The T/F dichotomy is a fallacy.

[QuickTwist]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-or-not-emotions-will-drive-the-decisions-you

 

[Architect]

Glad that's cleared up.

 

[QuickTwist]

Architect, do you have a counter argument?

 

[Black Rose]

T is more rigid and mechanical.
F is more fluid and people oriented.

T types think that F types are too touchy-feely.
F is concerned with how you are, T just wants to get the job done.

There is a clear difference.
Brain regions support this.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am against the premise that people operate on a polarized sliding scale.

Brain research says that we do not work like a computer's binary system. We are much more nuanced than that.

 

[redbaron]

F in MBTI isn't about emotions anyway, so the article doesn't have much to do with anything MBTI.

In fact if we put it into an MBTI context, the article basically supports MBTI theory in its explanation of how some people make smart emotional decisions and others have trouble?

I think MBTI is at best a convenient labelling system with generalised accuracy, and at worst is sloppy and misleading - but this article is even shittier.

 

[Black Rose]

According to Dario Nardi T and F occupy different cortex areas. Feeling is not just the limbic system, it is found in the cortex. Thinking and Feeling are in the cortex. The limbic system just connects to Feeling and Thinking in their respective areas but F and T are separate cortex areas.

Orange and Pink are Feeling areas
Yellow and Blue are Thinking areas

Blue is Ti
Yellow is Te
Orange is Fe
Pink is Fi

 

[TAC]

I think a more accurate picture of the T/F would be a scatter plot of all the isolated instances where either T or F were applied over a year or so (That should be enough data). Each plot subsequently should have descriptive data to the event where either T or F was applied. I am not convinced that any individual approaches similar situations the same way time and time again.
For example: People do not tend to know how to apply basic logic in abstract forms (symbolic notation), however when you pose the same logic scenario with relate-able options; logical thought is achieved more often. What I am getting at I guess is that people do not tend to notice that they face the same scenarios over and over again in real time or in different forms and thus do not proceed to react the same way to each scenario. So to get an accurate portrait of the T/F qualities, you would need to tally the total T&F application per similar scenario.

A simple example could be how you drive when you are late to an event:
Most times, I just carry on and drive as I normally would, as the amount of time you cut off by driving recklessly is worthless (Late = Late). However if I'm late to a relatively more important event; be it an important interview, a date, etc. I may find myself stepping on the gas a little heavier despite knowing the outcome.

I'd love to believe I exercise cold hard logic in all facets of life, but its simply not true. Does that mean I'm a feeler? No, but there are times when certain variables of a familiar problem evoke feeling over thought.

 

[Black Rose]

Some people are just so impersonal. They get to the point or are always thinking about objectives or things that really do not relate to people problems at all. F and T solve different problems. Like it says in the pictures I show above F is( social feedback, tone, listing). T is (calculating, getting results, observing data, planning). The whole point is that T and F are separate in the context. even if both use the limbic system they do different things.

You don't need to understand people's emotional problems with their mother to understand how to bluff in poker. People problems are not the same as strategy and calculating. Good listening to be with the people that need you to feel them is very different from getting the job done at work. Scheduling and making profit margins align. Fixing the car when it breaks down. (Personal vs impersonal)

 

[TAC]

I disagree. T&F are approaches that can be taken at any time for any problem and are often interchangeable in real time.
Let's take a complex problem: Reducing CO2 emissions from automobiles
Solution T: Make cars more efficient on fuel. Gather the brightest engineers and have them work tirelessly running calculations to produce at best an engine that 5 percent more efficient.

Solution F: Motivate the populous to use emission-less forms of transportation such as bicycles by throwing promotional events utilizing the benefits and the feel good of making the world a better place.

Same problem: different approaches (and the feeler solution is ultimately the superior solution in this example although you could argue that it takes Ti to recognize that less cars = less co2)

Now lets do a people problem: Animekitty's best friend stole her man/women/robot how does she react/deal with the problem

F: Angry confrontation with friend, cry, voodoo (I dont pretend to know what women do), sleep with best friends ex (idk some kind of revenge response), smack a hoe

T: Assess the situation. Identify that neither party is currently adding value to your life and cut them off. Move on and realize that statistically: no one is unique enough that they cannot be replaced over time.

T is clearly the better option in confronting an emotional problem. It may not make you feel good like throwing darts at their faces, but ultimately will result in getting on the forward path quicker which is the goal.

This exposes yet another issue I am noticing:

There are often times where the cross section of T and F produce greater results than the sum of their parts. Similar to comparative advantage models in economics.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Like it Or Not, Emotions Will Drive the Decisions You Make Today

I mean... duh?

