The Difference: T and F Types and Reacting To Emotions

[Probliss]

Are T types better at reacting to their emotions than F types? Through my experience, F types seem to possess an extreme dislike of conflict. I find that the F types I have come across have all reacted poorly to conflict situations by escalating the issue, either by raising their voices when they are frustrated, or the overall tension in general. This seemed weird to me, because while not liking conflict is justified, the actions following that dislike of conflict seem to contradict the initial feelings, like a person who doesn't like fire, adding fuel in hopes to put it out.

In contrast, I feel like a T type are more likely to recognize his/her emotions and make an informed decision based off of that. For example, if someone upsets me, I would simply look to remove myself from the situation, while an F type is more likely to make the problems more confrontational. Instead of leaving, they take things personally and now pick a side, their own side, where their thoughts and beliefs are some sort of attainment to who they are to the point where if someone says anything contrary to their beliefs, it is now somehow a personal attack.

 

[Dramatic Gecko]

You are right. As an INFP I often respond to conflict the only way I know how. By releasing that dark side that bubbles up inside me slowly day to day from seeing how much people just don't get things. Of course I don't do these things often and am actually really good in conflict, calmly telling people that we shouldn't fight here, it wouldn't achieve anything, deep down we're all the same. But if its an attack on me personally or between my loved ones I could lose it and make rage an inferno that makes their heated quarrel seem like an ember in the sand.

 

[Brontosaurie]

the problem for T people is recognizing the severity of a conflict and its impact on a relationship long-term.

T is more conflict-avoidant. F people are more conflict-sensitive, sure - they cannot shut off painful emotions because their reactivity forces them to deal with stuff. so while F has a higher dislike of conflict, that is because F is also more likely to openly declare/admit conflict and subsequently enter conflict-resolution. T is less acutely aware of bad emotions, more likely to rationalize, more likely to expect some formal agreement of neglect to solve the problem while in fact it fortifies interpersonal boundaries and fears. T may seem stoically unaffected by conflict but in reality is poorly equipped to deal with conflict at all. T people fear conflict more. F people enact more emotions. they have less conceited pride about their interpersonal dealings. they are more attuned to the mysterious and fuzzy reality of emotions. there is a certain humility about it, which T people lack.

i think you have a big T bias in your speculation.

 

[Dramatic Gecko]

I have a question. F and T react to conflict in a different way right? F to the subliminal tone and vibe and T the rationalization. But I actually don't think that's what triggers the avoidance of conflict (but what do I know, I mean really?). I notice the INTP and INFP both avoid conflict as much as possible. Is this due to the Introvert aspect?

Sorry I'm still new to all these letters and stuff but I am really interested.

 

[Jennywocky]

the problem for T people is recognizing the severity of a conflict and its impact on a relationship long-term.

T is more conflict-avoidant. F people are more conflict-sensitive, sure - they cannot shut off painful emotions because their reactivity forces them to deal with stuff. so while F has a higher dislike of conflict, that is because F is also more likely to openly declare/admit conflict and subsequently enter conflict-resolution. T is less acutely aware of bad emotions, more likely to rationalize, more likely to expect some formal agreement of neglect to solve the problem while in fact it fortifies interpersonal boundaries and fears. T may seem stoically unaffected by conflict but in reality is poorly equipped to deal with conflict at all. T people fear conflict more. F people enact more emotions. they have less conceited pride about their interpersonal dealings. they are more attuned to the mysterious and fuzzy reality of emotions. there is a certain humility about it, which T people lack.

i think you have a big T bias in your speculation.

This was more along the lines of what I planned to post. T's tend to disregard emotions even when they should be taken into account, and run the risk of responding out of them without recognizing they're underlying some of their reaction. F's tend to be consciously aware of them and incorporate them into decision-making, for good or ill, as a recognition of what they value.

 

[Brontosaurie]

This was more along the lines of what I planned to post. T's tend to disregard emotions even when they should be taken into account, and run the risk of responding out of them without recognizing they're underlying some of their reaction. F's tend to be consciously aware of them and incorporate them into decision-making, for good or ill, as a recognition of what they value.

yes good addition

 

[Analyzer]

the problem for T people is recognizing the severity of a conflict and its impact on a relationship long-term.

T is more conflict-avoidant. F people are more conflict-sensitive, sure - they cannot shut off painful emotions because their reactivity forces them to deal with stuff. so while F has a higher dislike of conflict, that is because F is also more likely to openly declare/admit conflict and subsequently enter conflict-resolution. T is less acutely aware of bad emotions, more likely to rationalize, more likely to expect some formal agreement of neglect to solve the problem while in fact it fortifies interpersonal boundaries and fears. T may seem stoically unaffected by conflict but in reality is poorly equipped to deal with conflict at all. T people fear conflict more. F people enact more emotions. they have less conceited pride about their interpersonal dealings. they are more attuned to the mysterious and fuzzy reality of emotions. there is a certain humility about it, which T people lack.

i think you have a big T bias in your speculation.

Yeah so how would compare INFP to INTP in this regard? Seems like INFP's are more attuned to the meaning behind possibilities, while INTP's just want to understand them and see how they relate to each other.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Are T types better at reacting to their emotions than F types?

No.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah so how would compare INFP to INTP in this regard? Seems like INFP's are more attuned to the meaning behind possibilities, while INTP's just want to understand them and see how they relate to each other.

i'm afraid i'm not picking up the distinction between "meaning" and "understanding".

is it like: INFP's want to determine the true meaning of some sign, while INTP's want to chart the network of possible meanings and how they affect each other, like a circuit system? spontaneously that sounds like the difference of Ni versus Ne (not sure which is which though) but seeing it as INFP versus INTP opens up to some interesting ideas on let's-call-it "interfunctional modulation". it's easy to see how the INTP thing corresponds to analysis of a complex logical statement/operation/function where input variables and output results are of secondary interest, whereas the INFP thing is precisely about the premises, the values: the input and the output. they are entirely opposite in the domain of a logical deduction, but that framework is a common deniminator and distinguishing feature and with a stretch we can equate it with aux Ne. neat.

