Feeling function vs. thinking function

[opllars]

With some people its obvious - but with a whole lot of people its hard (for me) to decide whether they belong to the feeling or thinking type.

A friend of mine...yes, he has strong feelings, gets easily hurt, and can be rather dramatic, hysterical - but is it the ammount of feeling that determes the type? No, I would say. This guy is the kind that talks for hours about his theories, is very concerned about what is right/false and show some flaws in adapting to the values of his enviroment. He is spending time thinking about this.
He think of himself as a feeling type, and everybody would say that he is too much occupied with his feelings, as small things like a remark can make him leave a company.
Still, I consider him as primary thinking.

Another friend of mine also see himself as feeling type. Yes, he is emphatic and talks more about feelings than the general public, but he is certainly someone who likes to discuss what is truth regarding a topic, and like to hold opions that are contracictory to what most people think is a "correct" viewpoint, i.e. he sort by truth/false and not by good/bad, like the value oriented feeling type.

Both are the kind that think of the majority as having not 'understood' the complexity of things, but believe in what they find comfort in believing.

People regard me as a thinking type (as you can see I think about things ),
but at the same time I feel my way through life. I often feel in my stomach what is the right thing to do, and afterwards I try to explain it in words. You could say that that is intuition, but its more intuitive feeling than intuitive thinking.
So I think I am somewhere in the middle.
And isnt most people?
BTW, who defines the midle? To some I would be considered emotional, and some would say I am "in my head".

Jung said that you cannot think and feel at the same time, therefore one is always more dominant. Is that true? I cannot tell which of the functions comes first in my place, do I feel before I think or vise verca?

And BTW, Jung made it clear that when he talked about "feeling" it was not ment to be feeling in the usual meaning. Therefore you can have a feeling person that is cold as ice. But he will use his values as criterion for evaluation/decisions.

I have been figuring about this for a long time, hope someone have something to say about it.....

 

[Decaf]

As you've read Jung I'm sure you're aware of how the four letter code translates into the four definitive functions, so I'll keep this brief. Considering where we are, I'll go ahead and use INTP as a an example. INTPs are dominant introverted thinkers and auxiliary extraverted intuitive. That means that what we show to the world is our intuitive side. When we talk to people we listen because we're always searching for new correlations, new ways of looking at things. We introvert our thinking, which mean no one ever really sees what we're thinking. At best they see the carefully translated (our thoughts would be unintelligible) "outside" version of our ideas. Even then, the translation we present is not dynamic, and its possible that even though we have very acute analytical skills, we can come across as dim (or at least that's our hidden fear).

The key is that thinking is not what you see, but because we are dominant judging, it is incorporated into enough of our lives that it is generally easy to detect. Dominant extraverted judgers are fairly obvious, and probably lead to most of our assumptions about how thinking and feeling exhibit themselves in the real world. Auxiliary extraverted judgers are also reasonably clear. Its the part of them they put out there for everyone to see, so it's hard to miss it.

The trouble comes mostly from auxiliary introverted judgers. Not only is there an obvious face to deal with that doesn't work in the judging paradigm, but their tertiary function is automatically the other judging function, meaning that they likely will develop both functions at some point. If you think the individual might test as an EP, this might be the case. If they are an IJ or an IP, it still can be difficult, just more likely to lead to success.

One of the fundamental problems with gauging anyone other than yourself as thinking or feeling is that they are so intrisicly linked to our cultural view of masculinity and feminity. A feeling man is actually fairly likely to test as a thinking man simply because its what the culture has been telling him he should be. The same is true for thinking women. That's why when the result is unclear, most practitioners use the opposite of gender norm as a working model until they clarify it.

 

[grey matters]

Okay Decaf, this has nothing to do with the thread but I have to ask, where in the hell did you get that picture? You have used some pictures that were interesting but this one takes the cake. The facial expression on that cat is absolutely hilarious. Okay, back to the thread now.

 

[Decaf]

Okay Decaf, this has nothing to do with the thread but I have to ask, where in the hell did you get that picture? You have used some pictures that were interesting but this one takes the cake. The facial expression on that cat is absolutely hilarious. Okay, back to the thread now.

To be honest, I have no idea where it came from. I found it on a humor site a long time ago and saved it to my documents. Isn't it great?

 

[fullerene]

I was so disoriented when I first saw that picture in your avatar--it used to be my background picture, so for some reason I saw it out of the corner of my eye and it took me a second or two to remember where I was.

This thread actually got me thinking about whether I might be INFP--I found a different site with (fantastic) type descriptions on it, and I'm really not too far off from an INFP at all... I value the same things they seem to value, and drive myself in ways that they seem to as well. The only real difference is I don't seize up with empathy whenever I see other people being abused or wronged, unless they're friends.

Then I remembered how intensely Ti-centered I was until like 2 years ago, and reread a description on Ti, and that made it pretty obvious. INFP characteristics -/-> INFP functions. If you think about things objectively and try to distance yourself personally from the things you're thinking about whether the answers come by gut or by logic), you're Ti-ing. At least that's my understanding of it right now.

 

[Waterstiller]

That site does have some useful type descriptions. Thanks!

