INTPs you are stupid.

[Chad]

I prefer the terms internal and external too! I also prefer the following definitions:
S/N, S(>N)= Concrete perceptive. N(>S)= Interpretive perceptive
J/P, J(>P)= Directive. P(>J)= Adaptive

For F and T though, I'm in a little struggle. And perhaps you could give me some insight.
I myself consider F(>T) types to think in an equilibrium motion concerning everything (taking everything into account, thus also ignorance etc). Which makes the F type limited to hold on to perception because that is T's task.
T(>F) doesn't concern the everything and because of this it can evolve subjectivity as it can hold on to objective perception. T is concrete judgment whilst F is interpretive judgment.

T is concrete as it makes discernment only on that what can be judged by the subject. A downside of this is that if a T(>F) doesn't understand something(perception), he has to simplify the concept/perception which results in flawed/ignorant discernment.
F is interpretive as it interprets perception. This could be either Pe (Fi) (P/Adaptive), or Pi (Fe) (J/Directive). The downside of interpreting perception is that the subject tries to take over the subjectivity of the perception ergo 'losing' an objective perception. Which overall makes the F(>T) type consider everything to be subjective. Which isn't THAT bad, as it is 'more' aware of perception and takes everything into account and judges it 'naive' (as it takes over subjectivity).

So I define the judgment indicators as followed:
F(>T) = Liquid discernment
T(>F) = Solid discernment


Examples:
But yeah, My F (awareness on ignorance of perception), tells me that my perception might be lacking somewhere. I would guess (T) that I might be reaching for things I have no knowledge about (Pseudo-Intelligence).

(T) - But as you can see, my definitions of F and T can be useful (in communication).
(F) - Or am I making no sense, and am I only feeding my own worldview rather than to make others understand their worldview better?

I think I honestly agree with you on every point besides T and F. Liquid/Solid Discernment. While I agree with the that F can be intellectual and have a natural intelligent bent they are motivated by emotions not by there intellect when making chooses. This isn't always bad, sometimes it very useful to make chooses based off your natural motivations/emotions. If you are being chased by a mad man/woman with a deadly tool it better to just be scared in run then to try to figure out why they are mad and what tool they will be using to kill you. (This is an extreme but other less extreme cases exist too.)

If you are truly an F type person that you should embrace your emotional awareness and use it to your advantage. The is morally nothing wrong with being emotional or having an understanding of yours and other emotional stats.

However, as an INTP this is not how I make my decisions. I primarily function using logical conclusions to justify my chooses or decision making process. This is different than saying all my chooses are logical or intelligent. The frist one is saying I understand my chooses threw logical conclusions even if my emotions did play a role in my final choice. The last one is saying that I am logical in all my actions and my conclusions are all self-evidence and intellectual. Honesty the second would be quite boring to me even if it was useful. Because I am introspective many of my conclusions could be presented as intellectual but not all of them.

Your post seem to take offense to the concept of being a feeler. Honestly, saying you are a feeler and saying you are dumb or stupid or ignorant are completely different things.

My wife for example is a borderline F/T (I believe she is more T than F but this is only my personal conclusion). However on the T-F scale I am for more a T than my wife is. This doesn't mean I am smarter than my wife. My wife is currently at Pharmacy School and she could kick my ass any day of the week subjects like Biology, Health, Medicine, or Pharmacology. My wife refuses to take an IQ test but I am sure she is a borderline genius. The only difference between are perspectives is she does actually chooses based completely on here emotional state of mind. I do the far less often.

I don't understand your need to prove to anyone that you are smart or even smarter than some other group (INTP). You may very well be smarter than all of us here and even the smartest INFJ ever. I don't know but I don't think its important either.

As a people group Humanity needs INFJ that have an active understanding of theirs and others emotional states. This is nothing to be assumed of. The fact that you are also an intelligent person is just a bonus.

 

[BigApplePi]

Chad

Can you clarify what context are you using for the word "unaware".

Not sure how to answer this without being specific. I'm using "unaware" in the dictionary sense and didn't really specify a context although there always is one.

I will give my 1st example by quoting someone and commenting. Before I look it up, if I recall the person was more or less making a point but it was filled with assumptions which I found irksome to me in the detail sense but may caste a flavor a little bothersome to me (my Fi). I say this and don't know if it's still true as I read it yesterday. I have the feeling this person will not like what I have to say but that's tough. If I'm going to talk about unawareness I have to pick what I'm thinking of. It is and isn't personal at the same time.
++++++++++
Later. I went back and read what the person said and completely changed my mind. I was in a rushed state of mind yesterday and picked a narrow view.

Let's just think of Ni as being at a "higher level" than the immediate context. Ni may have an overall vision of something, be it self-interested internal to the person (tertiary Ti or Fi) or out-there interested to external advocacy. It is presented with Te or Fe and can be misleading, false, trickery or anything unknown (we are unaware). I'd say the task of the INTP is to question it, but not automatically assume something bad is going on or even something good is going on.

Don't assume your boss or commanding officer or Forum moderator is giving you a bad order just because it isn't explained. Don't assume following Hitler is a good idea just because he promised a greater Germany. Question it. If this is not a leader, question it. If they are your leader, you have to decide whether to follow depending on whether immediate action is demanded or there is time and safety in questioning.

Trolls present Ni. Trolls have a bad name I suppose if they mix us up and lead us down blind alleys or away from good paths. But not necessarily. A troll may stimulate or get us thinking. Who knows where that will lead? I say one has to do two things though: (1) Bring the assumptions to consciousness and (2) follow the logic.

Enough of this ramble.

