No, of course not. That's why two people with the same "personality" type will be vastly different. MBTI, however, does speak only to decision making/thought processes.
What do thinkers feel?
- Thread starter AUM
- Start date
No, of course not. That's why two people with the same "personality" type will be vastly different. MBTI, however, does speak only to decision making/thought processes.
Of course, there's always the corollary to the original question.
I'm curious to know of what exactly do people who proclaim have type preferences for "feeling" actually think? How do thoughts manifest to this group and how does it affect them when making a decision? I know that making a decision for a feeler is based more on emotional and subjective observation, but what happens to the objective and logical side to an issue that's being discussed/debated?
Also they seem to get offended quite easily, why is this? So if I logically explain why their reasoning is incorrect, their feelings get hurt even though I tell them that it's nothing personal - only a logical fallacy. How is it possible to take personal offense when I'm only criticizing an idea which is quite separate from their person?
Hehe, it looks a little more ridiculous that way, but I assure you that the above is common sentiment for thinkers.Also they seem to get offended quite easily, why is this? So if I logically explain why their reasoning is incorrect, their feelings get hurt even though I tell them that it's nothing personal - only a logical fallacy. How is it possible to take personal offense when I'm only criticizing an idea which is quite separate from their person?
Well honestly this question was brought upon because of my dad who has a strong preference for the INTJ functions. He is one of those people who is very logical and expects everyone to be the same. However, recently I've noticed that he has changed quite a lot and by this I mean he has become more sensitive to everything I say. I'd say this is because he's 50 years of age and he is now turning to the other functions that he has ignored for so long( Fi, Se), for example he was always bullying me to speak clearly and to not be a crybaby. So I guess I became more like him in that sense that I don't share any feelings and emotions with him but now all that has changed. A few days ago I saw him crying and it was the first time I've seen him do that, I felt so uncomfortable around him because I always saw him really serious and impervious to any kind of emotional expression. To be honest now I preferred him as he was before because he's sensitive side is becoming awkward for me to handle. Maybe this is all due to the fact of the famous "mid life crisis" that everyone talks about.
I've wondered if some people who test as Thinkers are more compartmentalized in the way they think. In this way they may have a comparable frequency/intensity of emotion, but it can be absent at times. In some cases there may be Thinkers who can be clear and logical in one setting, and screaming and throwing chairs in another. I know of some people with a huge range of behaviors like that. I think most people would describe me as a Feeler, and I can say my thinking tends to be integrated. However, I don't base decisions solely on emotion, and am significantly less emotional in my communication in personal relationships. I went through a divorce that was quite painful to me emotionally without ever losing my cool. I was reasonable throughout the process. I have been surprised on various occasions just how temper-oriented some people labeled as Thinkers are. For a long while it really confused me because I was expecting consistency with an overall lower emotional presence than myself, but that is not always the case (although sometimes it is). I think my integrated style of thinking/feeling makes me more consistent and some compartmentalized thinking/feeling can have a much broader range. Thinking and Feeling are quite the broad categories.
Ok hold up everybody I think I've figured it out.
Here, this is your guy's "logical falacy".
The truth of the matter is: Thinkers are robots ;therefore they cannot feel ,and have no souls
Case closed I think I've settled this debate.
ok being serious: A feeler probably thinks just as much as a thinker. But a feeler is likely to hold an emotional attachment to their views and opinions. If someone comes along trying to prove them wrong it makes them feel invalidated and a little hurt to find out that their previous notions were incorrect. (Mode of thinking: They are not just "ideas" they are "my" ideas and form a part of who "I" am; by rejecting them you are rejecting "me".) A thinker obviously feels but is detected and unaware of these emotions because a feeling itself can be considered "invalid" or wrong in the same way a feeler does if it contradicts their previous intellectual notions. (Mode of thinking: Sometimes when I hear that religious song I "feel" connected to God ,but I know it's wrong because I "think" those types of things are an impossibility.) Dominate traits are more likely to disregard non dominate traits that doesn't mean they are not equally felt or absent.
Here, this is your guy's "logical falacy".
The truth of the matter is: Thinkers are robots ;therefore they cannot feel ,and have no souls
Case closed I think I've settled this debate.
ok being serious: A feeler probably thinks just as much as a thinker. But a feeler is likely to hold an emotional attachment to their views and opinions. If someone comes along trying to prove them wrong it makes them feel invalidated and a little hurt to find out that their previous notions were incorrect. (Mode of thinking: They are not just "ideas" they are "my" ideas and form a part of who "I" am; by rejecting them you are rejecting "me".) A thinker obviously feels but is detected and unaware of these emotions because a feeling itself can be considered "invalid" or wrong in the same way a feeler does if it contradicts their previous intellectual notions. (Mode of thinking: Sometimes when I hear that religious song I "feel" connected to God ,but I know it's wrong because I "think" those types of things are an impossibility.) Dominate traits are more likely to disregard non dominate traits that doesn't mean they are not equally felt or absent.
Last edited:
Hmm... What do I feel... It's a hard question to answer, but I'll give it a shot.
In day-to-day matters I feel quite unemotional, I can usually rationalise most things I see and do.
