Why T/F is a mess - and help me clarify mine! | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Why T/F is a mess - and help me clarify mine!

"tough vs tender" dichotomies.

I wonder .....

This was one of the attribute differentiators between T and F that worried me when I first started puzzling over the meaning behind Jungian typology and its offshoot, MBTI. I came to the conclusion that this particular spectrum does not correlate at all well with T vs F, and tends to sanctify F in a way I personally found misleading.

Some examples that seem to me to show how tough F can be ..... Every successful bully I've ever encountered was wielding F very competently. The guys who went on the rampage recently in support of Trump were also using a lot of F. The guy who tailgates me on a country road to get me to react and go faster or let them past is using F. Someone who challenges authority to sort out an injustice is probably using a combination of T and F.

It seems to be a lot closer to the Big 5 concept of Agreeableness than the Jungian concept of Feeling
 
You sort of already know my opinion on this: This is more a thing of N-doms that doesn't have much affinity with a T/F function rather than T/F is actually confusing, because any N-dom will use both a bit and there are N-doms who alternate constantly between either, INFJ e5 is one example, there are others (such as ENFP e3). So, yeah, it is "confusing" for me too because it uses both but for people who are more a F-dom or a T-dom this is way much clearer - think about Reckful, for example, who is clearly a thinker; Or, for those inside the forum, @Pin would be an example of a clearer thinker? I think.. Or @Winter Memories as a feeling, for her the F vs T divide has definitely way more clearer than for both of us. Although Im @ both they are examples, Im not summing them to the thread but it is always good to know if somebody is talking about you, right?

Yeah, @Vendrah , I know your opinion, but thanks anyway for posting it in this shared debate.
Thanks also for Jung's quote, I can't quite remember reading it, maybe because it sorts of leaves me cold.
As you said, it's more related to N-doms not having much affinity with the T/F function, being undifferentiated I mean.

However, in MBTI you MUST have an orientation in the T/F dichotomy. In that regard, I could argue against myself and say that T/F is actually well defined, it's just me being borderline T/F. An X would not be much of a trauma anyways.

But still, I have the "feeling" that there are many factors that T/F supposedly doesn't consider but that, in fact, are mixed up in a tangle: Neuroticism, Agreeableness and gender cultural stereotypes being just the first I can think of. Of course a clear T or a clear F (especially if IT or TJ or ST, and if EF or ES or EP) don't need any improvement in the definition. But for N-dom in general (both INJs and ENPs alike) I find the definition lacking.
 
I agree with you that agreeableness is a better concept than Thinking/Feeling dichotomy. Although agreeableness is also conflated with other factors such as extroversion and particularly assertiveness. Disagreeable but non assertive person will be less disagreeable than disagreeable and assertive one.

So it's not at all the case that INFJs are not good 'thinkers'. I think it's more the process of their thinking - which is highly contemplative and symbolic - that is different from systematic/algorithmic approach that Thinking types prefer (at least Ti and Te doms).
 
For example... this:


Is this T or F?

I'm asking because this it what I did in my life, a couple of times, radically. I've sent this video so many times to friends as a hint of a "different perspective" to choose what to do with their life. But still can't quite "type" this...

I think this is N, not T or F.

I am willing to bet all Ns like this kind of questions/contemplations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and mancino
@charlatan , thanks for weighing in.

Your mention of the HEXACO is spot-on. I'm not very familiar with it, so I decided to dig into it, and also took the test from hexaco.org. I have to admit I quite recognize myself in the results, more than in many others I took.

Sorry about the poor formatting!

