MBTI Thinking versus Feeling

[jason_m]

Here is a differentiation between thinking and feeling that I found from an MBTI-based personality test:

Thinkers often:
Make decisions objectively
Appear cool and reserved
Are most convinced by rational arguments
Are honest and direct
Value honesty and fairness
Take few things personally
Are good at seeing flaws
Are motivated by achievement
Argue or debate issues for fun


Feelers often:
Decide based on their values & feelings
Appear warm and friendly
Are most convinced by how they feel
Are diplomatic and tactful
Value harmony and compassion
Take many things personally
Are quick to compliment others
Are motivated by appreciation
Avoid arguments and conflicts


It seems that MBTT thinking is centered around logic, weak ethics and strong/valued Se. For instance, if you look at the bolded points, you'll see that it sounds much like the critic (one of the types that best fits my analysis of MBTT thinking). Therefore, there might be a flaw with the MBTT notion of "thinking." It could have come from how the system was developed by Myers and Briggs or it could have been that it is based on the thinking/feeling notions of Carl Jung (probably an ILI). In any event, there is much more to thinking than how it is used by ILIs. In fact, there is probably more to it than what socionics proposes (structured "thinking" versus business "thinking"). For instance, I can think of several types of "thinking" off-hand that go beyond what both systems propose: synthetic thinking, analytic thinking, inventiveness, abstraction, critical thinking, scientific thinking, philosophical thinking, systematization, introspection, observational thinking, sensory thinking, etc. Many of these overlap and some involve other faculties, but, in any event, there seems to be much more to what constitutes a thinking person than what the MBTI proposes and perhaps what even socionics proposes.

And this coheres with what my discovery that there are probably more than 16 socionics types from studying other systems. (In fact, if Model A were perfect, since there are 16 types, there would be exactly 16 relations, meaning that every single person in the world would fit neatly into a grid of 16 slots, with the vast majority of the millions of people in one slot viewing everyone else in every other slot the same way - something highly improbable, meaning that there has to be more to personality than what Model A proposes.)

[Radio]

MBTI doesn't need to be critiqued, it's garbage and everyone knows it.

[Saberstorm]

How would you say that MBTI Ni is different from Socionic's Ni?

[Creepy-pokeball]

I think the OP's topic is important, even if I dont agree with the relations set out, because I believe that our forum as a whole is creditful of applying information metabolism into MBTI generalizations, as if those are the socioncs functions.

[Beautiful sky]

Sounds like they didn't know how to divide Fe/Fi Te/Ti and wanted to simplify into F/T dichotomies which we know now doesn't work.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Theyre different systemsssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

One is about information metabolism -- how we process information -- and the other is about an efficient external role in society. Neither specifically correlates to the other.

[Beautiful sky]

I see how that works now

[Radio]

I've wondered if many of the basic concepts between the systems are identical, but both have evolved a separate set of secondary associations that make them appear irreconcilable.

MBTI has a developed NT bias. INTJs are the ubermensch.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I've wondered if many of the basic concepts between the systems are identical, but both have evolved a separate set of secondary associations that make them appear irreconcilable.

MBTI has a developed NT bias. INTJs are the ubermensch.

Yes, because of perceived social value.

[Galen]

I find that T types in general are more prone to speaking in terms of how they understand whatever situation cognitively: what was observed, what direct conclusions could be drawn based off of that which is (perceived to be) observable, comparing these observations to supporting or conflicting information that was previously understood to be "true", etc. The important element is that this process is all cognitive, and is capable of being verbally conveyed to another party in at least partiality. F types, conversely, generally talk about situations in terms of how they experienced what was perceived: how things made them feel, what internal reactions they had towards the situation/object, and so on. They tend to be hazier in terms of how they communicate, as experience in and of itself is an unconveyable entity and thus can only be alluded to by describing the stimuli that caused it.