 

[SafetyInNumbers]

Hey Decaf, where did you get your picture? Is Hatter a real good friend and do you love Giraffes?

 

[Thread Killer]

I def. think and feel at the same time. I think it's called being human.

I can't imagine not doing both, really. Either Jung has been taken out of context or he's wrong.

 

[Decaf]

I def. think and feel at the same time. I think it's called being human.

It ties into a misunderstanding of what he means when he says thinking and feeling. A better way to look at it would be Objective (T) and Subjective (F) Focus. The first is by its nature analytical without respect to individuals and circumstances. The second is, fundamentally, the opposite only in the sense that it DOES look at the individual and the circumstances. When you look at the particulars of each case, the rules that thinkers make don't apply because each situation is too unique. Instead you rely on your values or your principles or your morals (basically whatever you want to call it). Thinkers have values, etc... but they are generally an afterthought when applying them to a situation, the same way it is an afterthought to for a feeler to look at a situation as purely an observer.

It is that problem of initial reaction that defines so many of the common differences between thinkers and feelers. Feelers have their feelings hurt more often because they do not instinctively remove themselves from their environment when analyzing it. It causes many to view feelers as more emotional, when in reality their are just more concerned about individuals (which can be positive and negative).

All that to say "Thinkers are just as emotional as feelers. It is what we do with those emotions that defines the difference between us."

 

[SafetyInNumbers]

I only have my feelings hurt by people closest to me, even though others may be much more caustic towards me. Its because I expect my close frinds and family to know me better and thus not insult my sensitivity in such a manner. However i am begining to come to terms with the fact that no one actually knows me at all.

 

[opllars]

I have been thinking much about both your replies, Decaf. The first one I find very interesting but I have to be better at differentiate between the functions before being able to combine them the MBTI way (where another function than the main function can be more obvious to other people). But that would certainly be a possible explanation why people appear to be a different type than what the experience themselves to be.
But what about Jung. He was an introverted thinker, but he certainly also used his intuition in an introverted fasion if any. His opinion was that only the inferior function was the one having the other direction. In his example would that then mean that he was phone to emotional outburst, when stressed (well, he has explained that he always had been afraid of loosing his temper because of his physical strength).


What you say, Decaf, makes sense to me. And I remember someone said that were as the thinking
type is connected to a utilitarian moral, the feeling type is more absolute in his moral. I guess the expression 'you have to break an egg to make an omelet' must come from a thinking type.


I come to think of people who gets upset by hearing a family describe their needs in the news,
opposed to those who will be more upset about hearing that 10% more of a pupulation are now pure.
I also come to think of a distinction that is made in NLP (a therapy form) between who experience life dissociated vs. associated ( look at things from the outside opposed to looking at things from an inside position). I can see that it is not possible to take both positions at the same time.


It is said that feeling types can be be cold as ice. Can thinkers be as warmhearted as feelers? Can they cry just as easy?
It guess that you mean so, Decaf, as you say, “Thinkers are just as emotional as feelers...” . But does that also imply that thinkers feel as much as feelers? ( I mean, emotions are just strong feelings, aren´t they. And emotions are what is seen when the feeling function is the inferior function and gets activated....). And if so, then feeling type is a badly chosen term, and the type should be called 'subjective type' instead.


It seems to me that most of us use each position, whatever we call them, where it is most appropriate. I can hear about 1000 people dying at the other side of the earth and still enjoy my breakfast, but if one man got shut in my neighbourhood it gives rise to feelings.
Where it type specific reactions seems to be obvious, is when someone cries because of the news or someone just keeps eating when informed that his neighbour has been shot.

Are feeling types generally more in connection with their bodies? I mean, feeling are in the body, so to use the feeling function, I mean to experience a feeling involve to be able to pay attention to energy movements that happens in the body.
If so, they differ in their body awareness from the sensation type, who use their senses as instrument for orientation.
A professor in psychology, Eugine Gendlin, showed that people who made benefit from psychotherapy were the ones who was able to bring awareness to the feelings in the body and experience the subtle shifts that takes place while talking/thinking about a subject. He has spent his life teaching people to develop this ability to focus on the 'felt sense' . Could one say that what he has done is to teach people to use their feeling function?




It is said that the intuition type is the one that is most out of contact with the body, but more specifically is that the senses they forget to use, as to me they dont seem to be out of contact with their feelings more than others.
Thinkers on the other hand can make good use of their bodily senses, but might then not be good at paying attention to the bodily felt feelings in the body.


Finally, a maybe stupid question: Does feeling types get lower grades in mathematics? (there inferior function being thinking).


That was all my questions for today :-)

 

[Ermine]

Not necessarily. Obviously, feeling types can think and thinking types can feel. It might not come as easy, but it can happen.

And responding to the thread, I think what defines Thinking vs. Feeling is how they make decisions. Thinkers use logic and past experience, and feelers think with their emotions. The intensity of emotion has little to do with it. I, for example, definitely make decisions through logic, but when I do get emotional, it's very intense, since it's extraverted feeling that has been bottled up and I don't know how to deal with it. The thinking function is still my strongest function along with introversion.