When it comes to my ideas and thoughts, I take a step back from them and appreciate them for what they are; a (new) concept which needs to be proven or disproven. I don't form any attachment to my ideas until they are validated either through discussing it with another person or putting the idea into practice. Even then I don't really feel an attachment to it... It just... exists (that's the best way I can describe it!)
After breakups, I have the tendency to put on a mask of apathy; I feel that I will be hurt less if I know the other person does not see what they're doing to my head. But then again, I've rationalised it in a much darker way; I want to make the person hurt more by seeing how much they haven't hurt me. It's like all these different rationalisations have an emotion attached to them, and I then chose whichever one I feel suits the scenario the best.
But after about 2-3 months the mask has transformed from apathy to something truely disgusting. I usually begin to spiral downwards into self-loathing and self-pity. After this I break down, cry for a solid day and begin to "fix" myself again. I do not react to emotions instantly, it takes time for the emotions to build up inside me until I'm forced to validate and deal with them.
I don't conciously feel emotions very often. It sometimes feels like there's a sheet of contentness surrounding my inner feelings. If I get any sort of feeling inside me, whether it be sadness, rage, fear or happiness; I will try and amplify it. Otherwise the feeling fades rather rapidly. (Imagine goosebumps/pimples; you have that sudden feeling all over, but it fades rather rapidly. In which time you could lightly stroke yourself or blow on your skin to keep the feeling going)
In day-to-day matters I feel quite unemotional, I can usually rationalise most things I see and do.
When it comes to my ideas and thoughts, I take a step back from them and appreciate them for what they are; a (new) concept which needs to be proven or disproven. I don't form any attachment to my ideas until they are validated either through discussing it with another person or putting the idea into practice. Even then I don't really feel an attachment to it... It just... exists (that's the best way I can describe it!)
After breakups, I have the tendency to put on a mask of apathy; I feel that I will be hurt less if I know the other person does not see what they're doing to my head. But then again, I've rationalised it in a much darker way; I want to make the person hurt more by seeing how much they haven't hurt me. It's like all these different rationalisations have an emotion attached to them, and I then chose whichever one I feel suits the scenario the best.
But after about 2-3 months the mask has transformed from apathy to something truely disgusting. I usually begin to spiral downwards into self-loathing and self-pity. After this I break down, cry for a solid day and begin to "fix" myself again. I do not react to emotions instantly, it takes time for the emotions to build up inside me until I'm forced to validate and deal with them.
I don't conciously feel emotions very often. It sometimes feels like there's a sheet of contentness surrounding my inner feelings. If I get any sort of feeling inside me, whether it be sadness, rage, fear or happiness; I will try and amplify it. Otherwise the feeling fades rather rapidly. (Imagine goosebumps/pimples; you have that sudden feeling all over, but it fades rather rapidly. In which time you could lightly stroke yourself or blow on your skin to keep the feeling going)
Last edited:
This rings truest to me. When I'm using my Fi I can certainly empathize with the ideas forming part of who I am bit. Most of the time my ideas are distinguishable from my self and are mutable by new data or input.
I like the way you have said it in your post, but have a question. How do you think ego plays into this? What about people who have an ego investment (but not an emotional investment) in their ideas? The times I've debated online, I often find a similar core dynamic (although different in surface style) with the majority of people in the debate regardless of how they are labeled. There are exceptions, but not enough consistency to make sense of the whole T-F spectrum.
edit: If you go to a T-dominant forum and start debating, notice how often there is an ego-investment in the idea even in the face of clear contradiction. There are people who are clear-thinking and admit when they are wrong, but they are precious rare. What I'm not clear on is whether or not those clear thinkers are a subset of MBTI-labeled T personalities, or if there is a mixed representation. Not long ago I read an Fe dominant's opinion where she stated that she was not entirely objective because of her experience, but still made a compelling case. It struck me how rare that kind of clarity is for a person to be able to self-identify their personal influences. People who have a self-identity of being objective sometimes struggle to admit their ego investment and that they have made a "stupid" error in their thinking.
Last edited:
I hadn't even thought of that. Now that you mention it I have had experience with T types who hold to a certain narcissistic qualities when it comes to their opinions. I've observed a lot thinking dominates under the surface have a certain fear of incompetency. They carefully form their opinions and ideas and convince themselves that they have reasoned perfectly. Being wrong about something might be a blow in the face. It can not feel nice to start second guessing the accuracy of a dominate trait which you rely on so heavily. I agree with you 100% I think there must be a certain degree of ego investment. Hence a reason why T's may seem more confident or even come off as cocky to others.
I'm sure that is true for you and perhaps some other people with similar personalities, but it is a mistake to assume it holds true for all 'thinkers'. Others might not be so happy to admit they're wrong. They may also find disagreement insulting - as it implies that they failed to process the 'facts' correctly.
Ignoring the fact that 'type' theory is extremely imprecise, I have to say I prefer Keirsey's approach in his book "Please Understand Me II". Thinking is not a preference that can be isolated, but simply one element of a personality which should only be considered in context of the rest of the whole personality. I don't just mean in the context of ones four letter type either, though the Keirsey descriptions aren't half bad.