 

[own8ge]

Spoiler

I think I honestly agree with you on every point besides T and F. Liquid/Solid Discernment. While I agree with the that F can be intellectual and have a natural intelligent bent they are motivated by emotions not by there intellect when making chooses. This isn't always bad, sometimes it very useful to make chooses based off your natural motivations/emotions. If you are being chased by a mad man/woman with a deadly tool it better to just be scared in run then to try to figure out why they are mad and what tool they will be using to kill you. (This is an extreme but other less extreme cases exist too.)

If you are truly an F type person that you should embrace your emotional awareness and use it to your advantage. The is morally nothing wrong with being emotional or having an understanding of yours and other emotional stats.

However, as an INTP this is not how I make my decisions. I primarily function using logical conclusions to justify my chooses or decision making process. This is different than saying all my chooses are logical or intelligent. The frist one is saying I understand my chooses threw logical conclusions even if my emotions did play a role in my final choice. The last one is saying that I am logical in all my actions and my conclusions are all self-evidence and intellectual. Honesty the second would be quite boring to me even if it was useful. Because I am introspective many of my conclusions could be presented as intellectual but not all of them.

Your post seem to take offense to the concept of being a feeler. Honestly, saying you are a feeler and saying you are dumb or stupid or ignorant are completely different things.

My wife for example is a borderline F/T (I believe she is more T than F but this is only my personal conclusion). However on the T-F scale I am for more a T than my wife is. This doesn't mean I am smarter than my wife. My wife is currently at Pharmacy School and she could kick my ass any day of the week subjects like Biology, Health, Medicine, or Pharmacology. My wife refuses to take an IQ test but I am sure she is a borderline genius. The only difference between are perspectives is she does actually chooses based completely on here emotional state of mind. I do the far less often.

I don't understand your need to prove to anyone that you are smart or even smarter than some other group (INTP). You may very well be smarter than all of us here and even the smartest INFJ ever. I don't know but I don't think its important either.

As a people group Humanity needs INFJ that have an active understanding of theirs and others emotional states. This is nothing to be assumed of. The fact that you are also an intelligent person is just a bonus.

Thanks. (This whole message is not meant in any personal way. When I'm using the word You, I'm probably referring to a plural form of you. The following will be me explaining my world-view. Disagree as you may. Argue as you wish.)

I agree on most perspectives that you have given. However I don't think Feeler or Thinker justifies it because those words are meaningless, thus confusing. I don't consciously make decisions based on how I feel.. God no! And I think no one does that. Almost every F-person I know, when self-assessing (i.e. doing a test), they conclude that they are T - Thinkers. And I have to do a hell of a job that it is not meant as you would presume.

As you are explaining T and F, I can sense a taste of those same false presumptions everyone makes with the words T-Thinker and F-Feeler. And yes, I get offended by the usage of those words for that particular reason. Besides, a lot of F-associations only apply to EFJs and IFPs (F- Judgment dominants), or FJs (Fe>Ti) or FPs (Fi>Te).

As far as I know is there is no relationship between T and intelligence nor smart/clever decision making whatsoever, neither is there with F and being friendly or something. Those associations create a placebo effect, whereas I have to put on my stone-face for people to take me serious. Now that right there, pisses me off.

Yes being an FJ (Having Fe>Ti) means that you can probably read people's emotions better than other types. Or does it? No. It doesn't! Real life experience have told me so. ENTPs (The ones that I know) beat I/E SFJs (The ones that I know) BY FAR in reading other people's emotions. Some FJ types are rather good in reading other people their emotions, yes. But that is singular to that specific type, and not ALL F types.

What do F types have in familiar? That is to say, what do Fi and Fe have in familiar. One way of looking at it is that Fi wants an emotional internal equilibrium, whilst Fe wants justice in the external. Both those motives are emotional, yes. But they are not being processed with emotion, it is being done with logic. I myself would rather say that Introversion represents thinking. Because I as an introvert, the only thing I do the WHOLE day long is thinking. Those thoughts may have an emotional motive, but they are being dealt with my purest form of logic.

And no, I don't have to proof that I'm smarter than INTPs or something. I just want to make clear that T =/= Thinking. And F =/= Feeling. You might have given those words a proper definition which actually reflects T and F, but that is highly unlikely. Thus I 'demand' to rename them. (IMO, hypothetically, It is like calling Black folks stupid and White folks intelligent. It is racist.) (Also. Every decision I make, I can explain accurately with logic. People also always tell me that I think too much, so objectively it would mean I'm a Thinker, but I'm an INFJ. Can you sense the confusion?)

DISCLAIMER: I do know that Feeler and Thinker can represent those people (T/F) quite right. And in that perspective, it would be legit to do so.
IMO it is a typical INTP perspective, as Jung was an INTP aswell. But in an objective perspective however, I don't think those words are ideal as they are confusing. And I believe that to replace those words (thinker/feeler), can globally accommodate a better understanding of the types.

Liquid/Solid Discernment May be insufficient indeed, and that is why I am still searching for better definitions.

 

[Chad]

Thanks. (This whole message is not meant in any personal way. When I'm using the word You, I'm probably referring to a plural form of you. The following will be me explaining my world-view. Disagree as you may. Argue as you wish.)

I agree on most perspectives that you have given. However I don't think Feeler or Thinker justifies it because those words are meaningless, thus confusing. I don't consciously make decisions based on how I feel.. God no! And I think no one does that. Almost every F-person I know, when self-assessing (i.e. doing a test), they conclude that they are T - Thinkers. And I have to do a hell of a job that it is not meant as you would presume.

As you are explaining T and F, I can sense a taste of those same false presumptions everyone makes with the words T-Thinker and F-Feeler. And yes, I get offended by the usage of those words for that particular reason. Besides, a lot of F-associations only apply to EFJs and IFPs (F- Judgment dominants), or FJs (Fe>Ti) or FPs (Fi>Te).