This doesn't necessitate that F types are inherently "warmer" or more desiring of harmony than T types, nor does it mean that T types are perpetually inconsiderate or cold.

also fuck mbti

[jet city woman]

No it's not

It's subjective so.... think of it in a comparative fashion. Stupid fucking people try to think of the two as completely different but if you read the information... it's fucking simply the same. (speaking of socionics vs. mbti- it's the same thing described differently and there's no need for in-fighting or misunderstandings)

[717495]

Yes, that description you gave Galen actually reminds me of MBTI too. I think in Socionics the difference between T and F is actually so more clear because it's deep-seeded, by observing the person in full, they either seem more values-driven/personable or logical/technical.

I think one one can relate the most to a type with the opposite dichotomy in MBTI, because I don't think they're exactly measuring the same criteria. Socionics is a lot more intuitive and empirical ie. "you either see strong ethics or strong logic in someone." Identifying types are akin to seeing the sky blue, it just is.

By those who don't wholely believe in MBTI is because it's a construct, a left-brained rational model. Socionics is real, requires right-brained, sound observation and memory. And most of all, Socionics is a theory of relationships (similar information processing in quadras), so the two MBTI and Socionics were just not made for one other because MBTI isn't committed.

[Absurd]

No it's not

It's subjective so.... think of it in a comparative fashion. Stupid fucking people try to think of the two as completely different but if you read the information... it's fucking simply the same. (speaking of socionics vs. mbti- it's the same thing described differently and there's no need for in-fighting or misunderstandings)

I can see how it is the same looking at your self-typing.

[Saberstorm]

Jet City is the hold out for the anceint regime! pffft!

[Creepy-pokeball]

Its 1am on a weekend night where she is, so toss a coin on whether or not she is drunken posting or not.

[717495]

I got heads.

[InvisibleJim]

Many people dont understand that both systems are alternative versions of the same system, with different levels of uncertainty.

[Absurd]

Its 1am on a weekend night where she is, so toss a coin on whether or not she is drunken posting or not.

Aren't you a social commentator. I think I read you in Animal Farm.

Many people dont understand that both systems are alternative versions of the same system, with different levels of uncertainty.

What kind of system is that?

[InvisibleJim]

What kind of system is that?

A 'real world' one. Read Vose risk analysis for additional background knowledge.

[Absurd]

A 'real world' one. Read Vose risk analysis for additional background knowledge.

I will later. Going to make a test out of it as well.

[Nowisthetime]

MBTI and socionics are basically the same, except that socionics got things right and MBTI got it wrong and became a mess. No need to compare them or see them as "different systems". MBTI is crap, and the only reason it exists is that they don't know about socionics.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm not into the dichotomous MBTI, but JCF is pretty interesting. At least it deals with functions and tries to put them into a model rather than saying "you're P because you're disorganized" and all that blather. As long as people aren't trying to make the systems fit together and apply definitions from one to the other, I don't see the problem.

[mikemex]

Thinkers often:
Make decisions objectively
Appear cool and reserved
Are most convinced by rational arguments
Are honest and direct
Value honesty and fairness
Take few things personally
Are good at seeing flaws
Are motivated by achievement
Argue or debate issues for fun


Feelers often:
Decide based on their values & feelings
Appear warm and friendly
Are most convinced by how they feel
Are diplomatic and tactful
Value harmony and compassion
Take many things personally
Are quick to compliment others
Are motivated by appreciation
Avoid arguments and conflicts

Some are contradictory but it's because I do not behave the same all the time. Still, it doesn't seem like T/F scale is consistent.

[strangeling]

@jason_m

How will you know when you've found enough types? Do you know first what you want to know?
And how would you know that it will be enough?

This might sound like it's leading into sophistry, but I assure you it is not.

[HERO]

http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm

"Thinking vs. Feeling

Thinking is an ability to deal with information on the basis of its structure and its function. Feeling is an ability to deal with information on the basis of its initial energetic condition and its interactions. The most common differences between Thinking and Feeling type are shown below:

Thinking types
•are interested in systems, structures, patterns
•expose everything to logical analysis
•are relatively cold and unemotional
•evaluate things by intellect and right or wrong
•have difficulties talking about feelings
•do not like to clear up arguments or quarrels

Feeling types
•are interested in people and their feelings
•easily pass their own moods to others
•pay great attention to love and passion
•evaluate things by ethics and good or bad
•can be touchy or use emotional manipulation
•often give compliments to please people"

[strangeling]

The idea that there should be a sufficient number of types is misleading. As time goes forward, there will be new situations and experiences to understand, sometimes changing what was previously known or thought to be known, sometimes making what was known no longer existent, and finding things that were previously unknown.


