Feeler/Thinker Stereotypes?

[Gaze]

There are quite a few misconceptions, generalizations, and poorly derived assumptions mentioned and reinforced in the discussion of personality type.

So, the question is what are some of the feeler or thinker stereotypes we're quick to accept and act on whether on this board or otherwise?

And this includes stereotypes and taken for granted assumptions about yourselves based on your belief that we are feeler or thinker?

 

[IndigoSensor]

Two common ones:

Feeler = Emotional Whiny Bitch
Thinker = Heartless Robotic Drone

When I first introduce people to MBTI people will sometimes think something like that, the most common thing though is people will think judging means judgemental.

 

[Barnabas]

Two common ones:

Feeler = Emotional Whiny Bitch
Thinker = Heartless Robotic Drone

When I first introduce people to MBTI people will sometimes think something like that, the most common thing though is people will think judging means judgemental.

I agree with the J being thought of as Judgemental, maybe it should be O for organizing.

 

[Gaze]

I agree with the J being thought of as Judgemental, maybe it should be O for orginizing.

Agree.

 

[Zero Angel]

Myth: People who appear hard nosed or bossy are almost certainly T types.

Myth: Introverts don't talk much, or are serious people.

I also think that the labels (ie: thinking/feeling) might need to be changed so that they're more easily interpreted especially by beginners to MBTI.

 

[That Girl]

A myth that I felt for a long time was that people who follow predominantly feelings are wishy-washy. I hated how I would ask them why they answered a question in a certain way and the answer would always be "well, I had this feeling."

I've come to accept the differences in others. I may not understand but I accept.

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Denis Diderot

 

[Soulful]

A myth that I felt for a long time was that people who follow predominantly feelings are wishy-washy. I hated how I would ask them why they answered a question in a certain way and the answer would always be "well, I had this feeling."

I've come to accept the differences in others. I may not understand but I accept.

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Denis Diderot

Fantastic quote. I'm curious what you mean by "follow"? Are there certain situations to which this applies (more so than others)?

 

[That Girl]

Fantastic quote. I'm curious what you mean by "follow"? Are there certain situations to which this applies (more so than others)?

I think it applies more to questions about how people are feeling. I always want to know why and they can't tell me. It could also apply to their political views or how they view the world. They say that they think a certain way because they feel it is the right way to do things as opposed to having a list of facts as to why they reacted that way.

 

[Ecton]

That Girl, I think you will find that the people here might be able to do a pretty good job of telling you why they feel a particular way. People here are fairly introspective (its what draws them here, I think ), and the forum medium is a good one for an introspective pace in conversation.

I know that I have had a symmetric complaint about predominant thinkers. I often ask them why they have chosen a particular set of facts, when there are so many others they could have used, and they cannot tell me!

 

[That Girl]

I know that I have had a symmetric complaint about predominant thinkers. I often ask them why they have chosen a particular set of facts, when there are so many others they could have used, and they cannot tell me!

I could give you a list of facts explaining why I decided on my list of facts. =D

 

[Ecton]

I'd love to see the closure set. I'm serious.

 

[TinyBubbles]

thinkers = don't feel, are heartless, emotionless and excel at analysis & maths/science

feelers = don't think, are illogical, highly empathic, caring and selfless

both positive and negative stereotypes are pretty misleading imo, because people are more complex than that. i think pretty much everyone has the potential to be any kind of person, given the right circumstances.

 

[the]

Feeler = crybaby, good at writing in school

Thinker = butthole, good at math and science

Wrong for the most part but based on some truth.

 

[soulseeker]

A myth that I felt for a long time was that people who follow predominantly feelings are wishy-washy. I hated how I would ask them why they answered a question in a certain way and the answer would always be "well, I had this feeling."

I've come to accept the differences in others. I may not understand but I accept.

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Denis Diderot

bwahahhaha

I always say that line "I feel that.......... "
and my INTP/J( I'm not sure) friend doesn't quite like that answer too.. well she tells me she understands. I don't think she does. I can "feel" (ahahahaha) that she just doesn't want to discuss why I always answer with "I feel.. blah blah blah" because I won't be able to explain why I feel that.

 

[Quinlan]

Just because I am an F doesn't mean I am friendly, nice or project "warmth". I can be as cold and indifferent as anyone particularly towards strangers.

Jung regarding Fi:

Although there is a constant readiness for peaceful and harmonious co-existence, strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responsive warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness.

One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one's own existence. In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive object.

Sometimes the Fi user hardly seems like the stereotypical "F" at all:

A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop into the depth. Whereas, for instance, an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in both word and deed at the right place, thus quickly ridding itself of its impression, an intensive sympathy, because shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that embraces the misery of a world and is simply benumbed. It may possibly make an extravagant irruption, leading to some staggering act of an almost heroic character, to which, however, neither the object nor [p. 494] the subject can find a right relation. To the outer world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this sympathy looks like coldness, for it does nothing visibly, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.

 

[NeverAmI]

Thinker = Mean

Feeler = Nice

 

[WaeV]

I know that I have had a symmetric complaint about predominant thinkers. I often ask them why they have chosen a particular set of facts, when there are so many others they could have used, and they cannot tell me!

Here's an example:
I've been presented with facts all my life, and some of them conflict. If Joe Schmoe tells me that leaves are green because green pigment is a byproduct of trees and a nature journal tells me that green is the optimal color to absorb light energy for plants, I'll go with the nature journal because it's a more reliable source. If all I had been presented with was Joe's statement and it contradicted none of my current facts, I would have accepted Joe's. Trouble can occur when I do too much thinking on a related subject and integrate ideas. Maybe my idea of why trees burn is related to what Joe said about pigments, and when I hear the nature journal's description I might not immediately accept it. I like to think that this exclusion doesn't happen so often, but people ARE exposed to a lot of new information every day.