As far as I know is there is no relationship between T and intelligence nor smart/clever decision making whatsoever, neither is there with F and being friendly or something. Those associations create a placebo effect, whereas I have to put on my stone-face for people to take me serious. Now that right there, pisses me off.

Yes being an FJ (Having Fe>Ti) means that you can probably read people's emotions better than other types. Or does it? No. It doesn't! Real life experience have told me so. ENTPs (The ones that I know) beat I/E SFJs (The ones that I know) BY FAR in reading other people's emotions. Some FJ types are rather good in reading other people their emotions, yes. But that is singular to that specific type, and not ALL F types.

What do F types have in familiar? That is to say, what do Fi and Fe have in familiar. One way of looking at it is that Fi wants an emotional internal equilibrium, whilst Fe wants justice in the external. Both those motives are emotional, yes. But they are not being processed with emotion, it is being done with logic. I myself would rather say that Introversion represents thinking. Because I as an introvert, the only thing I do the WHOLE day long is thinking. Those thoughts may have an emotional motive, but they are being dealt with my purest form of logic.

And no, I don't have to proof that I'm smarter than INTPs or something. I just want to make clear that T =/= Thinking. And F =/= Feeling. You might have given those words a proper definition which actually reflects T and F, but that is highly unlikely. Thus I 'demand' to rename them. (IMO, hypothetically, It is like calling Black folks stupid and White folks intelligent. It is racist.) (Also. Every decision I make, I can explain accurately with logic)

DISCLAIMER: I do know that Feeler and Thinker can represent those people (T/F) quite right. And in that perspective, it would be legit to do so.
However, I don't think those words are ideal as they are confusing.

Are you sure you are an F type. I have never said that T types are smarter than F types. You are reading into things. Feeler and Thinkers is talking about motivations and how how we make choices. F types use there emotions as a tool to make valid choices. This shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

If anyone is reading things into this its you. No one here is assuming that you are an emotionally inept dumb ass. Unless of course you are acting like one.

 

[own8ge]

Are you sure you are an F type. I have never said that T types are smarter than F types. You are reading into things. Feeler and Thinkers is talking about motivations and how how we make choices. F types use there emotions as a tool to make valid choices. This shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

If anyone is reading things into this its you. No one here is assuming that you are an emotionally inept dumb ass. Unless of course you are acting like one.

Yes I'm sure I'm an F type. Furthermore I understand that you had never said 'those' things, however, they can be concluded (by others when considering T/F). That was my goal, to clarify my own world-view on the matter. And I myself am reading things into Thinker/Feeler indeed (I doubt any other INFJ wouldn't).

The problem is, that if you would consider the terms feeler and thinker, and explain the basics of the theory that way to 100 random people and let them talk with me for a moment, I would suggest that perhaps only 1 out of 20 would consider me to be a feeler. So the terms feeler/thinker are not objective.

I get angry at the concept. Why? Because I myself hadn't considered myself to be an INFJ when I was introduced to the theory. A LOT of misunderstanding could have been removed if those terms: Feeler/Thinker wouldn't have been used. And I'm not the only person who has gone through this.

I can not identify AT ALL with a concept where F would mean Feeler. This is not justice. IMO

You don't have to agree with me, but can you understand why I get angry at the idea Feeler/Thinker?

I don't want to not be taken seriously after I have explained a person that I'm a feeler. Because I am absolutely sure, that they will take me less serious after that. I don't want to hide/be ashamed of being an F-type just because other people will draw false presumptions..

 

[Auburn]

When Jung coined the word "Feeler" (and "Thinker") he called it a reasoning process, not unchecked emotional irrationality, and elaborated on what precisely he meant. He did not mean them so simplistically. Same with sensing and intuition, as well as introversion & extroversion. If one actually reads what Jung called introversion you'd see that what is now commonly called introversion isn't what he meant.

The original way in which C.G. Jung used these four words was as "placeholders" for the extensive concept contained therein, which he further explained in detail in his book, akin to how terms like "odd", "irregular" and "irrational" have specific meanings in mathematics that are different from what they mean in commonplace speech. As such one should not confuse the commonplace meaning of these words with the theoretical use of them in Jungian psychology.

Suppose one is studying mathematics, and says...
"Why are they called 'irrational' numbers when they are the byproduct of very rational rules of mathematics? I demand the name be changed."

It's simply missing the point. The point is to know the actual content that the placeholder is referring to. Those who don't really know the content of the placeholders have these trivial misconceptions. And this tendency applies to anybody who is talking about any field of study without being read up on it. That doesn't really mean we should go around changing all our placeholders in all of our academia to terms that laypeople can't misuse. It's not possible, nor necessary. Those who know what they're saying are the ones worth discussing a theory with.

Plus I'd wager they'd end up misusing those new terms anyhow, as they take the new term and stereotype it once again with time -- it is a human impulse to form superficial and casual associations to concepts ('lazy thinking') because it's easier than digging through a textbook.

It happened with introversion/extroversion. Jung coined them first as being:

Spoiler

Then they got turned into "shy" vs "social" and all that.
Likewise with the rest.

That said, I do advocate refinement of the terms! ... but I just want to let you realize that won't fix the problem. The problem is that people will distort any words you use and try to fit them into the things they already understand.

 

[Chad]

Fair enough. Please don't assume that everyone will discount your because you are an F type.
Honestly it's just makes you look paranoid. Now, if someone is telling you your being emotional or irrational than correct them. However if you are bring it up it sounds paranoid like I said.

Just a heads up.