The types, the functions, represent forms in the Theory of Forms. For example, from that link,

Human Perception

We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color, blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato:

But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process of flux, as we were just now supposing.

Perfection

No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's blueprint as evidence that Forms are real:

... when a man has discovered the instrument which is naturally adapted to each work, he must express this natural form, and not others which he fancies, in the material ....

Perceived circles or lines are not exactly circular or straight, and true circles and lines could never be detected since by definition they are sets of infinitely small points. But if the perfect ones were not real, how could they direct the manufacturer?

These forms help create meaning, meaning which does not always need to be existent, and meaning that could take an infinite amount of forms as space-time and the metaphysical observing life contained within it, does its thing. Socrates solution to Meno's Paradox illustrates this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno):

Meno then proffers a paradox: "And how will you inquire into a thing when you are wholly ignorant of what it is? Even if you happen to bump right into it, how will you know it is the thing you didn't know?"[10] Socrates rephrases the question, which has come to be the canonical statement of the paradox: "[A] man cannot search either for what he knows or for what he does not know[.] He cannot search for what he knows--since he knows it, there is no need to search--nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for."

Socrates responds to this sophistical paradox with a mythos (poetic story) according to which souls are immortal and have learned everything prior to inhabiting the human body. Since the soul has had contact with real things prior to birth, we have only to 'recollect' them when alive. Such recollection requires Socratic questioning, which according to Socrates is not teaching. Socrates demonstrates his method of questioning and recollection by interrogating a slave who is ignorant of geometry.

One could say this is evolution and the soul being the process of unfolding as a part of a cosmic whole that allows us to reincarnate, even if we aren't literally transferring a concrete entity to do so, but rather our forms.

Socrates begins one of the most influential dialogues of Western philosophy regarding the argument for inborn knowledge. By drawing geometric figures in the ground Socrates demonstrates that the slave is initially unaware of the length of side that must be used in order to double the area of a square with two-foot sides. The slave guesses first that the original side must be doubled in length (four feet), and when this proves too much, that it must be three feet. This is still too much, and the slave is at a loss.

Socrates claims that before he got hold of him the slave (who has been picked at random from Meno's entourage) might have thought he could speak "well and fluently" on the subject of a square double the size of a given square. Socrates comments that this "numbing" he caused in the slave has done him no harm and has even benefited him.
Socrates then draws a second square figure using the diagonal of the original square. Each diagonal cuts each two foot square in half, yielding an area of two feet. The square composed of four of the eight interior triangular areas is eight feet, double that of the original area. He gets the slave to agree that this is twice the size of the original square and says that he has "spontaneously recovered" knowledge he knew from a past life[14] without having been taught. Socrates is satisfied that new beliefs were "newly aroused" in the slave.

After witnessing the example with the slave boy, Meno tells Socrates that he thinks that Socrates is correct in his theory of recollection, to which Socrates replies, “I think I am. I shouldn’t like to take my oath on the whole story, but one thing I am ready to fight for as long as I can, in word and act—that is, that we shall be better, braver, and more active men if we believe it right to look for what we don’t know...”

The types are tools for meaning, meaning which has its place and also doesn't have its place. New meaning can take precedence over the old meaning and even invalidate it.

And so...you want there to be 'enough types'? Then, I don't think you even appreciate what the types are as tools because you expect to use them to understand people in the future, without having to experience that future first - to be enough.
What creates this desire? A fear? Do you...at least... follow what I presented here?

[Absurd]

The idea that there should be a sufficient number of types is misleading. As time goes forward, there will be new situations and experiences to understand, sometimes changing what was previously known or thought to be known, sometimes making what was known no longer existent, and finding things that were previously unknown.


