Originally Posted by
seriousguy
The way I understand it, the distinction between thinking and feeling in Jungian school is that the former is analysis of sentences (verbal or written) and finding consistency (i.e., structural similarity) to establish reliable rules or order to navigate the world, while the latter is attention to minute details about people, detecting shifts in tone, language, and emotional cues to mediate conflicts or build relationships. The aforementioned thinking and feeling definitions are obviously biased towards people with common sense or practical understanding (meaning the ones with relatively low intuition for the lack of a better word).
For intuition-dominant types, thinking is not that much about finding hard categories, logical correctness, and structures, but creating new rules or systems based on new possibilities or imagination, and often disregarding and mocking the rigid rules, and the feeling in intuitive types is not much about noticing tangible details about people but more like noticing the virtues and vices in people based on new possibilities or imagination (I have seen ILIs talking about showing compassion and kindness, and they complain when they see that some bad people or assholes are abusing or exploiting them).
I agree that the word "thinking" for cognitive function is misleading, as "feeling" thoughts also come from the head; it's just that they relate to people and expressions of approval/disapproval, etc., so it is also in the domain of "thinking." I think Socionics use of logic/ethics is more intuitive but still insufficient because one can create an ethical / social framework (essentially people-oriented approach... social sciences, psychology, etc.) while still demonstrating the willingness to change the system / rules (dialectical materialism, etc.). meaning sophistication in logic as well.
Reply With Quote