 

[Devercia]

I would say feelers are more focused on harmony and maintaining social benevolence than emotions. If the maintenance of harmony is whats most logical, than its T synthesizing F, if the logical conclusion creates the most harmony then its F synthesizing T.

 

[opllars]

Decaf wrote:

It ties into a misunderstanding of what he means when he says thinking and feeling. A better way to look at it would be Objective (T) and Subjective (F) Focus.

I liked that explanation/definition, although I was thinking: Is this not what is usually referred to as Extroversion vs. Introvertion? Yes, certainly. But somehow it seemed true to me that ET then was extreem objectivity, while IF was extreem subjectivity, but.....no!

Extraverted feeling has detached itself as much as possible from the subjective factor and subordinated itself entirely to the influence of the object.

(Jung, psychological Types, par. 595).

This adds to my feeling that the feeling type is not that easely understood.....

The subject tends to disapear in the (E) feeling type as it is occupied with the outer values and criteria, that the subject is suppressed ! (but of course the IF is subjective)

 

[Decaf]

hmm... y'know, that's an interesting way to saying that. I'm always using the term subjective to describe that, but you're right (and Jung ), that's inaccurate.

I wonder if our tendency to chameleon is directly based on our inferior extraverted feeling "subordinating ourselves to the object". In the case of social interaction, subordinating ourselves to the style of the other person.

 

[loveofreason]

I wonder if our tendency to chameleon is directly based on our inferior extraverted feeling "subordinating ourselves to the object". In the case of social interaction, subordinating ourselves to the style of the other person.

Yes!

 

[opllars]

Listen to this discussion between an INTJ and INFJ, discussing how their Fe and Te makes them view situations very diffently: http://www.intj.org/articles/36/ (Scroll down and you´ll find it. There should be a video also, but that didnt work when I tried).
They speak about how if you are a Te, the Te interacts with Fi all the time, to make sure the implementation of ideas fits with innner values. Where as if you are a Fe, the Fe interacts with your Ti, to find out what is going on in other people.

It made me think that if you are a Fe and your inferior function then is Ti, then what about your Te then? What happens to that function? The authors of this site explains that this will be even more out of consciousness than Ti (look at the same site, above the mp3)


Therefore ESFP is not the opposite of INTJ; it’s the “inverse” or “complement” of INTJ.
http://www.intj.org/articles/intj-and-esfp/
Following the logic of this then the true reversal of our type (INTP) is not ESFJ, but (if I get it right...) ENTJ as all of their preferred "cognitive processes" are different from ours

 

[Da Blob]

Again, the MBTI is merely a self-report of our preferences. I have seen only a few profiles that show anyone 100% T or F. I mean even tho I prefer to think, sometimes I just have to feel something.
I wish I could do a study of nonverbal communication in regards to MBTI typing, I believe there would be some interesting patterns revealed. Thinking is such a "Word" thing, yet those who know about such things say that 65-90% of communication occurs on the nonverbal level (feeling), so some of your confusion regarding your friends may be due to receiving 'mixed messages'(?)

 

[Snail]

This thread actually got me thinking about whether I might be INFP--I found a different site with (fantastic) type descriptions on it, and I'm really not too far off from an INFP at all... I value the same things they seem to value, and drive myself in ways that they seem to as well. The only real difference is I don't seize up with empathy whenever I see other people being abused or wronged, unless they're friends.

Then I remembered how intensely Ti-centered I was until like 2 years ago, and reread a description on Ti, and that made it pretty obvious. INFP characteristics -/-> INFP functions. If you think about things objectively and try to distance yourself personally from the things you're thinking about whether the answers come by gut or by logic), you're Ti-ing. At least that's my understanding of it right now.

As an INFP who has seen how "not far off from an INFP" you are, I will say that we seem to use different processes to reach the same conclusions. Since I am clearly not anything like an INTP, the distinction is easy to observe. While you don't use your mind the same way that I do, you aren't quite like the other INTPs, either. I have no idea what you might be, unless you are some sort of miracle.

 

[Perseus]

'Go with your feelings' she said, but I didn't. I had my head screwed on. Even my intutition let me down. I should have gone with my thinking ...

 

[Perseus]

Listen to this discussion between an INTJ and INFJ, discussing how their Fe and Te makes them view situations very diffently: http://www.intj.org/articles/36/ (Scroll down and you´ll find it. There should be a video also, but that didnt work when I tried).

Therefore ESFP is not the opposite of INTJ; it’s the “inverse” or “complement” of INTJ.
http://www.intj.org/articles/intj-and-esfp/
Following the logic of this then the true reversal of our type (INTP) is not ESFJ, but (if I get it right...) ENTJ as all of their preferred "cognitive processes" are different from ours

Whereas I find their is a natural and dangerous enmity with the Horsemen ESFJ, the ENTJ Wolfman is a much more dangerous and sadisitic adversary. This can be fatal if we are in out fourth inferior function and Extraverted Feeling is the last shadow process for the Wolf and virtually unknown to them. An INTP at Critical Stress would be literally murdered by a Wolfman consellor who has no comprehension of the serious problem.