The types, the functions, represent forms in the Theory of Forms. For example, from that link,

Human Perception


Perfection


These forms help create meaning, meaning which does not always need to be existent, and meaning that could take an infinite amount of forms as space-time and the metaphysical observing life contained within it, does its thing. Socrates solution to Meno's Paradox illustrates this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno):


One could say this is evolution and the soul being the process of unfolding as a part of a cosmic whole that allows us to reincarnate, even if we aren't literally transferring a concrete entity to do so, but rather our forms.



The types are tools for meaning, meaning which has its place and also doesn't have its place. New meaning can take precedence over the old meaning and even invalidate it.

And so...you want there to be 'enough types'? Then, I don't think you even appreciate what the types are as tools because you expect to use them to understand people in the future, without having to experience that future first - to be enough.
What creates this desire? A fear? Do you...at least... follow what I presented here?

What?

[strangeling]

What?

When you see that human beings use language and that other animals do not, you understand that it is part of human nature. Language then, is a form of recollection; because by experiencing reality, we manifested (recalled) this abstract dimension of language and it becomes a form of humanity, our nature.

You recognize that the form of language is not all there is to human nature and that it is not always applicable in explaining and understanding other forms of human nature, such as sensation and emotion. These things require a different experience in order to know and understand them. The key thing being that knowledge is recollected from some type of experience with reality (even if it involves indirect experience).

Where jason_m is mistaken then, is in thinking the types (which are forms, no less) must be consistently applicable to be accurate; this is mistaken, as they are perfectly accurate when they are applicable - and it just shows his ignorance that he can not see when they aren't applicable (he then does not know them to begin with). Even worse, by hoping/searching for a finite magic number of types to be consistently applied, he seems to believe there will be a point where he can use what he knows about human nature to know what he doesn't yet, which is plainly absurd.

[InvisibleJim]

When you see that human beings use language and that other animals do not, you understand that it is part of human nature. Language then, is a form of recollection; because by experiencing reality, we manifested (recalled) this abstract dimension of language and it becomes a form of humanity, our nature.

You recognize that the form of language is not all there is to human nature and that it is not always applicable in explaining and understanding other forms of human nature, such as sensation and emotion. These things require a different experience in order to know and understand them. The key thing being that knowledge is recollected from some type of experience with reality (even if it involves indirect experience).

Where jason_m is mistaken then, is in thinking the types (which are forms, no less) must be consistently applicable to be accurate; this is mistaken, as they are perfectly accurate when they are applicable - and it just shows his ignorance that he can not see when they aren't applicable (he then does not know them to begin with). Even worse, by hoping/searching for a finite magic number of types to be consistently applied, he seems to believe there will be a point where he can use what he knows about human nature to know what he doesn't yet, which is plainly absurd.

I would like to raise three (not one, not two!) points regarding this post.

a) Principle 1: All people can be devided into 'average behaviour sets': If we are going to have some sort of personality sorter then we need it to sufficiently define people into a certain number of 'buckets' which we shall term types.
b) Principle 2: There should be a systematic viewpoint of behavioural mechanisms with no 'oops we forgot about this aspect of behaviour': Each of the types we derive should be consistently evaluated via. some systematic definition and not be 'free standing' or else we have not sufficiently understood human behaviour and motivation and are therefore using a catchall to explain the remainder - see Enneagram 6 as a failure of this principle.
c) Principle 3: Individual behaviour is more complex than the system: The system is really just a method of starting to understand therefore everyone can behave in a more complex way; thus there is an element of 'error' when attempting to fit people into the system. Each type is merely a 'best fit/least worst fit'. The error margin varies by individual.

