Feelers

[Panthera Onca]

Greetings and salutations, my fellow thinkers. This is my first post, not that that is of any consequence. I just had to ask my fellow INTPs:

Does anyone else find feeling type people as mind-bogglingly impossible to deal with?

 

[Turnevies]

sometimes, mostly SFJ's

Others, especially NF's, are good to remind me life is more than being a machine.

 

[Grayman]

I find myself often curiously examining them than getting frustrated by them.

The idea that everything has to make sense just isn't sensible. It took me a while to learn that.

 

[Yellow]

I find NF-like people more infuriating than SF-like people (when matched type-for-type, with the exception of ExFPs), but yes. They can be difficult.

Though, to be honest, I struggle most with textbook ISTJ-like people.

 

[QuickTwist]

I find myself often curiously examining them than getting frustrated by them.

The idea that everything has to make sense just isn't sensible. It took me a while to learn that.

Same... As long as their stupid sentiment based values are kept far away from me. For that matter, some T's are just as bat shit crazy in what they believe, it takes all sorts (I'm looking at you ISTp). There is a point though that their belief is sooo odd ball that I actually find it intriguing, but that is usually dependent on if its something I have never heard before. But overall I have more of a natural disposition to find people giving me something to think about and interesting rather than hate or mal contempt. I like to try and figure out the motivation behind people a lot, its one of the things I think I am actually not too bad at. I guess the difference and catalyst for if I find it annoying or not is how much I have to be around it. If I'm surrounded by it all the time, then I usually start to get confrontational towards it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Feelers are really easy to get along with. Super duper easy. EZPZ.

I get along with feelers all day.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Just keep them clean and off the ground and they're pretty easy to deal with. Like so:

Spoiler

 

[TheManBeyond]

I have a hard time with Si dom people
Moooooveeeee

 

[kora]

I have no problem with feelers, but then I am one. I have no problem with thinkers, I don't think they really think more than me

 

[The Gopher]

It would be illogical to not take feelings into account in the same way it would be illogical to abandon logic. Feelings are, in essence, extremely complex logic. However complex logic lends it's self to faults and when it does one must return to simple easy to understand logic. Generally T and F types who have both realised this get along fine, it's only the stupid, aka the emotionally stunted or intellectually challenged that seem to have problems.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can you expand on the "complex logic" line of reasoning?

 

[The Gopher]

Can you expand on the "complex logic" line of reasoning?

If I explain it now all the elitist T types won't get triggered. Come to think of it that was mostly just to get a reaction but now I have to try and justify it...

(Keep in mind I'm technically an F type again? So I may miss some of the logical steps needed to explain what I'm getting at) To make sure you understand exactly what I mean by "Logical".

In some cases I mean.

"of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument." particularly in reference to systems aka the rules.

sometimes more.

"(of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances." particularly when talking about lack or restricted by knowledge.

Explained simply, T logic is working through things using the conscious part of the brain one thing or connection at a time ensuring everything logically checks out. It is slow af. Ne + Ti for instance would be working faster making leaps first then logically checking them quickly however it would be more inaccurate unless you went all Ti Si or even Ti Ne on the problem. Now sure you can do complex logic with Ti however it's just slow and methodical and comprised of heaps and heaps of "simple" logic put together. Anyone can solve a maths problem right? You just follow the steps and formula and you get a result. Maths is literally the simplest thing in the universe could not be a more boring subject. Hence my definition of "simple logic"

Now you may have noticed I mentioned Ne into a Ti lead being faster. Is Ne illogical? No, Ne is perfectly logical within it's own knowledge/system. is it inaccurate? Yes, why is it inaccurate? Because it doesn't have complete accurate information. You only get complete accurate information in complete systems which Ti or Te would be working in. Ti can be wildly "illogical" once brought out of it's internal system. If it wasn't then no Ti type would ever disagree with another Ti type.

So what I'm getting at is Ti can only be perfectly logical if it has perfect knowledge. Since it doesn't it has to work with simple steps within the confines of it's own system. Aka a programming language or maths or internal thoughts in someone's head constrained by lack of knowledge.