 

[Reluctantly]

Honestly, I don't think anyone is good at reacting to their emotions. Some people are better equipped to not only recognize and understand their own emotions, but also those of others. Such a thing does not seem to come natural to a T type compared to an F type. So F types probably have a better time bonding with other people and solving their interpersonal conflicts, while T types are probably better at rationalizing things, including emotions and don't do direct emotional connection so well.

That said, anyone that reacts to their emotions, rather than acts on them is either lacking in intelligence or awareness of their own emotions, which by Jungian conception is to mean poor self-awareness, something that introversion was to alleviate and a problem generally of extroverts that haven't embraced the value of introversion.

I have a question. F and T react to conflict in a different way right? F to the subliminal tone and vibe and T the rationalization. But I actually don't think that's what triggers the avoidance of conflict (but what do I know, I mean really?). I notice the INTP and INFP both avoid conflict as much as possible. Is this due to the Introvert aspect?

Sorry I'm still new to all these letters and stuff but I am really interested.

So to answer your question about INFP and INTP seeming avoidant. It's probably more because they both are highly introverted and avoid situations that they know will cause them to react, rather than act. But I still imagine an INFP has a better time connecting with other people and solving social problems. Maybe...I don't know, just a quick thought...

 

[Analyzer]

i'm afraid i'm not picking up the distinction between "meaning" and "understanding".

is it like: INFP's want to determine the true meaning of some sign, while INTP's want to chart the network of possible meanings and how they affect each other, like a circuit system? spontaneously that sounds like the difference of Ni versus Ne (not sure which is which though) but seeing it as INFP versus INTP opens up to some interesting ideas on let's-call-it "interfunctional modulation". it's easy to see how the INTP thing corresponds to analysis of a complex logical statement/operation/function where input variables and output results are of secondary interest, whereas the INFP thing is precisely about the premises, the values: the input and the output. they are entirely opposite in the domain of a logical deduction, but that framework is a common deniminator and distinguishing feature and with a stretch we can equate it with aux Ne. neat.

This seems to me that the INFP is concerned more with the differences of interjecting values and seeing it's results in a system. While the INTP's on the other hand are more concerned with the the underlying structure of a system and takes the values interjected for granted.

 

[Brontosaurie]

This seems to me that the INFP is concerned more with the differences of interjecting values and seeing it's results in a system. While the INTP's on the other hand are more concerned with the the underlying structure of a system and takes the values interjected for granted.

i guess we're on the same page.

 

[ToughRye]

I wonder how Fi and Fe are different to reacting to emotions when they have the same location in the functional stack. What happens when an INTP vs an ENTJ get angry or afraid (inferior F)?

INTJ vs ENTP? (ter F)
INFJ vs ENFP? (aux F)
ENFJ vs INFP? (dom F)

(Sorry if my question is off-track. Bad INTP.)

 

[Brontosaurie]

I wonder how Fi and Fe are different to reacting to emotions when they have the same location in the functional stack. What happens when an INTP vs an ENTJ get angry or afraid (inferior F)?

INTJ vs ENTP? (ter F)
INFJ vs ENFP? (aux F)
ENFJ vs INFP? (dom F)

(Sorry if my question is off-track. Bad INTP.)

Ti-Fe is emotional disregard, rationalizing, confrontational when inappropriate situation, skewed appeals to some abstract model of social harmony ignoring actual people

Te-Fi is more grumpy baby passive-aggressive hurtness, emotional myopia, tunnel vision and selfishness, and another kind of rationalizing which is: expressing resent indirectly through authoritarian command (whereas Ti-Fe rationalizing is trying to process feeling through logic, constructing a rational ethic framework to protect from feelings, etc)

imo

that's inferior. for tertiary position, it gets a little more like something you wield than something you fuck up. but still often destructive and dissonant.

 

[ToughRye]

Ti-Fe is emotional disregard, rationalizing, confrontational when inappropriate situation, skewed appeals to some abstract model of social harmony ignoring actual people

Te-Fi is more grumpy baby passive-aggressive hurtness, emotional myopia, tunnel vision and selfishness, and another kind of rationalizing which is: expressing resent indirectly through authoritarian command (whereas Ti-Fe rationalizing is trying to process feeling through logic, constructing a rational ethic framework to protect from feelings, etc)

imo

I see what you mean. Ti-Fe makes assumptions of the whole from the parts and fails to spot individual discontent amongst an ocean of perceived happiness. Te-Fi is authoritarian sometimes, at least my INTJ dad is.

that's inferior. for tertiary position, it gets a little more like something you wield than something you fuck up. but still often destructive and dissonant.

You are right. As an INTP, I react to Fe. I cannot control it. I can control it indirectly perhaps, by changing my own behavior or trying to think about some emotional event from a different point of view.

So, does having Fe at a higher position mean that you can control it?

ENFJ are said to be manipulative sometimes relative to INFJ . I suppose that the same is true of ENTPs relative to INTPs.

 

[RandomGeneratedName]

ME: INTP - fine with conflict (argument wise)
GF: INFJ - avoid/scared of conflict

I've gone from T80%~ to T1%~ in 3+ years. Apart from me now becoming oversensitive at times, lol. Conflict (argument) still doesn't bother me, BUT now, I don't want to argue! Where as before, verbal banter/wordplay/skill is a strong skill of mine and I used to enjoy playful confrontation, but now, nuh uh.

Kinda interesting.
annnd embaressing.