Your Score

Median Score (50th percentile) *

Middle 80% of Scores (10th to 90th percentiles) *

Honesty-Humility

3.38

3.22

2.41 - 3.97

Sincerity

2.25

3.25

2.13 - 4.25

Fairness

3.75

3.38

2.13 - 4.63

Greed-Avoidance

5.00

2.63

1.38 - 4.00

Modesty

2.50

3.63

2.50 - 4.50

Emotionality

2.31

3.34

2.63 - 3.97

Fearfulness

1.50

3.00

1.88 - 4.00

Anxiety

1.75

3.75

2.63 - 4.63

Dependence

3.25

3.25

2.00 - 4.25

Sentimentality

2.75

3.50

2.38 - 4.38

eXtraversion

3.56

3.50

2.72 - 4.22

Social Self-Esteem

4.75

4.00

3.00 - 4.63

Social Boldness

3.75

3.13

1.88 - 4.25

Sociability

2.50

3.63

2.50 - 4.50

Liveliness

3.25

3.63

2.50 - 4.50

Agreeableness

3.50

3.00

2.22 - 3.72

Forgivingness

4.25

2.75

1.75 - 3.88

Gentleness

3.25

3.25

2.25 - 4.13

Flexibility

2.25

2.75

1.75 - 3.75

Patience

4.25

3.25

2.00 - 4.38

Conscientiousness

4.75

3.47

2.72 - 4.16

Organization

4.25

3.38

2.13 - 4.38

Diligence

5.00

3.88

2.88 - 4.71

Perfectionism

4.75

3.63

2.38 - 4.38

Prudence

5.00

3.25

2.13 - 4.00

Openness to Experience

4.75

3.31

2.50 - 4.13

Aesthetic Appreciation

4.50

3.25

2.00 - 4.38

Inquisitiveness

5.00

3.13

1.88 - 4.38

Creativity

5.00

3.63

2.25 - 4.63

Unconventionality

4.50

3.38

2.63 - 4.25

Altruism

4.25
a nic
3.88

3.00 - 4.63

I like the way they score a separated facet "Greed avoidance", one I only saw in the MOTIV system and one in which I have a pronounced outlier preference that gets blurred in other systems. I also like to see "Sentimentality" outside openness to experience. In brief, a nice improvement in the emotional department compared to the usual Big5.

The test made me recognize something about me that I'm aware of but that was nice to see in a test result: namely, that I am not fearful and anxious, at all (way below the 20% percentile in fearfulness and anxiety), while being very high in patience and forgiveness, and average in dependence and below average in sentimentality. It's interesting to see how one can get average results which hide wide swings underneath.

I went on to check the official MBTI T/F facets:

Thinking Facets Feeling Facets
Thinking Facets
Feeling Facets
Logical: The core facet of Thinking, people with the Logical facet tend to believe that the best way to make sense of the world and its residents is through reason and logic. They often find that feelings are less reliable in relationships than exhibiting fairness, reason, and respecting rights on both sides of the relationship. • Empathetic: The core facet of Feeling, people with the Empathetic facet tend to place relationships above all other things in their hierarchy of importance, to the point of feeling that they are the basis of life's meaning. These individuals believe universal and personal truth are both attached to people and relationships.
Reasonable: Appears as someone who uses logic and a solid process of reasoning to confidently make decisions on a daily basis. • Compassionate: Appears as someone who prefers to show mercy, even to the detriment of objective fairness, and they love to see people for the individuals they are.
Questioning: Describes someone who believes that situations turn out better when problems are solved through debating and challenging ideas, which not only helps individuals find areas of agreement, but can help reduce flaws in solutions. • Accommodating: Describes someone who prizes harmony above whatever good may come from confrontation and critique, and they aim to please as many people as possible.
Critical: Fits individuals who believe that impersonal criticism is necessary to get to the bottom line of situations, remove flaws from plans and decisions, and get the desired outcomes from a situation. • Accepting: Fits Individuals who like to find solutions that are as likely as possible to be a win for all involved by tolerating the viewpoints of others and expecting the same in return.
Tough: Tends to appraise a situation, then take a strong stand on their decisions, which they see as the best way to show support for all of the logic and data that went into making the decision. • Tender: Tends to show tenderness and caring in achieving their goals because they understand that different people have different viewpoints, that are often in opposition, and that must be respected, especially when making a purely rational decision is not possible.