In other words what makes something logical is defined by the system it resides in. If we here suddenly decide that 2 + 2 = 5 and make that the new normal, that is what is logical within our own system. However if we then go out into the world we are suddenly illogical and stupid. If it didn't work like this Ti types could never be wrong. (Okay that's a fallacy but you get the idea)

This means, that any emotion or F function like Fi for example is exactly like Ti it is perfectly logical within the confines of it's knowledge. However when you up the complexity you up the inaccuracy compared to others internal systems. It makes logical conclusions based on well... everything. If Ti is more accurate and more simple Fi is more complex and more inaccurate yet still perfectly logical within it's own system just like Ti is.

See everything is compared to everyone else. We have all decided that 2 + 2 = 4 so saying so is perfectly logical. However we haven't all decided that after getting punched in the face the logical reaction is to start dancing. For the guy that had a complete mental break down the first time he got punched in the face... and then found out for some reason people left him alone if he acted psycho and started dancing... then it's only logical to start dancing if you get punched in the face. However since this type of logic is more complex than maths there are times he'll get punched in the face, read the situation, evaluate it, and realize his only option is to fight back, or run. Everyone has their own logic and emotions that is vaguely related to what everyone around us agrees on. Now with absolute knowledge there is a best reaction to every situation but nobody has that they all work with what they have.

So now finally getting to the emotions part. If someone grows up, and his father commits suicide with a gun, his sister dies due to being attacked by a gunman and his mother dies in war. He may not have a simple logical reason for hating guns however he would have a complex logical reason to based on his knowledge within his internal system. It may also be "logical" based on the system the world uses to define logic and morality however it might not be since it's a complex logical emotional response. Same goes for the guy who was saved by police, used a gun to go hunting and found enjoyment at the range. He has a logical reason to like guns given his knowledge and internal system. That doesn't mean he's correct or wrong though.

Even if you logically in the first sense decide guns are good or bad you are still constricted by what we have collectively decided are good or bad things. Is it bad that people suicide with guns for instance? For most of us it would seem logical that it is because we've decided it is logical that it is however I know several people and everyone who has used guns to suicide saying otherwise.

Ending/TL;DR Everything is only logical within it's own system. Either nothing is holistically logical or everything is within it's own confines.* Everyone has a reason for reacting the way they do and it's obviously logical that they react that way otherwise it wouldn't happen.

*Don't debate this I don't actually know.

*Mumbles something about system translation systems making everything logical again. Oh I almost forgot.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm going to summarise that.
T thinking is abstract and exact, F thinking is more reactionary and faster.

Emotions are fast, if I take your sweetroll I have defied your expectation that it is your sweetroll which means I cannot take it so your emotional response is anger. Being angry you can snatch it off me before I put it in my mouth whereas if you had to think about it by the time it occurred to you that me taking your sweetroll prevents you enjoying it later I'd already have eaten it.

On the other hand abstract thinking yields a greater perspective, the T thinker may assess that giving the sweetroll to someone that is hungry is a small expense when they themselves are not hungry but of great benefit to the recipient, thus the thinker may ask for a favour in return later that is worth more than a mere sweetroll.

Feelings are, in essence, extremely complex logic

Feelings are not random, they're purposeful instincts, however as rationally justifiable as they may be the fact remains they're an inadequate substitute for actual reasoning.

Likewise too much abstraction can be crippling.

 

[Pyropyro]

NF's are quite easy to deal with IMO. If there's any type that I have problems with then it has to be SJ's.

 

[Minuend]

Gopher is right when he says feelings are complex. People are generally shit at understanding each other due to lacking in this ability. It requires complex thought to see the various aspects of a persons life, personality, feelings, thoughts and such that shapes it. One of the worst things are people who have zero talent in this area try to understand people by categorizing them into something they can understand. And they are of course unable to see how flawed their understanding of people is since they don't understand people. It's akin to someone who doesn't know math trying to solve an equation and the answer is wrong on so many levels.