 

[ENTP lurker]

Socionics says: considering logics vs ethics. Both can be skewed.

F: this wrog because people. This is right because people
T: Considering how different affect on decision this right/wrong way to go about.

 

[QuickTwist]

I mean... duh?

Point being that emotions drive both our values and decisions, and its the same for everyone, meaning everyone should technically be a feeler because no one is 100% logical and in fact, we use emotions as[/s] our logical ways of thinking about things.

I am trying to point out that there is no such thing as polarizing opposites between value judging and logic judging, because of the way our brain works is cooperating with many different criteria when judging things. So to say someone bases more of their decisions on logic as opposed to values is erroneous because we all work based on the same system. Think about it like this: You don't say the same windows operating system is different than another because they both use the same rules for doing things and our brains work the same way in this regard.

MBTI is clever but its lacking evidence for its claims.

 

[QuickTwist]

Socionics says: considering logics vs ethics. Both can be skewed.

F: this wrog because people. This is right because people
T: Considering how different affect on decision this right/wrong way to go about.

The lines are a lot more blurry than that.

 

[ENTP lurker]

Sure but the rough quantity taking into consideration of whole ethical and logical realm is probably different depending on a dichotomy.

Ti person thinks a lot of Fe ethics while all the F types think about both types of ethics (Fi and Fe).

 

[QuickTwist]

Sure but the rough quantity taking into consideration of whole ethical and logical realm is probably different depending on a dichotomy.

Ti person thinks a lot of Fe ethics while all the F types think about both types of ethics (Fi and Fe).

I don't think that makes sense???

The idea that people fall neatly into Ti-Ne-Si-Fe is kinda preposterous when you actually start to think about how the human mind works. Just because there is one guy doing "research" on this stuff doesn't mean that it is accurate. Its doesn't make sense on an intuitive level. Its too rigid. Peoples minds flow way too much for it to be accurate.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I don't think that makes sense???

The idea that people fall neatly into Ti-Ne-Si-Fe is kinda preposterous when you actually start to think about how the human mind works. Just because there is one guy doing "research" on this stuff doesn't mean that it is accurate. Its doesn't make sense on an intuitive level. Its too rigid. Peoples minds flow way too much for it to be accurate.

Everyone uses the Feeling function, just like the other 3 functions. We probably use all 8. The difference is how much we use them and in what order.

No one said that Jungian Cognitive Functions explain 100% of human cognition or even close to it. However it becomes clearly apparent when you know what to look for that we do operate according to these functional stacks.

I tend to get confused about how similar Feeling in a Jungian sense is to things like emotion, and likewise how similar Thinking is to thoughts. Still, whatever is measured by JCF, it is real - or at least, an effective way of interpreting people and information.

--

Our minds flow but the models, inherently static, used to capture its processes remain appropriate approximations. It is a basic framework for interpretation, and as such works better in theory than in reality, however is becoming more and more viable of being applied directly to human matters. Our cognition can be interpreted along any number of other such models, and so just because one is good, does not mean an unrelated approach will not also be good. The mind is a multi-dimensional entity, and we see different patterns when we change our criteria of perceiving, just as a kaleidoscope. So the patterns of JCF, as prominent as they are, could very well be left out of a rather comprehensive analysis of the human mind. And, to be comprehensive, one cannot stop at JCF, but must examine the cognition which exists outside of this framework, of which there is much.

 

[OmoInisa]

Everyone uses the Feeling function, just like the other 3 functions. We probably use all 8. The difference is how much we use them and in what order.

No one said that Jungian Cognitive Functions explain 100% of human cognition or even close to it. However it becomes clearly apparent when you know what to look for that we do operate according to these functional stacks.

I tend to get confused about how similar Feeling in a Jungian sense is to things like emotion, and likewise how similar Thinking is to thoughts. Still, whatever is measured by JCF, it is real - or at least, an effective way of interpreting people and information.

--

Our minds flow but the models, inherently static, used to capture its processes remain appropriate approximations. It is a basic framework for interpretation, and as such works better in theory than in reality, however is becoming more and more viable of being applied directly to human matters. Our cognition can be interpreted along any number of other such models, and so just because one is good, does not mean an unrelated approach will not also be good. The mind is a multi-dimensional entity, and we see different patterns when we change our criteria of perceiving, just as a kaleidoscope. So the patterns of JCF, as prominent as they are, could very well be left out of a rather comprehensive analysis of the human mind. And, to be comprehensive, one cannot stop at JCF, but must examine the cognition which exists outside of this framework, of which there is much.

Very well said.