(source: https://personalityplaybook.com/2014/09/21/mbti-step-ii-the-40-facets-of-the-16-types/)

I still have problems with this dichotomy, even with facets:
- can't you be logical and empathetic at the same time? I can put "relationships above all other things" and still use logic for problem-solving.
- reasonable-compassionate, I agree it's a true dichotomy as it is defined, it explicitly says "mercy, even to the detriment of objective fairness", truly opposites.
- questioning-accomodating... it reminds me of "idiot compassion" in Buddhism:
It refers to something we all do a lot of and call it compassion. In some ways, it’s what’s called enabling. It’s the general tendency to give people what they want because you can't bear to see them suffering.
Chodron exposes the danger in this: instead of offering a friend medicine, bitter though it may be when ingested, you feed them more poison—at the very least, you don’t take it away from them. This, she says, is not compassion at all. It’s selfishness, as you’re more concerned with your own feelings than attending to your friend’s actual needs.
(source: https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/idiot-compassion-and-mindfulness)
My way of seeing is that true compassion must be wise, and wisdom needs logic too.
- critical-accepting: same as above, real tolerance as "a win for all" is not Feeling if it tolerates the intolerable, don't you think?
- though/tender: @John K you have already addressed this. Actually, if you read the definition, it's not dichotomous: one refers to "the data", the other deals with situations "especially when making a purely rational decision is not possible." so I can easily see how you can be logical and data-driven when it's a clear call in impersonal situation (an accounting problem, for example), and be tender and caring and understanding in interpersonal decision (in family choices, for example, where you weight pros and cons related to tastes, opportunities, viewpoints and so on).

And then you have T/F in Jung... with no facets, and a plurality of definitions of Fi, Ti, Fe and Te...

I still see it kind of messy!
 
I agree with you that agreeableness is a better concept than Thinking/Feeling dichotomy. Although agreeableness is also conflated with other factors such as extroversion and particularly assertiveness. Disagreeable but non assertive person will be less disagreeable than disagreeable and assertive one.

So it's not at all the case that INFJs are not good 'thinkers'. I think it's more the process of their thinking - which is highly contemplative and symbolic - that is different from systematic/algorithmic approach that Thinking types prefer (at least Ti and Te doms).

Nice point, Ti-doms and Te-doms are very, very different to N-doms, actually.
 
manino said:
I still have problems with this dichotomy, even with facets:

Well I think the idea that it's a true dichotomy is probably where the problem lies (and notice this is not really specific to T vs F so much as equally applicable to E vs I -- one doesn't have to pick between the sides..and can enjoy aspects of both); that is, one can be fairly balanced, which is why as you say, one needn't feel much tension in one's particular way of doing things between the logic and feelings sides. But the way I'd read it is that those who do feel such a tension are more likely to be tough over tender. In other words, they are more likely to see a conflict between the objective way of doing things and accounting for feelings.

As with any Big 5 or HEXACO dimension, one can be pretty middle-road, and I see no reason why someone can't simply not have a strong preference on T vs F or even E vs I or S vs N.

Basically I think once you get rid of the idea that T/F is a legitimate dichotomy where you have to be one or the other, I think the biggest problem goes away (which isn't to say there aren't some remaining criticisms of the idea, but I think the things that make it totally nonsensical seem to be gone).


I should also say that I personally don't really think looking at the MBTI's specific facets in the Step II helps so much as thinking about the fact that the T/F probably relates to some Big 5 facets (in implementations like the NEO PI-R) of Agreeabeleness more than others.


The Fe and Fi stuff is quite philosophical, and I don't like it when it gets confounded with what I'd call the more data-driven side of typology. People have different accounts of what those things mean, and different theories about how they fit together (e.g. in Jung's theory having Ni and Ti at the top of one's function stacking is allowed, not so with Myers' theory with the auxiliary in the opposite attitude to the dom).