 

[own8ge]

Spoiler

When Jung coined the word "Feeler" (and "Thinker") he called it a reasoning process, not unchecked emotional irrationality, and elaborated on what precisely he meant. He did not mean them so simplistically. Same with sensing and intuition, as well as introversion & extroversion. If one actually reads what Jung called introversion you'd see that what is now commonly called introversion isn't what he meant.

The original way in which C.G. Jung used these four words was as "placeholders" for the extensive concept contained therein, which he further explained in detail in his book, akin to how terms like "odd", "irregular" and "irrational" have specific meanings in mathematics that are different from what they mean in commonplace speech. As such one should not confuse the commonplace meaning of these words with the theoretical use of them in Jungian psychology.

Suppose one is studying mathematics, and says...
"Why are they called 'irrational' numbers when they are the byproduct of very rational rules of mathematics? I demand the name be changed."

It's simply missing the point. The point is to know the actual content that the placeholder is referring to. Those who don't really know the content of the placeholders have these trivial misconceptions. And this tendency applies to anybody who is talking about any field of study without being read up on it. That doesn't really mean we should go around changing all our placeholders in all of our academia to terms that laypeople can't misuse. It's not possible, nor necessary. Those who know what they're saying are the ones worth discussing a theory with.

Plus I'd wager they'd end up misusing those new terms anyhow, as they take the new term and stereotype it once again with time -- it is a human impulse to form superficial and casual associations to concepts ('lazy thinking') because it's easier than digging through a textbook.

I completely disagree. You might have missed my point.
Why learn people it the confusing way, if you can clearly establish a better way.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Jungs intentions, it has nothing to do with mathematics or nothing.

And even though there might be some truth to that philosophy about usage of words. That factor is way to small to play any significant role. Language simply evolves, beat it.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Auburn
Although Jung may have been a founder of these ideas, there is no reason why we have to accept them today and can't refine or improve on them just as we have improved on the electric light bulb or automobile.

Why not use "internal to the self" and "external to the self"? To me that is more clear than object(ive) and subject(ive). These are only templates or maps to divide cognitive functions. If they fail to clearly divide that way we can search for something better, but how goes you for "internal and external" for now?

 

[Hawkeye]

Are you an inny or an outy?

 

[cheese]

@own8ge,
I agree.
Long version:

Spoiler

The terms (Thinker/Feeler) are infuriating and so are the assumptions about intelligence or intellectual ability.
Most of the traits the Thinker part of the MBTI population seem to correlate with Feeling are impulsivity/lack of control ("she just acts on whatever she's feeling!"), the inability to reason effectively, and either the inability or the ability to see things from another point of view, depending on the conversation. These are traits that vary within each type and don't seem strictly related to functions (perhaps related to development - learning to temper the dom with the inferior generally seems to result in increased measures of maturity). Some of the traits they associate with Feeling are pathological, while others seem merely a result of immaturity, regardless of type. They're not exclusively seen in Feelers, nor are the stereotypically "T" traits exclusively seen in Thinkers. This is more a matter of natural variance across a population after adjusting for type. Perhaps it has to do with upbringing and environment.

Feelers are more rewarded in some social arenas, which might explain a possible lack of drive to develop and temper F with T. In empathy (and the extension of care towards another, at the expense of self) - a highly valued trait and prerequisite of the value-laden label 'humanity', Fs probably have the upper hand. However, in the appearance of cool-headedness, Ts probably have the advantage. Too much display of emotion can get you labelled an out-of-control bleeding heart, with little attention paid to the validity of your claims.

The common factor seems to be that rocking the boat too much is unacceptable, not whether they're emotional or not. (Also, Fs aren't necessarily 'emotional' - more on that later.). Too lacking in empathy, and you're inhuman. Too much emotion and you're a nut. Is the former a typical F reaction to a typical T behaviour, and the latter the opposite? Culture absorbs the emotional currents its individual inhabitants send out and redistributes them, so perhaps we simply have an arsenal of 'truths' we've internalised over time and we spit out either our own or some other person's reaction to a particular situation, depending on how far that situation deviates from the norm. Neither type seems especially suited to listen and weigh the content of another person's output as is - at least based on the specimens seen so far. Rather, we have an internal barometer which pattern-matches the external and searches for the most appropriate response - in terms of the pattern, rather than the actual content. (IMO this goes for all types - N not excluded. The recognition of pattern-matching rather than genuine response can become an automated response/pattern itself. N certainly has its own pitfalls.)

Accessibility of the feeling of emotion seems to vary within type. Some Fs report feeling very little emotion, very little strength of emotion, and within a small range... but they (presumably) make decisions based on obviously emotion-based values (whereas with a T, the emotional base of their values is less obvious/better hidden) and a lukewarm but ever-present empathy. Some Ts report their experience of emotion as a near uncontrollable beast that threatens to destroy their lives if they don't keep it under an extremely tight leash. (These could also be mistyped INFJs or ENFPs, though.) Depersonalisation, derealisation, disconnect with the physical body and with emotions, etc, seem to be fairly common on this forum. That could be because these symptoms are a natural part of the general INTP experience, or because the people here are sick INTPs, or just sick regardless of type. Fs have also reported the same. (This "data" is compiled from both self-report sources and from other sources such as PL or other forms of reading. None of it's watertight, which should only further underscore the point that the evidence we use to base assumptions such as "Fs can't control themselves" and "Fs are illogical" is flimsy.)