Anyways, in my personal life, the people who are a source of conflict are mostly people who'd fall into the thinker category. People who believe their logical system to be the right answer and disregard people who don't live up to their standards. For instance looking down at you because you don't have a higher education which is one of their believed objective criteria of being a good/ smart/ respected person. Or that you're not following their religion and the objective morality. These have a need to try to change you when you meet them.

The one person in my life who's actively building bridges despite me being completely different, weird and probably difficult to be around would fall into the category of a feeler. Where being together is more about finding common ground than trying to impose your views.

(I wonder if culture makes a difference where if you live in a country of "colder" people it's easier to get along with feelers and vice versa. Though I guess it depends on what you look for in a person that equals "deal with")

 

[Yellow]

Oh, you guys and your mature answers.

Really, truly, if I spend too much time exposed to people who process information differently than me, whether it drives me up the wall depends on the nature of our relationship. The more power the other party has in my relationship with them, the more I need and want them to be stable, rational, and creative. As their power in the relationship decreases, it matters less and less to me how they are, because I'm not at the mercy of their personality.

I can see SJ's being the most frustrating, if your life is essentially run/dictated by SJs. I don't have a lot of people running my life, thank goodness. I find NFs the most frustrating because they are the most delusional when it comes to their own limitations.

 

[cheese]

^What sort of limitations, and what sort of delusions? Also why are they delusional?

 

[Black Rose]

In Jungian psychology

In Jungian psychology, also called analytical psychology, individuation is the process in which the individual self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious – seen as a developmental psychic process during which innate elements of personality, the components of the immature psyche, and the experiences of the person's life become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.

Jung says the auxiliary is gate into the unconscious. Given that Ni is the resonance of the unconscious. I have such advantage to get there. Did you know that voting is an occult ritual? This post is a binding process also. When you give your choice of your own free will. You should not resist your own mental breakdowns. Ego death and death to the self. Death is illusionary. What happens is that you stop being a robot. You truly begin to live. Because you know you are loved.

https://youtu.be/aGxeZdYgLKw

 

[EggCustard]

I was going to come up in here and be all like "not all F's are annoying" (well not all Fs are annoying) but then I just had a conversation with one very annoying INF* about job related matters. He was all like "I'm sure its not personal" which threw me off guard because I was like "Who said it was personal? I'm talking about facts bro".

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I can see SJ's being the most frustrating, if your life is essentially run/dictated by SJs. I don't have a lot of people running my life, thank goodness. I find NFs the most frustrating because they are the most delusional when it comes to their own limitations.

My experience with this is that we tend to work via deep series of "if___ then___"'s. We have a rough step by step outline to the end goal, but we explain things by mentioning the far out end goal first, because that's how we think and we're biased towards believing that everyone else thinks just like we do, like everyone else.

This confuses people and makes them hesitant to trust us, whereas the paradoxical reality is that the only reason we're telling them in the first place is because they're needed for one of those initial steps they haven't heard about yet. Success becomes a delicate balancing act between demonstrating competence and blind trust.

Relative to my single INFJ-being only. YMMV.

*Don't debate this I don't actually know.

TL;DR:TL;DR:

It uses realm-specific indicators of underlying structures within a subjective heuristic instead of parsing through entire structures.

 

[WeirdMachine]

Gotta agree with Turnevies. I have about the same perspective.

I don't really get as frustrated with irationallity as much strangely. I've had more than my fair share of hating irrationality in myself and once I managed to get over that mostly (Which took a long long long time. I had some pretty high standards for logic and I still do.), I seem to be a lot more patient with it with other people.

Talking with NFs can provide some interesting perspective that NTs don't provide as much. They can be wrong at times but I'm rather patient with that. Though, people here seem to be concluding that all Fs are irrational when it's possible for a feeler to develop thinking since its in their stack, though it's harder. I've had the most interesting philosophical and society conversations with an INFJ once. I'm somewhat not sure of my typing but I'm pretty sure she was an NF.