Already there, F is supposed to be more a matter of value judgment than I'd say the 'dichotomies' approach gets into, so it's a different beast.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mancino
Yeah, @Vendrah , I know your opinion, but thanks anyway for posting it in this shared debate.
Thanks also for Jung's quote, I can't quite remember reading it, maybe because it sorts of leaves me cold.
As you said, it's more related to N-doms not having much affinity with the T/F function, being undifferentiated I mean.

However, in MBTI you MUST have an orientation in the T/F dichotomy. In that regard, I could argue against myself and say that T/F is actually well defined, it's just me being borderline T/F. An X would not be much of a trauma anyways.


But still, I have the "feeling" that there are many factors that T/F supposedly doesn't consider but that, in fact, are mixed up in a tangle: Neuroticism, Agreeableness and gender cultural stereotypes being just the first I can think of. Of course a clear T or a clear F (especially if IT or TJ or ST, and if EF or ES or EP) don't need any improvement in the definition. But for N-dom in general (both INJs and ENPs alike) I find the definition lacking.

I thought the same and Reckful did said I was wrong, the conversation was:

Reckful said:
Vendrah said:
for Myers-Briggs, ambiverts are not supposed to exist
This is incorrect. Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. What's more, the recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of some of them and the I side of the rest.

I will reinforce my point that what you said (for N-doms the definition seems lacking) is also true for the N/S divide for those who are T-dom and F-dom, and this is entirely predicted by Jung (and natural for Jung). And I reinforce by pulling these quotes that are recents from the other forum we participate as well:

Aerix said:
(Aerix from another forum, just in case there is an Aerix here)
Si in Socionics, Ne in both "MBTI" and Socionics since they're basically the same, Se/Si in cognitive functions for "MBTI" are pretty scrambled, mixed, vague; probably depends on the source used. S in MBTI dichotomies.

Aerix said:
I hate theoretical discussion or contemplation, it annoys me. I prefer that which is more practical, concrete, solid, definable, answerable; I understand that there are benefits involved in theory, but I'd rather leave that to others to bother with. Yet, I see multiple possibilities everywhere--above average, for sure--and I perceive ambiguity, thus seek clarity, in the details where most would assume they already have certainty. In this way, I find myself more skilled at getting to the bottom of things accurately; I listen more, ask more, consider more options. Possibilities seeking (Ne) is in service of Accuracy seeking in things I'm figuring out, analyzing, etc. (supposedly Ti). I would type as ISTP in dichotomies, yet INTP in functions, according to current perspectives, therefore.

I also remember that I had analyzed @Winter Memories test results, type etc... and she is pretty mixed on N/S as well, so for her N/S doesn't really exist much.

Also, T/F in an expanded version can become more problematic then it is already. Because if you connect Hexaco, you have Feeling->Agreeableness->HEXACO Honesty-Humility where you connect honest with feeling.
We are sort of forced to treat that all types are equally honest or can be equally dishonest even though I am pretty sure that is not true at all, and expanding the T/F definitions would start to make a clearer association with feeling and honesty. This gets even more problematic that the association with empathy with feeling that ends up pulling psychopaths to thinking (since they lack empathy by definition), and that increases the headache on this subject, and we can see that they try to always phrase as "Mercy vs Justice" in an effort to sort of remedy this (I hope you get what Im fully meaning here, direct and indirectly). I also think that, even with some correlation Feeling and Agreeableness should be separated entirely in order to try to remedy this.

And also another thing, I know that in private noname3788 from the other forum pointed us that the MBTI manual had an statistical argument using IQ in favour of differentiated types (kids and teens with higher IQs have higher test-retest rates), however I am not quite sure if this would apply to a specific secondary function. Personally, I am no longer bothering of picking Feeling or Thinking, even though environmental factors (like being male in a country with something like 70% of Thinkers) and historical factors (of my own history) are pulling me into Thinking, and they are also pulling me towards Fi and Te, because as a male I am not supposed to appear emotive, and in a country of thinkers that goes even worse, and that makes me to close my feelings, made them more private/secretive and makes them way less expressive, which makes F goes towards i attitude (or go Fi) rather than an e attitude (or go Fe). Also, since I am an intuitive and not in Japan, majority of people around me are sensors, so from N and T, there is a lot convenience for me to "show off" my thinking side which brings me to more of a Te attitude rather than Ti attitude. I am speaking in long terms, not the last months were I have been acting a lot more like a Thinker due to personal reasons that relates to my conditions. But, as you know, for Ns that is quite personal and depends in the environment as well.