Are Ts genuinely less emotional, in terms of intensity, frequency and range? Or just more able to control their emotions (from spilling out)? Do the Fs simply choose to control whatever emotions they have less, and channel them towards whatever path is valuable to them? (Seems a pretty logical use of them to me, instead of pretending you don't have any.)
Is depersonalisation a natural result of being T, and do all Ts have the symptoms mentioned earlier to a degree greater than Fs, even if not extreme? Is T a natural tendency of 'emptying' - shutting down the emotional processor sooner rather than later - or is it a failure of communication within the brain? Or perhaps it's an emotional tendency, a dislike of emotion (similar to the anorexic view of food as 'the enemy' and vigilance/restriction being rewarding) that leads to emotional restriction?

We don't know if the Ts we see are healthy or sick (or even Ts at all - plus, we're not all that sure what 'healthy' or 'sick' mean). We can't tell if the immature/impulsive/crazy behaviour of some of the Fs we see is a natural and basically irrepressible result of their functions, or (as is more likely, imo) a normal portion of the population, Ts and Fs alike, who are simply not very developed as human beings.

But very probably, most people react blindly to labels (Thinker/MyFeewings), labels have power (T=logical/accurate/good, F=emotional/impulsive/bad) and the associations of those labels aren't even correct to start with. Probably: "Feelers" think, they reason, they use logic (which is a tool, and its outcome depends on your premises and assumptions, which for Fs are different to Ts), and they're capable of the same variance in emotionality (intensity/frequency/range), restraint, maturity and effective channeling of their impulses as Ts - because these are human variances rather than type-specific ones.

Having your thoughts dismissed on the basis of a label which is inaccurate in the presumptions it engenders is very annoying. I understand what you mean, I think. We all want a world where people see exactly what's there, not filter it through a hundred dirty lenses. As far as I can tell, my observations have been gathered without any bias on my part (even being surprised in some cases), just a growing sense of dissatisfaction and concern. So I hope that my account of the world of typology *as is* is accurate. But no one is immune to bias, lensing or pattern-matching.

Apologies if some of this isn't very clear, or if some points don't follow logically from others.

And in case this is of relevance: I'm (very probably) INTP.

I liked your distinction between the types of thinking used by Ts and Fs, btw. Will think more about that.

I disagree @Auburn. Most obviously because the theory deals with humans, not numbers or other inanimate things, and the labels we use (and the pre-formed associations with that label) do have an impact. Generally we don't emotionally react against numbers and have biases against them that affect their quality of life or the quality of interaction.
Also, a culture of exclusion (and possibly elitism) is exactly the opposite of what we should be aiming for. Ease of understanding (especially in such an important subject) should ideally be accessible to everyone, and at the very least not engender *more* of the conflict the subject has the power to overcome.

There is little reason to keep to jargon that breeds even more conflict, inaccurate division and condescension if we can find better jargon. (If.) Especially as using conflict-free language will be much easier than ridding the world of their preconceptions around certain words.

 

[Fukyo]

Depersonalisation, derealisation, disconnect with the physical body and with emotions, etc, seem to be fairly common on this forum.

I always thought of this as a sign of inferior sensing, more pertinently inferior Se.

And every time someone is talking about how they need to control and contain their emotions I think that they are over modulated feelers who are afraid/hate that part of themselves, same as with those who show the most negative attitudes about other, supposed feelers; I think a lot of complains about feelers and impulsivity actually overlap with Pe.

 

[cheese]

^It's also a component of depression, as I'm sure you know. A lot of the members here report depression as well, but they take their derealisation and disconnect from feelings as evidence of T.

Yeah. I'm sure some of them are over-modulated Fs. Some of the low-emotion Fs are probably actually Ts as well. Ts comfortable with emotion and feeling judgements, and self-typed through elimination based on assumptions they see in the community. But variation in emotionality within type seems equally likely. Probably a mix of both.

 

[Fukyo]

^It's also a component of depression, as I'm sure you know. A lot of the members here report depression as well, but they take their derealisation and disconnect from feelings as evidence of T.

Yeah, for sure. Being aware of possible influences is what has made me swear off typology (too many variables, too little solid ground) (although I get sucked into it on occasion! there's just something to typology that infiltrates your worldview, makes it hard to completely disconnect from). People are too complex for their own well being.

 

[Auburn]

@cheese- But, but.. i agree with you. 0:
I'm not advocating the present terms.
re: http://cognitivetype.com/comparison.html#mbtiterms

I personally prefer:

logical - ethical
abstract - concrete
internal - external
discerning - percieving

I just mean I don't think the problem would be fully fixed by picking new labels.
From my experience people can confound even the most basic words! So it's more an issue of being better educated on the subject matter. But I digress.. >.>

 

[InvisibleJim]

I thought that distinction was implicit in my comment, and I was simply stepping beyond it. Sorry you missed that, since you've hashed out your ground and need to defend it and all.

Oh, Jim... don't ever change.

I don't care for you or what you want to brand 'implicit'. Speak with me directly or not at all because I have no desire to speak to you.

 

[own8ge]

@Auburn
Your labels are confusing. IMO.

I'm an INFJ, thus in your labels I...
-Judge ethical?.. I don't judge based on a set of principles?
-Perceive Abstract ?.. But, but... I don't perceive abstract?

And, discerning - percieving?.. I'm perceiving dominant, so it would be presumable that I am a perceiver. But, but.. You are referring to J/P. I'm an INFJ, (J). Discerning?! I'm not Judgment dominant...

This is stupid. F* your theory. lol.

 

[cheese]

Fukyo:
I know, it's so addicting. More boxes, please!

@Auburn:
Ahh, ok. That makes a lot more sense! I was surprised. Responding to this:

That doesn't really mean we should go around changing all our placeholders in all of our academia to terms that laypeople can't misuse. It's not possible, nor necessary. Those who know what they're saying are the ones worth discussing a theory with.

IMO, it is as necessary as it's possible to be in a field not many people know or give a crap about.