SFs on the other hand tend to talk about less interesting topics to me though a few times here and there, I manage to tweak the conversation to something more interesting somehow. (My ESFJ mom trying to talk to me and her influx of Si memories for example. Apparently, I thought it was pretty interesting to hear what it was like when she was younger. What the technology was like. What the education system was like. All that. )

I'm probably a lot more patient with small talk than normal INTPs, though I still tend to prefer N conversations and find small talk boring somehow, though bearable at times.

 

[bvanevery]

Just keep them clean and off the ground and they're pretty easy to deal with. Like so:

That was pretty funny!

SJs are the worst, bar none. Strong Js are really bad. I've definitely had T vs. F conflicts but they're not usually as bad as a fucking J.

Fs are hyper annoying when they're doing their totally subjective shit. Like put yourself in someone else's fucking shoes for a change.

Fs have some redeeming qualities like acutally remembering to give a shit about someone who's dying of cancer and having a good beside manner for that sort of thing. Someone I had just met simultaneously told me about his dog looked and acted a whole lot like my dog, and that his dog had just died. He had just interrupted an email I was deeply in the middle of writing, I was out in public using wifi in front of a store. So I said, "Oh, cool" to his story. Couple seconds later my brain caught up and I realized how I had responded. I meant that it was cool that his dog was like mine. Not that his dog had recently died. If he had expressed hurt at my remark, I would have further explained that I prefer to emphasize what was good in life about someone, not the misery by which they died. In short I would have doubled down. Simultaneously as I was belatedly calculating all of this, I thought about what a total non 'F' I am. An 'F' would have prioritized the beside manner. Not the logic of how best to focus human experience.

I hope he realized I meant well. I wasn't trying to hurt him. I celebrate life, not death.

He caught me off-guard. Not everybody can just leap up and show immediate concern for someone else's condition, when their brain was deep in the middle of something else. Like give me a moment to put my social graces hat on.

 

[bvanevery]

Did you know that voting is an occult ritual?

Huh? No. I've got a B.A. in sociocultural anthropology. A B.A. doesn't make me an expert in rituals, but it does mean I've studied them a little bit.

Voting at the polls is certainly a ritual. It could be analyzed in classical terms of liminality, such as Arnold van Gennep's stages of "separation, liminality, and reintegration". You stand in line, you are separated. You enter the polling booth (less dramatic now, there used to be curtains and a lever), you are liminal. You pull the lever or nowadays deposit your paper ballot in a machine; you are reintegrated. Your action has become part of the social whole.

What the hell is occult about this ritual? Nothing. You made it up. You have confused ritual with things that have specific magical connotations, or are the practices of specific subcultural groups. All societies have rituals. That doesn't make those rituals 'occult'.

 

[bvanevery]

Emotions are fast, if I take your sweetroll I have defied your expectation that it is your sweetroll which means I cannot take it so your emotional response is anger. Being angry you can snatch it off me before I put it in my mouth whereas if you had to think about it by the time it occurred to you that me taking your sweetroll prevents you enjoying it later I'd already have eaten it.

Kung fu; grab wrist; draw knife; slash throat. Sweetroll mine! Blink of an eye.

Brain catches up. What have I done?

More seriously, you can think about and train your Rules of Engagement for things like this. What if it's just your dog taking the sweet roll? Might not be a big deal to you.

Sometimes I wonder about strict N vs. S dichotomies because I do have that martial arts side. And an artist craftsman "hands on" side. I can perceive minute gradations of wetness when working on a watercolor or acrylic paint for instance. When I'm working on my car, sometimes I have to just feel how things fit together.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

That was pretty funny!

SJs are the worst, bar none. Strong Js are really bad. I've definitely had T vs. F conflicts but they're not usually as bad as a fucking J.

Fs are hyper annoying when they're doing their totally subjective shit. Like put yourself in someone else's fucking shoes for a change.

