The examples, I mean situations when some people undermine the emotions of other people. We all do it, of course, because we can't feel the same, but it's getting out of proportion maybe, lately. And that doesn't seem to improve rationality at all.
hmm ok I think I misunderstood what you were saying in your OP. In the OP you were talking about people "faking" emotions and now you're talking about "situations when some people undermine the emotions of other people." To me "faking" emotions is something different. It's like when someone exagerrates unhappiness to get a reaction, or when someone pretends to be caring when in actual fact they really don't give a shit, or ...all kinds of other things...basically it's not being genuine for either manipulative or attempted manipulative reasons, or fear of hurting someone or insecurity..whatever.
"Undermining" someone else's emotions is different. Instead of one person's behaviour, we're now talking about interpersonal reactions. As for this type of thing, Sometimes when what your talking about happens, I would describe it as an attempt to disvalue what the other person has to say, by labeling it. It's a horribly ineffective way to engage in dialogue or debate and about one step above name-calling. There are exceptions to this however. If someone is truly being emotionally reactive, then in that case it's not devaluing, it's just pointing out behaviour that is getting in the way of some kind of resolution. And this is what we are after in a dialogue...a form of greater understanding by sharing different view points and points of knowledge and experience and ultimately come to a resolution. It's not about rationality over emotions. We're a bunch of imperfect,complicated, fallible, mixed up humans trying to figure things out.
In general, I find it interesting that emotions and reasoning support each other physiologically. Languages and literature are full of deceit on that issue then. MBTI should redefine the exact meaning of Te,Ti,Fe,Fi. They exist, but they are not what we call them.
There are some decent examinations available to read on how the different cognitive funcions work and how we 'work' them. When you say that they exist, but they're not what we call them, I think I understand what you're getting at. Maybe this is related to your first point about emotions and reasoning supporting each other? Well, yeah of course they do!
We may fool ourselves that we are that compartmentalized, or at least some of us do. But, obviously we are not.
Probably T and F should be misanthropy and altruism, with none of them being more objective than the other. (Te is misanthropic expression, while Ti is misanthropic expectation, aka skeptic.) Misanthropes seem more objective, because they more often intimidate people to agree with them, so their statements get more often largely accepted, even when they aren't objective enough. .
ok..ok..ok...hold on there one sec cowboy! LOL You're mixing things up a bit, but that's ok. What you're experiencing with some behaviours that you term "T misanthropy" is not anything to do with the Te or Ti functions. Misanthropy is an emotional neurotic reaction that has nothing to do with "T" functions. It may be exhibited by people who's dominant functions are thinking. It can also be exhibited by those who's dominant function is "F" or even "N" or whatever. Altruism and misanthropy are not split along these lines.
As for objectivity and acceptance....haha don't be fooled....it's all a mere illusion.
Maybe the Judging functions T/F are completely emotional (the studies reveal that the brain uses the centers of emotion to make decisions), with emotion being general sympathy or antipathy towards people; while the Perceiving functions N/S are the only truly objective ones, because they are just based on sensoring (and accumulated sensoring) instead of people (or counter-people.)
There are no truly objective functions. Every single thing we experience is by it's nature subjective, because we are subjects and not objects
Also out of all of the MBTI funcions - I/E, N/S, T/F, and J/P - sensing and intuition are probably the most subjective/individual/divisive of all.
The way I see it:
Introversion vs. Extroversion defines how we relate and where/how we get our energy and information, either externally or internally.
Thinking vs. Feeling is how we are naturally inclined or predisposed to process information.
Judging vs. Perceiving is how we prefer or are naturally inclined to order our universe; our external reality so as to most effectively use our other functions.
Intuition vs. Sensing is our most basic natural inclination to receive information. I believe we are born with an inherent disposition toward one or the other being dominant and I think this difference is one of the most unique.
They all work together though and to grasp how they do that, you really have to understand the interplay of the cognitive functions.
Lastly, this "T misanthropy", which I think is your main point of contention? It has more to do with someone's Enneagram type than their MBTI type. MBTI is like a character or team we are given at birth that we're disposed to play on...say when you're born you are basically a San Jos