I must've missed this, or perhaps you added it and I missed that:

That said, I do advocate refinement of the terms! ... but I just want to let you realize that won't fix the problem. The problem is that people will distort any words you use and try to fit them into the things they already understand.

On that note:
Yeah, it's probably not possible to come up with a term that absolutely no one could distort. But 'emotional' and 'logical' (or "Feeler" and "Thinker") are incredibly loaded terms with a lot of baggage behind them. They're probably just about as bad as you could get without becoming overtly offensive/prejudiced. Especially when it comes to gender division. It's one of the most productive pathways for mindless pattern-matching and automatic dismissal.

--Just realised this is a pretty bad derail, so I'm happy to leave it here.

 

[loveofreason]

Own8ge, I want to be clear with you that you're here because of your lack of respect in posting. You are capable, and maybe the insults are your way of being casual and friendly, but for most of the members most of the time, we're civil to one another.

You can make a point without insults.

I think you've proven that you're not malicious, and that you're genuinely here for the mental challenge, but if you continually disregard the basics of exchange that make this place a home for many, you'll find yourself continually confined to Siberia until such time as one admin or another decides you've had enough chances.

INTPforum has been an amazing place for many in developing many aspects of emotion, cognition and understanding, it just asks a little humility and respect toward others in return.

 

[own8ge]

@loveofreason

You be judged. Either way, my account has already been disabled from posting (I can only still post in threads that I've started). And yeah as I'm all for justice, I believe the truth must be spoken from the unheard perspectives. That I'm not as weak as most others whom pretend to be agree while they actually don't and let you live in an utopia rather than to face that person the unheard truth, doesn't by definition mean that I'm lacking thought in posting.

My posts are meant to be written with energetic emotions as it implies an opinion. An opinion that might be worth to be taken into account.

 

[Hawkeye]

@loveofreason

You be judged. Either way, my account has already been disabled from posting (I can only still post in threads that I've started). And yeah as I'm all for justice, I believe the truth must be spoken from the unheard perspectives. That I'm not as weak as most others whom pretend to be agree while they actually don't and let you live in an utopia rather than to face that person the unheard truth, doesn't by definition mean that I'm lacking thought in posting.

My posts are meant to be written with energetic emotions as it implies an opinion. An opinion that might be worth to be taken into account.

You can't apply emotions to text and hope for them to be received accurately.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You can't apply emotions to text and hope for them to be received accurately.

I think this observation needs to be emphasized.

 

[own8ge]

You can't apply emotions to text and hope for them to be received accurately.

The only way you could know whether something is meant sarcastic or not, is by observing how those expressed words emote themselves. This is just 1 example out of many. No emotion, is also applying emotion to the text, namely, objective emotion. How could you not be able to see this? ... I can't believe I'm having this argument.

I could for instance, also argue... You can't apply logic to text and hope for them to be received accurately. It is the SAME (ignorant) argument.

..Obviously you need both.

 

[BigApplePi]

Question (note lor): This is an INTP forum. When an INFJ arrives here, they are inherently different. They have Fe (externally shown feelings) as their 2ndary. This means they will give a much wider range (variation) to demonstrated feelings. Are they expected to behave as INTP's or do INTP's provide the standard?

Is the title of this thread a fair one to be addressed neutrally or are we going to presume it unfair from the start?

I see a conflict in answers to these Q's as on one hand this forum is a home for INTP's yet INTP's must learn how to handle other types in this world and we seem to be pretty rough on them.

 

[Hawkeye]

The only way you could know whether something is meant sarcastic or not, is by observing how those expressed words emote themselves. This is just 1 example out of many. No emotion, is also applying emotion to the text, namely, objective emotion. How could you not be able to see this? ... I can't believe I'm having this argument.

I could for instance, also argue... You can't apply logic to text and hope for them to be received accurately. It is the SAME (ignorant) argument.

..Obviously you need both.

The are not the same argument at all.

Emotions from text are purely subjective and there is no way to know for sure how a person is feeling based on what they write.
In fact, there is no such thing as an objective emotion as the two terms contradict each other.

The rules of logic however are objective and therefore a statement is either logical or illogical irrespective of how a person feels.

 

[own8ge]

The are not the same argument at all.

Emotions from text are purely subjective and there is no way to know for sure how a person is feeling based on what they write.
In fact, there is no such thing as an objective emotion as the two terms contradict each other.

The rules of logic however are objective and therefore a statement is either logical or illogical irrespective of how a person feels.

Do you seriously believe that?

 

[Hawkeye]

Do you seriously believe that?

You will never know...

 

[own8ge]

You will never know...

This "you will never know...", is not proof of concept at all. Contrary, It's rather hypocritical IMO.

(Oh and what is that?! An emoticon?.. But sure, there is no emotive expression in your posts. )

 

[Hawkeye]

This "you will never know...", is not proof of concept at all. Contrary, It's rather hypocritical IMO.

(Oh and what is that?! An emoticon?.. But sure, there is no emotive expression in your posts. )

My point is you can't tell if I am being serious or not regardless whether my arguments make sense. In that case I was being sarcastic and ironic.

This is how forum trolls work btw...

Also, if you read through my posts, I said text has no emotion and so your last comment is void.

Emoticons are still subjective too as you clearly missed the sarcasm.

[edit]

I would love to see an example of an objective emotion.

 

[own8ge]

My point is you can't tell if I am being serious or not regardless whether my arguments make sense. In that case I was being sarcastic and ironic.

This is how forum trolls work btw...

Also, if you read through my posts, I said text has no emotion and so your last comment is void.

Emoticons are still subjective too as you clearly missed the sarcasm.

[edit]

I would love to see an example of an objective emotion.