Fs have some redeeming qualities like acutally remembering to give a shit about someone who's dying of cancer and having a good beside manner for that sort of thing. Someone I had just met simultaneously told me about his dog looked and acted a whole lot like my dog, and that his dog had just died. He had just interrupted an email I was deeply in the middle of writing, I was out in public using wifi in front of a store. So I said, "Oh, cool" to his story. Couple seconds later my brain caught up and I realized how I had responded. I meant that it was cool that his dog was like mine. Not that his dog had recently died. If he had expressed hurt at my remark, I would have further explained that I prefer to emphasize what was good in life about someone, not the misery by which they died. In short I would have doubled down. Simultaneously as I was belatedly calculating all of this, I thought about what a total non 'F' I am. An 'F' would have prioritized the beside manner. Not the logic of how best to focus human experience.

I hope he realized I meant well. I wasn't trying to hurt him. I celebrate life, not death.

He caught me off-guard. Not everybody can just leap up and show immediate concern for someone else's condition, when their brain was deep in the middle of something else. Like give me a moment to put my social graces hat on.

It's pretty much a maturity thing vs a letter vs letter thing or even a functional stack position thing. Get engrossed in such things and you fall victim to various stereotype-based fallacies that restrict yourself by underestimating both your own capabilities and those of others; a two-pronged attack against resource utilization.

 

[bvanevery]

I just figured out the "rabbit making a shadow of a human hand" thing. (In case the avatar changes in the future

 

[Black Rose]

What the hell is occult about this ritual? Nothing. You made it up. You have confused ritual with things that have specific magical connotations, or are the practices of specific subcultural groups. All societies have rituals. That doesn't make those rituals 'occult'.

Anything that you do that becomes incorporated into the subjective self is occult. Only you know the meaning behind why you voted a specific way, this makes it a 'hidden' secret. Rituals that don't mean anything to you obviously have no power over your subjective life. Once something has meaning attached to it, it is now part of you. You became what you have done and it is now who you are. Now not everyone sees it this way but those people are extroverts, everything to them is separated from who they are. If you are introverted you see that everything is part of yourself. The way I voted is now part of me and what has been done cannot be undone. So ya, if you think voting is a meaningless ritual then certainly it is not occult. Rituals need to be meaningful for them to be occult. Because it is then part of who you are. I made a choice and making choices requires free will. I try to make everything meaningful in my life.

 

[bvanevery]

Anything that you do that becomes incorporated into the subjective self is occult.

Baloney.

The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden".[1] In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",[2] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.[3] The terms esoteric and arcane can also be used to describe the occult,[4][5] in addition to their meanings unrelated to the supernatural.
It also describes a number of magical organizations or orders, the teachings and practices taught by them, and to a large body of current and historical literature and spiritual philosophy related to this subject.

Maybe 'occult' means more in Jungian psychology. I'm not familiar with it; feel free to provide links.

Only you know the meaning behind why you voted a specific way, this makes it a 'hidden' secret.

Actually for various political participants, that's false. I haven't been even slightly secretive about who I'm voting for, or why. Also, hiding a secret is redundant. It's a secret. An "open secret" is something that is not actually secret, that people know about, but just don't wish to talk about.

You are imposing mysticism on a public ritual that has little to no inherent mysticism for most people. It's like saying that the National Anthem being played before a US baseball game is an occult ritual. It isn't, it's simply a ritual. Sure, any given person might have some personal interpretation of the Anthem, or putting his/her hand over her heart, or what the ritual means to them, that someone else doesn't know. Simply because he/she didn't bother to tell anyone else. It's not mysterious, mystical, or all that remarkable in terms of personal psyche. It's as remarkable as noting that events mean different things to different peeople, that they have different interpretations of them.

Rituals that don't mean anything to you obviously have no power over your subjective life. Once something has meaning attached to it, it is now part of you. You became what you have done and it is now who you are.

You are reifying this concept.

Now not everyone sees it this way but those people are extroverts, everything to them is separated from who they are. If you are introverted you see that everything is part of yourself.

Baloney. I don't agree with you at all, and I am an introvert. As I'm also a strong T, I find your idea of "incorporating everything into the subjective" to be off-putting. As well as a bad description of most people's behavior in a polling booth.

The way I voted is now part of me and what has been done cannot be undone.

So what? Technically every prior moment of our lives cannot be undone.

