass as they should. I know I generally don't and it's a weakness I have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not very temperamental/sentimental at all, meaning, I don't really do "rash" actions. It's just that I don't actually have a very good grasp of my values as a whole. It's mostly because I never really stop to think about what my values are. I guess honesty would be one... Basically, I'd say the list is pretty short.

 

[Minuend]

The problem for most people is not that they choose their values based on feelings. It's rather that they don't have any values at all and choose actions based on feelings – resorting to use their rationality to validate their actions post-hoc. That's quite different from saying: I carefully choose certain values based on my sense of aesthetics or feelings, and then consistently live by those values even when I don't feel like it.

I'm uncertain what you mean when people don't have values. The way I see it most people have values, even though they might not always consider them thoroughly, or understand where they come from. A lot of values come from feelings based on experience and an unconscious understanding of what they think should or should not be, but are values none the less.

Indeed. Most people don't actually use their values as a compass as they should. I know I generally don't and it's a weakness I have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not very temperamental/sentimental at all, meaning, I don't really do "rash" actions. It's just that I don't actually have a very good grasp of my values as a whole. It's mostly because I never really stop to think about what my values are. I guess honesty would be one... Basically, I'd say the list is pretty short.

So, I guess this might come down to semantics. What is a value. Obviously you have some reactions to whatever you read or experience, but if you stop yourself from deciding to have an opinion, does that mean you don't have values? Or do you have some bias towards some elements, but decide not to settle on them? If pushed, I think it's hard not to have any type of response or opinion. So is it a thing where you remain undecided due to various factors, or is it that you are unable or unwilling to form values?

Also, you say people don't use their values as a compass. But that's exactly it. When people disregard what is considered "good" values, they are showing what their values are. They value their well being and interests above others. That is a value, that is what they value. If being passive or remain opinionless is their value, that's what they'll stick to. It's their preference. It's still a result of their personal preference of what they want to prioritize.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I'm uncertain what you mean when people don't have values. The way I see it most people have values, even though they might not always consider them thoroughly, or understand where they come from. A lot of values come from feelings based on experience and an unconscious understanding of what they think should or should not be, but are values none the less.
.

Well, that's not really values. That's just impulses. And these impulses change based on circumstances and various stimuli.

 

[Minuend]

Well, that's not really values. That's just impulses. And these impulses change based on circumstances and various stimuli.

What is the difference between impulses and values in this case?

Sometimes values can change easily when people actually consider where their values come from. Doesn't mean their flimsy opinions weren't values.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Well, that's not really values. That's just impulses. And these impulses change based on circumstances and various stimuli.

What is the difference between impulses and values in this case?

Sometimes values can change easily when people actually consider where their values come from. Doesn't mean their flimsy opinions weren't values.

Well, if, say, in one instance I shame someone for lying, and then in the next instance I lie to someone myself, do I have any values? I would say no, I just pick actions as I see fit based on circumstances.

I see values as axioms. Obviously one can change one's axioms, but that must be a conscious and rigorous process.

 

[Minuend]

Well, if, say, in one instance I shame someone for lying, and then in the next instance I lie to someone myself, do I have any values? I would say no, I just pick actions as I see fit based on circumstances.

I see values as axioms. Obviously one can change one's axioms, but that must be a conscious and rigorous process.

Your values could be it's ok for you to lie, but not others. Values aren't necessarily rational or consistent. But, I guess this is more of a semantic issue. We often pick values according to what benefit us, without even realizing it

I guess my main point we all have some sort of "rules" we live by. Usually they entail some sort of benefit to ourselves, they validate us, help us, make us more important or central than we really are etc. Sometimes they enable us to do what others would dislike and still maintain a feel of being in the right.

My point is, our base of what we believe is right, or better, or should be is fundamentally based in our personal preferences and what we choose to be the base of our opinions, values, choices.

So I think a lot of people have opinions as to what is right or wrong, even when it's not something they've thought a lot about. I'd call those reactions/ feelings/ thoughts values. But if you think that's the wrong use of the word, that's ok with me. I'm, mostly concerned about the impact of something, rather than the actual phrasing. If you want to call those impulses, that's ok, my point is still the same. Whether it's impulses or values, they still come from what the individual want to prioritize when constructing their world view. If you want to prioritize your world view based on your definition of rational/ logical or whether you want to prioritize based on empathy or some other factor. It all comes down to personal preference.

 

[QuickTwist]

Indeed. Most people don't actually use their values as a compass as they should. I know I generally don't and it's a weakness I have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not very temperamental/sentimental at all, meaning, I don't really do "rash" actions. It's just that I don't actually have a very good grasp of my values as a whole. It's mostly because I never really stop to think about what my values are. I guess honesty would be one... Basically, I'd say the list is pretty short.

So, I guess this might come down to semantics. What is a value. Obviously you have some reactions to whatever you read or experience, but if you stop yourself from deciding to have an opinion, does that mean you don't have values? Or do you have some bias towards some elements, but decide not to settle on them? If pushed, I think it's hard not to have any type of response or opinion. So is it a thing where you remain undecided due to various factors, or is it that you are unable or unwilling to form values?

Also, you say people don't use their values as a compass. But that's exactly it. When people disregard what is considered "good" values, they are showing what their values are. They value their well being and interests above others. That is a value, that is what they value. If being passive or remain opinionless is their value, that's what they'll stick to. It's their preference. It's still a result of their personal preference of what they want to prioritize.

I am not saying I don't have opinions or that I don't have urges. I think everyone has values (and urges), but it's a question of how consciously do they affect your decisions. I was just trying to point out that I need to get better at that because it's a weak area for me. When I say we all have values, what I mean to say is we all have certain ideals that we believe in. But that's not the question for me. The question for me is how in touch am I with my values? Am I in touch with them enough for them to influence my decision making? Probably not as much as I would like.

 

[Black Rose]

Feeling deals value in the sense that some things are worth more than others. Fi the self has the final say what is valued. Fe the self is suppressed for a collective good. Same thing happens with thinking. Ti has a personal subjective standard for how thinking is done. Te has an objective standard for how thinking is done.

F vs T

Fi - my values of worth first
Fe - the collective values of worth first

Ti - a personal standard of thinking
Te - objective standard of thinking.

The real conflict:

FiTe vs TiFe
contextual vs universal (judgment)

F vs T dichotomy doesn't hold water
Ti would fight with Te and Fi would fight with Fe.

Introversion/Extraversion changes the game in the judgment function war.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Fi is personal values using "mainstream" methods or "logic" to achieve; Ti is personal logic or thought ("informal logic"?) used to make people happy - the self or the group. All that changes is the place in the stack, and the ratio of how much a person has in conjunction with the archetypal jungian indication.