Reformulate your worldview and I might go in discussion with you about this. Because as it stands now, you make to less sense. I can't/won't argue with someone whom resists to make sense.

 

[Hawkeye]

Reformulate your worldview and I might go in discussion with you about this. Because as it stands now, you make to less sense. I can't/won't argue with someone whom resists to make sense.

What don't you understand?
I will attempt to explain it another way.

In the mean time, food for thought:

A lot of miscommunication takes place whenever I post something on this forum. A typical INTP prejudgment would be that I either am stupid, can't make sense or am mentally ill.

 

[own8ge]

@Hawkeye

MAKE SENSE. And I will go in discussion with you.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

MAKE SENSE. And I will go in discussion with you.

And this is where we come full circle, only this time you have become that which you hate.

You blame the environment rather than yourself for your lack of understanding.

 

[Hawkeye]

If this doesn't make sense, you must be stupid...

 

[own8ge]

@Hawkeye
You are either trolling, or you are seriously that ignorant of your own foolishness.

Anyhow. Almost every statement/argument you have made was hypocritical to either typology or yourself. Thus, it makes no sense, as it would be to easy to defy (Which implies that it makes no sense for any human to think that ignorant as you have presented). There is no link whatsoever to draw the conclusion that our conversation has gone a full circle.
This will be the last time I'll note:
Start to make a sensible thesis(/argument/statement) or you have lost by default (forfeit). Because all you've given me so far is subjective scrambled crap, no objectivity attached whatsoever.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye
You are either trolling, or you are seriously that ignorant of your own foolishness.

Anyhow. Almost every statement/argument you have made was hypocritical to either typology or yourself. Thus, it makes no sense, as it would be to easy to defy (Which implies that it makes no sense for any human to think that ignorant as you have presented). There is no link whatsoever to draw the conclusion that our conversation has gone a full circle.
This will be the last time I'll note:
Start to make a sensible thesis(/argument/statement) or you have lost by default (forfeit). Because all you've given me so far is subjective scrambled crap, no objectivity attached whatsoever.

Words do not express emotions; words express meaning (to the best of their ability based on how they are used). Expressing an emotion through text is about as useful as describing a colour. It doesn't work. You end up with multiple interpretations, some of which are complete opposites and contradictions. For example: Blue is cold and can be dark and depressing/Blue stars are the brightest and hottest.

You said that one can have objective emotions, but objectivity in itself is judgement that is unbiased by emotion.
Emotions are purely subjective. Any emotion you get out of a sentence is from your own interpretation; no one else's. As I mentioned earlier:

You can't apply emotions to text and hope for them to be received accurately.

You have already proved this by misinterpreting my sarcastic posts as being serious (even with the use of emoticons). It is not your fault, nor do I blame you.



My justification is based on the way I interpreted your OP - I am aware that this is subjective.

It goes something like:

What I said makes sense to me, therefore, if you don't understand, it is your fault - not mine.

Basically, I have parodied what you did which was claim one to be stupid for not understanding from a single, narrow perspective.

 

[Chad]

@loveofreason

You be judged. Either way, my account has already been disabled from posting (I can only still post in threads that I've started). And yeah as I'm all for justice, I believe the truth must be spoken from the unheard perspectives. That I'm not as weak as most others whom pretend to be agree while they actually don't and let you live in an utopia rather than to face that person the unheard truth, doesn't by definition mean that I'm lacking thought in posting.

My posts are meant to be written with energetic emotions as it implies an opinion. An opinion that might be worth to be taken into account.

I understand that my advice to you so far as been either misunderstood or disaggregated but if you wish to converse with some other person best to understand and try to speak there language. If you chose to completely disparaged this respect then though that you speak to are:

1)Not going to understand you (miscommunication)
2)They are going to be insulted by your disrespect
3)They are going to be defensive and not treat your with any respect

This is simple human nature it has nothing to do with typology. INTPs are still human even if you believe them to be less then this (or INTPs that believe themselves higher than humanity)

Starting a post by telling a group that prides themselves in there intellectual abilities, (This is a general trait of INTPs even ones who are actually not intellectual) by saying that INTP's are stupid and clarifying that you believe that only 90% are stupid. Is generally speaking in a language style that is not generally acceptable to INTPs.

Using myself as an example. I was raised in a family were I was arguably the only intellectual (This could possibly just be my ego talking). So, as a teenager I decided that it was okay for me too look down on my family for being dumb and stupid. I new more facts than them so I was a genius and they were all trash. (Like most teenagers I was a dick not my brightest moment in life). However, I had to learn over years that my langauge hurt my family and placed a divide that still hasn't been fixed even though I moved away nearly 9 years ago.

What I am trying to say is since I do believe myself to be an intellectual and I at one time believed that this made me better than others. I realized that terminology like stupid is highly offensive terminology even is someone is dimwitted. No one likes being called stupid. Therefore what ever point you wished to make is null in void because you started out by offending everyone you were trying to make a point too. Then you get upset that we didn't take the words you said correctly.

Therefore I can conclude that you don't know how to talk to INTPs (possibly anyone for that matter) Therefore if you wish to continue your conversations with us try a different approach and next time don't start by insulting a full 2% (or something) of the worlds population. Especially if you wish to have a intellectual conversation with those people.

 

[BigApplePi]

though [those] that you speak to are:

1)Not going to understand you (miscommunication)
2)They are going to be insulted by your disrespect
3)They are going to be defensive and not treat your [you] with any respect
...
Starting a post by telling a group that prides themselves in there intellectual abilities,

4)Are curious as to what is going on. Perhaps I am vain about my intellectual abilities and he's onto something. Perhaps he's not onto anything and knowing some people (e.g. INFJ's) are given to speaking in a highly emotional language, not to take this personally.