So ya, if you think voting is a meaningless ritual then certainly it is not occult.

The ritual of voting has meaning. It does not have occult meaning. 'Occult' is not a synonym for 'meaningful', nor for 'personal'.

Rituals need to be meaningful for them to be occult.

Rituals don't need to be occult in order to be meaningful.

Because it is then part of who you are. I made a choice and making choices requires free will. I try to make everything meaningful in my life.

You are choosing to impose a meaning upon the ritual of voting, by ascribing the property 'occult' to it. Newsflash: almost nobody else in the USA is doing that. They don't disappear into the polling booth and start lighting candles and drawing pentagrams. No goat blood is spilled. At a minimum, your assignation of the label 'occult' is bad ethnography. Since I have an anthropology background, I object.

Personal poetic meanings do not automatically become public cultural meanings.

 

[Black Rose]

Personal poetic meanings do not automatically become public cultural meanings.

I could have been more explicit but you already understand. You just got agitated that I said it "is" occult when I should have said (can be). I am sort of a magical thinker, when I pen'd the circle and put the sheet of paper in the machine it reminded me of how that day when I told myself I will never turn safe mode off on YouTube until I get better and pressed the button weird things happened. I pressed the button and immediately a video pop't up and it was spooky, it felt like instead of it just being a video, that real people knew that I knew they were singing to me in a quire. Other videos pop't up that I did not open myself. My mind wandered to those bad thought I was having earlier and the room shattered in two like a mirror cracked down the middle.

I thought I would die and be gone forever in Oblivion, with no existence whats so ever in any form. I asked for help, I said "Jesus is in control" and then everything stopped. Because I remembered that in church they said Jesus was inside you. I thought how can Jesus be inside me unless I am Jesus. I can't be Jesus because that would mean Jesus reincarnated in me but the bible says his body is a glorified body. You can't reincarnate if you still have a body. So I must be the Antichrist because I had the thought of it from the left behind book series on tape that I listened to when I was 12. So now everything is going to go to shit and I will be cast into eternal fire because I don't follow the rules. The rules say you must sacrifice yourself, to be tortured and not submit when persecuted. And if you don't you will burn. A rock and a hard place.

I did go to the hospital for a week and I did feel better. But I am a magical thinker, I think my vote will make trump win the election but that is just magical thinking because when I commit myself things happen. Magical supernatural things happen. The problem is, I don't know if God Hates me or Loves me. I have been alone my whole life. How do I commit to God when he is silent to me. What do I do when all I know is loneliness. I do think of Love all the time but not in the way I know others think. I know that God is not physical or all suffering would be gone. I think that the future of humanity lies in the Technological Singularity. When it happens all magic will be possible just like in your lucid dreams. If God were real my life would be better. But I cannot blame God or this reality because this reality will change. Super Intelligence, written in software will resurrect the dead. Because Christianity is a witch-hunt and as they believed the messiah would be a warrior and not a sacrifice, they will say the machine is Satan when it is not. I am not a bad person but God is a supercomputer and that is the only way this world will change. A record of all history and deeds of the great and small. The books will be opened.

This is totally schizophrenic, sorry bought that.
Make This Forum Great Again. Vote The Gopher

 

[bvanevery]

So now everything is going to go to shit and I will be cast into eternal fire because I don't follow the rules. The rules say you must sacrifice yourself, to be tortured and not submit when persecuted. And if you don't you will burn. A rock and a hard place.

Hrm. You might benefit from extensive study of Steven Hassan's BITE model of cult mind control. Behavioral, Informational, Thought, and Emotional control. What you outlined above is Emotional control.

5. Instill fear, such as fear of:
a. Thinking independently
b. The outside world
c. Enemies
d. Losing one’s salvation
e. Leaving or being shunned by the group
f. Other’s disapproval

6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner

7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins

8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority
a. No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group
b. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.
c. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll

 

[Midvar]

I find NFs tolerable and in some cases a genuine joy to be around. SFs are sooooo annoying! Especially if they are Js too. ExFx types are too emotional.