There is one more interesting thing to remind you, which is the statistical estimates I had done last year, using the Dario Nardi test, to show off these graphs:

"I had made a table of borderlines per type (there was only proper data for 9 types, all Ns but ENTJ plus ISFP and ISTP). Just remembering:

– This data is based on Dario Nardi test. Nardi test mostly, although not always, range from -50 to 50 on dichotomies, with some exceptions. It is impossible to convert this to percentages, but, sort of, a person that has +5 (on intuition, for example) is expected to have 55% on dichotomy, +15 is expected to have 65% and so on.

– In E/I dimension, I had estimated that about 23% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 57% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. This is the dimension with most people on the middle, and the middle is generally called Ambivert.

– In N/S dimension, I had estimated that about 15% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 36% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. People on the middle are called “realist” on 81 types.

– In T/F dimension, I had estimated that only about 4% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range (which is a very small number, almost negligible), which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 26% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. This is the dimension with least people on the middle. People on the middle of this dimension are called “balanced” on 81 types.

– In J/P dimension, I had estimated that about 14% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 31% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. People on the middle of this dimension are called “malleable” on 81 types.

So, here are these percentages per type. For example, on E/I dimension, 26% of INFJs are ambivert on the -5 to +5 range (compared to 23% of population in general), which I had marked as EI5, and 47% of INFJs are ambivert on the -15 to +15 range, which I had marked as EI15. Both cases counts, in one way or another, which % of INFJs are not clearly introvert. Notice that, except for INs and ENFP, my data is sort of limited, I had also tried to correct IN bias as well. So, this is it:

d1-1.png
"

Also these graphs I had made earlier that are very important yet no MBTI article ever drawns them (even though most, if not all of them, have enough data to do so):

w1.png


w2.png


w3.png


w4.png


w6.png


So, yeah, looking at these data, T/F is generally the clearest dichotomy, followed by N/S (for lots of people S will be the clearest of all functions), MBTI J/P, E/I, Jung J/P (that as I found out later it is not an actual dichotomy but it was good to put here to compare). It is funny that not much people question E/I as dichotomy yet it is the least clear dichotomy, and I also notice that the function MBTI dichotomies, T/F and N/S, are in general clearer than J/P and E/I, even though that could be a bias because I did made the estimations based on a cognitive function test.

So it's not at all the case that INFJs are not good 'thinkers'. I think it's more the process of their thinking - which is highly contemplative and symbolic - that is different from systematic/algorithmic approach that Thinking types prefer (at least Ti and Te doms).

I think you are probably already aware of this, but just for clarifying: Thinking and Feeling in Jungian sense have different meaning of the use we have for the 'Thinker' word. What you had describe as highly contemplative and symbolic is not Thinking in a Jungian sense, but rather intuition. I also remember from data connection that the affirmative: "I get lost on thought often" relates to Big 5 facet imagination (from Openness to Experience) which relates to MBTI intuition, so both thinkers and intuitives thinks (on a general sense) a lot.
There is also the feeling thing...
"I feel cold" (in Jung sense, this is sensing)
"I feel something bad is going to happen" (in Jung sense, this is intuition, and it is on an introverted attitude because this relates to Cautiousness, which relates to Jung Introversion)
"I feel sad" (if this is feeling or not it is debatable)
"I feel I don't like this"/"I feel something is good or bad" (this is Feeling on a Jungian sense, where both does have a judgment about something)