[strangeling]

I would like to raise three (not one, not two!) points regarding this post.

a) Principle 1: All people can be devided into 'average behaviour sets': If we are going to have some sort of personality sorter then we need it to sufficiently define people into a certain number of 'buckets' which we shall term types.
b) Principle 2: There should be a systematic viewpoint of behavioural mechanisms with no 'oops we forgot about this aspect of behaviour': Each of the types we derive should be consistently evaluated via. some systematic definition and not be 'free standing' or else we have not sufficiently understood human behaviour and motivation and are therefore using a catchall to explain the remainder - see Enneagram 6 as a failure of this principle.
c) Principle 3: Individual behaviour is more complex than the system: The system is really just a method of starting to understand therefore everyone can behave in a more complex way; thus there is an element of 'error' when attempting to fit people into the system. Each type is merely a 'best fit/least worst fit'. The error margin varies by individual.

Yeah, this is exactly what I've always aimed to avoid in typologies. Normalizing people into categories leaves ambiguity and questions, questions that such normalizers often don't want to entertain. It's also at odds with what I've mentioned because it moves away from understanding individual context and relating them and moves toward normalizing many contexts into one new one (because it is a new way of thinking about many things, a kind of profiling).
And I don't think that's a smart approach though when it comes to understanding people. It depersonalizes to reduce someone to a statistic because it makes their person and their future a normalization of the past, while paying no attention to their current situation and circumstances, which is what they really need help with in understanding. That said, I really don't see how this is helpful at all; I could see it being helpful for an actuary or a quantum physicist, but psychology? What do you gain from doing this in terms of helping someone make sense of their life? As far as I can see this would end up as an excuse for people to see themselves a certain way, even though that may be quite unrealistic, even harmful, to try and live up to such a standard. I mean, our circumstances can change and shape us - and then what does it matter if I'm normalized as some psychosomatic profile when that isn't at all who I am anymore and who I am going to be?

[InvisibleJim]

Yeah, this is exactly what I've always aimed to avoid in typologies. Normalizing people into categories leaves ambiguity and questions, questions that such normalizers often don't want to entertain. It's also at odds with what I've mentioned because it moves away from understanding individual context and relating them and moves toward normalizing many contexts into one new one (because it is a new way of thinking about many things, a kind of profiling).
And I don't think that's a smart approach though when it comes to understanding people. It depersonalizes to reduce someone to a statistic because it makes their person and their future a normalization of the past, while paying no attention to their current situation and circumstances, which is what they really need help with in understanding. That said, I really don't see how this is helpful at all; I could see it being helpful for an actuary or a quantum physicist, but psychology? What do you gain from doing this in terms of helping someone make sense of their life? As far as I can see this would end up as an excuse for people to see themselves a certain way, even though that may be quite unrealistic, even harmful, to try and live up to such a standard. I mean, our circumstances can change and shape us - and then what does it matter if I'm normalized as some psychosomatic profile when that isn't at all who I am anymore and who I am going to be?

The answer is in your own statement:

The system is as useful as you want it to be; but shouldn't overreach the 'error margin' of the system. Accordingly, the only real reason for an analytical psychology system is just that 'the interest of the individual' which generally can be used for finding those people who are similar to you, or to understand more about the functioning of yourself. Anyone who tries to use it as a 'helpful system' to 'help people change' is selling snake oil because that is not the functional definition of the system and those things are a matter of individual choice. not a matter for a system to determine.

If you compare your viewpoint (which appears to be one of similar ideals as the American Psychologists Association (of america), athough they espouse a freudian 'single person type' view); there is a striking similarily: it's one of unhealthiness vs healthiness and that all systems should be used to 'helpfully nudge' people to understand how to behave and how they should be medicated to behave properly.

I fear that although you imply that you see value in individual perspectives by avoiding categorisation you are still trying to force people into a 'mould' that best suits your own ethics. That's actually much less helpful than the action of putting people together who are similar, just to understand how they relate to one another simply as a matter of the individuals interest.

I blame the politicians; they've been indulging in 'behavioural nudge' policy making so much it has trickled down into society and it most certainly is a cause of more woes and perverse incentives than it has ever solved.

[Absurd]

When you see that human beings use language and that other animals do not, you understand that it is part of human nature. Language then, is a form of recollection; because by experiencing reality, we manifested (recalled) this abstract dimension of language and it becomes a form of humanity, our nature.

That's actually pretty controversial taken into account the vervet monkeys use what some call language.

