Well, it's not anti-F bullshit.
Feelers acts like that. I cannot do anything to change that fact.
Depending on the subject it's not a bad thing at all. I just used an example of bad use of feelings. But we can use a lot of good examples, most in the social realm.
BTW, feelings it's not equal to emotions. Every kind of thought or action a person does or experience is carried by a feeling of pleasure or pain. That's the heuristic definition of feeling. So the logic of a feeler is to keep attached to thoughts/actions that keep them in well-being, it's an obvious rational decision. But the pleasure/pain duality it's a very subjective thing, what's a pleasure for someone it's a pain for another one. So feelings sucks in objective issues.
Feelings are rational and emotions not. Emotions are too dynamic to someone rationally cope with.
Thinkers have feelings too, but they put logic above feeling and emotion.
Feelers can think logically if they want, but when they don't, they're biased.
Mature INTP's don't suck in feelings b/c Fe is part of our personality. We just don't let our emotions control us, instead we can use the raw energy from emotions to direct to something we think about.
I'm not a bigot, Cherry Cola. I'm just an indifferent observer. The facts it's the only thing I care. I don't give a shit if someone is hurt with a fact about a matter central to the very nature of this forum.
If all you have is ad hominem, further conversation with you about this issue serves no purpose.
Alright lets take this slowly then.
Feelers always carry their worldview in every matter.
For instance, if you're talking about the beginning of universe, the first seconds of the universe, when was nothing around beyond the elementary forces separating from each other, the feelers will want to know where are god, the conscience, or they'll make jokes about politics, sex, or whatever.
The first sentence is wrong. Feelers do not bring their worldview into matters any more than thinkers, I think you're just forgetting that thinking is just as subjective a way of reasoning as is feeling, and thus constitutes a way of viewing the world in just the same way.
Now what's this crap about feelers always bringing god, consciousness or topical jokes into discussions about serious stuff like the moments following big bang? Do you have any evidence for this sweeping generalization? Or is this (as I suspect), just like your first sentence about feelers being biased, just another case of anecdotal evidence elevated to general truth by means of hubris?
If you know feelers to be people who can't speculate over emotionally void subjects without bringing the fluff in then you don't know feelers, or you're generalizing based upon limited encounters with stupid people or down to earth S-type feelers.
Now I know feeling isn't synonymous to emotion. The first thing I did in my previous post was to make the same distinction but using the word "affection" instead, since it's an established term in the context of psychology.
So the logic of a feeler is to keep attached to thoughts/actions that keep them in well-being, it's an obvious rational decision. But the pleasure/pain duality it's a very subjective thing, what's a pleasure for someone it's a pain for another one. So feelings sucks in objective issues.
Feelings are rational and emotions not. Emotions are too dynamic to someone rationally cope with.
Thinkers have feelings too, but they put logic above feeling and emotion.
Feelers can think logically if they want, but when they don't, they're biased.
Right. The sum is basically that feelers are slaves under their affections whereas thinkers are not because they value logic more; and furthermore that affections wary from person to person while logic is the same for us all.
This is a total misinterpretation of MBTI. Feelers and Thinkers both make decisions based upon data, but while feelers prefer to make their decisions based upon data concerning how people feel about things, what is considered wrong and right etc, IE moral abstractions and qualic data, thinkers are more comfortable basing their deductions on upon what people think about things, what is considered true and false etc, IE ontological abstractions and physically manifested data.
Both are closed deductive systems, they just rely upon different axioms. Neither is more biased than the other, they both operate logically within different boundaries. And neither is immune to affective disruption of logic.
Finally your notion of logic automatically guaranteeing a lack of bias is painfully naive, where are all these unbiased "logical" thinkers? I dont see a lot of them, and how come they dont all agree with one another?
Speaking of ad hominems, I just have to mention how funny it is to see your attempts at degrading feelers for their lack of logical sense while your notion of "raw data" in the j/p is a classical example of Russel's paradox and you haven't realized it despite the fact that Bronto layed it all out.