If this guy is an INTJ, I can't allow myself to be insulted*. I want to deal with it. Only if I see some nebulous destructiveness to the Forum as a whole would I want to condemn a person ... who is a real person ... just maybe different from me.
_____________________________________________

*I don't like not having control over my unconscious Fi

 

[Chad]

4)Are curious as to what is going on. Perhaps I am vain about my intellectual abilities and he's onto something. Perhaps he's not onto anything and knowing some people (e.g. INFJ's) are given to speaking in a highly emotional language, not to take this personally.

If this guy is an INTJ, I can't allow myself to be insulted*. I want to deal with it. Only if I see some nebulous destructiveness to the Forum as a whole would I want to condemn a person ... who is a real person ... just maybe different from me.
_____________________________________________

*I don't like not having control over my unconscious Fi

Your number 4 doesn't relates to humanity as a whole, only the relationship between INTP and INFJ's.

He claims to be INFJ so I choose to take him at his word for that. I am sure he understands himself better than I understand him or even you for that matter.

 

[BigApplePi]

Your number 4 relates to humanity as a whole only relationship between INTP and INFJ's.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Chad]

Can you rephrase that?

Sorry I fixed it. Sometimes, I am not very careful.

 

[BigApplePi]

4)Are curious as to what is going on. Perhaps I am vain about my intellectual abilities and he's onto something. Perhaps he's not onto anything and knowing some people (e.g. INFJ's) are given to speaking in a highly emotional language, not to take this personally.

If this guy is an INTJ, I can't allow myself to be insulted*. I want to deal with it. Only if I see some nebulous destructiveness to the Forum as a whole would I want to condemn a person ... who is a real person ... just maybe different from me.
_____________________________________________

*I don't like not having control over my unconscious Fi

I will embellish my own statements. If this would apply to humanity as a whole, I'd try for that. When I said, "I can't allow myself to be insulted", I meant my control over myself. I can't stop others from making derogatory statements although I can request they not do so. I can also ask them why they are doing it. It's a sort of "turn the other cheek" and see what happens as long as they aren't inhibiting me, my freedom is not endangered.

If someone wants to call me stupid, they must have some motive. Maybe I'm doing something stupid in their eyes. My opinion of myself is sometimes I am guilty of that and most of the time I don't care and other more rare times I think I've come up with something great. So if someone has something to say, fine. It can get more complicated in public (slander) but that's another topic.

On the other hand if someone continually is insulting in overall tone, they are not going to be liked. How to call them on that to get what's going on across is not going to be easy. If the need to insult or disrespect others is endemic, then that is them and calling them on it is going to insult them. This is a tough problem and has to be thought over.

Try and call a Hitler on what he's doing and your reward will be you will be killed. But if a Hitler were to appear on this Forum, we'd have to chance to address him. My recommendation is not to kill (ban) him but to call him on his attitude using INTP methods. That would be a test for INTP's.

 

[loveofreason]

Question (note lor): This is an INTP forum. When an INFJ arrives here, they are inherently different. They have Fe (externally shown feelings) as their 2ndary. This means they will give a much wider range (variation) to demonstrated feelings. Are they expected to behave as INTP's or do INTP's provide the standard?

Is the title of this thread a fair one to be addressed neutrally or are we going to presume it unfair from the start?

I see a conflict in answers to these Q's as on one hand this forum is a home for INTP's yet INTP's must learn how to handle other types in this world and we seem to be pretty rough on them.

BAP

One day... I am going to come over with my super-honed redactive skills, and sew up that great big INFJ-INTP chasm in your mind. Right now I'm afraid I'll fall in and never hit bottom.

@loveofreason

You be judged. Either way, my account has already been disabled from posting (I can only still post in threads that I've started). And yeah as I'm all for justice, I believe the truth must be spoken from the unheard perspectives. That I'm not as weak as most others whom pretend to be agree while they actually don't and let you live in an utopia rather than to face that person the unheard truth, doesn't by definition mean that I'm lacking thought in posting.

My posts are meant to be written with energetic emotions as it implies an opinion. An opinion that might be worth to be taken into account.

Ok, so it wasn't as obvious as I thought.

You're in Siberia - your posting is restricted to Siberia. I put you here when your glamorous thread title caught my attention and I examined your entire posting history to discover you have a habit of being just plain rude and insulting. Not just now and then, like some of us, but consistently. That, and the serious content of your posts lacked frames of reference that would make them accessable by and understandable to others. This is what I mean by lack of redeeming qualities.

Clearly you have a message you want to get across, and conversations you'd like to have, or this wouldn't have become so frustrating for you. As you've explained yourself here in this thread, it's clear you have a well thought out worldview to share, that can be understood and discussed by others. Everyone benefits.

But the general attitude of your posting history isn't acceptable culture here. If it becomes the norm for a handful of posters, it encourages more of the same, and then we lose the atmosphere here that most of us value.

Most everyone here enjoys a mental challenge. Different perspectives and strong argument are the life of ideas. I'm sure your 'unheard' perspective and degree of thought is valuable to the forum as a whole, if you allow them to be. Energetic emotions are not barriers, either. Just reign back the insults.

An argument or perspective is not carried by the force of the insults it contains.

Mind you, most of us enjoy good, well thought, imaginative insults, for the sake of creative play. We have a special place for those: the Arena. Try calling out the entire (ok 90% of) forum stupid there, and see how much fun it can be

I'm about to take your account out of Siberia.



BAP... it was never about "OMG this guy is an INFJ and he's called us all stupid!!!" It was just the thread that called inescapable attention to what was a rather dubious account. Sometimes it takes time to decide if someone is a deleterious troll. I'm happy enough that own8ge genuinely means to communicate.