What do you gain from doing this in terms of helping someone make sense of their life?

Money, satisfaction? The same goes for the opposite.

[InvisibleJim]

In regards to the topic 'healthy'/'unhealthy' with respect to MBTI and Socionics we should review what they were designed to do.

Socionics and MBTI were derived as style models for 'typical types of people' from Jung's cognitive function descriptions with illustrative interpretation based upon real life experience of the authors. They both derived 16 types of people based upon jungs 4 functions which each have 2 attitudes. That means it describes 'adequately' the behaviour of 16 types - in effect an archetype of the classification. It doesn't define 'healthiness or unhealthiness' nor individual flexibility. It also has an error margin for fitting people into these archetypal descriptions.

We have seen them abused extensively:

Socionics: Used to 'place workers' in a soviet system based upon behavioural factors without consideration of the skills or interests those people have.
MBTI: First used by Bank of America to fire all 'non SJ types' because they weren't 'detail focused' and didn't 'follow instructions' because that is what they thought they needed.

Socionics & MBTI: Frequently used to define 'healthy'/'unhealthy' types by people who don't like what they see in others; 'That ILE is unhealthy because they lie, underdeveloped Fe', 'That ILI is unhealthy because they don't consider their emotional effects on others, underdeveloped Fi'.

No, that LIE is a person who lies, that ILI is a person who doesn't care for their emotional effect on others; playing with the cognitive style model does nothing to change the context of the situation upon which the situation arose.

These are not appropriate uses of a cognitive style model.

[Absurd]

These are not appropriate uses of a cognitive style model.

Agree in some way, but what's the point you're trying to make? I mean, I don't know what's the big fuss anyway here.

[InvisibleJim]

There is a second problem which I have touched on above regarding incorrect use of these models.

We have defined archetypes of people; people do not really function this way. What is really happening is that people act in certain ways, believe certain things, think along certain lines and display different behaviours.

That means that we fit people to their best type because the systems are, of course, woefully inadquate for detailing specific decision making and behaviour at a specific time and set of circumstances and instead represent broad preferences and most probable results.

[Absurd]

Well, socionics changes people to people/types those people want to be. They're doing it to themselves, so it's not a big deal. I mean, hah, would you call say, a LIE who self-types SLI a liar or would call him that because he self-types LIE?

[InvisibleJim]

Well, socionics changes people to people/types those people want to be. They're doing it to themselves, so it's not a big deal. I mean, hah, would you call say, a LIE who self-types SLI a liar or would call him that because he self-types LIE?

Think through what you just stated; then revise it to have a clear point with the assumptions and paradigms stated and a non-contradictory question. As a result of this process come back with something material that we can all discuss openly please.

[Absurd]

Think through what you just stated; then revise it to have a clear point with the assumptions and paradigms stated and a non-contradictory question. As a result of this process come back with something material that we can all discuss openly please.

Demanding something material from a person on a socionics/typology forum where the subject is abstract in and out, that is, theoretical, is absurd.

[InvisibleJim]

Demanding something material from a person on a socionics/typology forum where the subject is abstract in and out, that is, theoretical, is absurd.

Bingo; I just broke it. Dare to think.



It's always depressing when the majority of the replies roughly follow the same McGuffin: 'I haven't even looked into MBTI in any depth nor even done the basic legwork by considering the principles of the system side by side, but I can definately tell you they are wrong and Socionics is right and they are completely different systems because I have assumed everything so I can't be wrong...'

I think the only people on the forum with contribution worthy positions on this topic are: Olga, Echidna, Jet City Woman and Polikujm.

[Absurd]

It's always depressing when the majority of the replies roughly follow the same McGuffin: 'I haven't even looked into MBTI in any depth nor even done the basic legwork by considering the principles of the system side by side, but I can definately tell you they are wrong and Socionics is right and they are completely different systems because I have assumed everything so I can't be wrong...'

Oh, I'm very sorry, but I spent less than a month on MBTI. And where did I say either one is just to be discarded?

EDIT: Even though I assume they're both correct. One doesn't explain the reason why the other produces mistypes when applied to another.