Which Feeler type is the least feel-y

[wolly.green]

"and weed"

I was leaning towards ESTP, too. I think DaveSuperPowers typed him as ENTJ (maybe @wolly.green can tell us more about that)

According to Dave, he is not a standard MBTI type. He has been typed as Se/Te. So he is a subtype of ESFP.

 

[Ren]

According to Dave, he is not a standard MBTI type. He has been typed as Se/Te. So he is a subtype of ESFP.

Oh, right. I thought it was Te/Se. Interesting stuff! I’m a bit skeptical, though. Will have to check the video.

 

[wolly.green]

Oh, right. I thought it was Te/Se. Interesting stuff! I’m a bit skeptical, though. Will have to check the video.

It could be. I don't exactly remember. All i remember that his saviors are Se and Te.

 

[philostam]

Regardless of their type, who do you prefer - Peterson or Harris?

Having listened their debates, I found Harris pretty dull. He was constantly nitpicking Peterson's arguments and used some micro-examples to undermine Peterson's broad theories. That's very easy and boring, and doesn't remind me of Ni dom at all. Reminds me more of underdeveloped INTP. So I have little to no interest in Harris.

Peterson is much superior to me. Although he's not accurate on all issues (espescially politically), I like his general message. He is very hard to type though, but my best judgement would be NTP. I find it very strange that some people think he's a sensor. Also, I simply cannot see him being a F type. He's so pragmatic and non-affiliative.

 

[wolly.green]

Regardless of their type, who do you prefer - Peterson or Harris?

Having listened their debates, I found Harris pretty dull. He was constantly nitpicking Peterson's arguments and used some micro-examples to undermine Peterson's broad theories. That's very easy and boring, and doesn't remind me of Ni dom at all. Reminds me more of underdeveloped INTP. So I have little to no interest in Harris.

Peterson is much superior to me. Although he's not accurate on all issues (espescially politically), I like his general message. He is very hard to type though, but my best judgement would be NTP. I find it very strange that some people think he's a sensor. Also, I simply cannot see him being a F type. He's so pragmatic and non-affiliative.

I prefer Harris. I like Peterson, but like Harris keeps nitpicking at, Peterson is notoriously imprecise. Worse still, he just expects everyone to just understand what hes saying.

 

[Ren]

All i remember that his saviors are Se and Te.

his saviors are Se and Te.

Se and Te.

 

[Ren]

Regardless of their type, who do you prefer - Peterson or Harris?

Having listened their debates, I found Harris pretty dull. He was constantly nitpicking Peterson's arguments and used some micro-examples to undermine Peterson's broad theories. That's very easy and boring, and doesn't remind me of Ni dom at all. Reminds me more of underdeveloped INTP. So I have little to no interest in Harris.

Peterson is much superior to me. Although he's not accurate on all issues (espescially politically), I like his general message. He is very hard to type though, but my best judgement would be NTP. I find it very strange that some people think he's a sensor. Also, I simply cannot see him being a F type. He's so pragmatic and non-affiliative.

I prefer Harris. I like Peterson, but like Harris keeps nitpicking at, Peterson is notoriously imprecise. Worse still, he just expects everyone to just understand what hes saying.

I also find it surprising that some people think JP is a sensor. ENTP remains my best guess at the present moment.

As for JP vs Harris: I don't know Harris that well, so I can't be sure, but it seems to me that while JP is more eloquent/charismatic, Harris might actually be more profound/rigorous.

 

[ClevelandINTP]

LOL. Yeah. No doubt T.

Joe screams T and Se

 

[John K]

There's something that's really bothering me about the way this thread is going, and it's the same with almost all threads that talk about feeling - they persist in getting emotion, 'niceness' and feeling judgement all mixed up and switch promiscuously between them quite unjustifiably. Maybe it's me that has got this wrong, but I feel that this sort of discussion simply adds to the ongoing distortion of understanding about what is feeling judgement.

I think all people are capable of experiencing and manifesting all the emotions. Everybody uses emotion as a key element of the way they relate to the world - many T dominants gush Fe and Fi in order to reinforce the power of their logic, though they may not be doing so very consciously. For example, in Transaction Analysis terms a discussion with them them may be manifestly Adult<->Adult, but there is often also the subtext Parent->Child that runs simultaneously as the T dom seeks the superior-knowledge high-ground in order to reinforce what they are saying emotionally. Hitchins' put-downs are a classic illustration of this and they aren't T but a very assertive F .... but this is a very negative example. A good T dom teacher will inspire a wonderful confidence in their students in exactly the same paternalistic way. They may use Child->Adult, and Child<->Child too when they are being playful with their ideas. Then there is the hedgehog-mode T who curls into a prickly ball in how they respond to others in a discussion, which is probably Child->Parent, again alongside the manifest Adult<->Adult. Only the Adult interactions are T here, the others are all (mostly unconscious) Fe or Fi. I'm not making any value judgements here - all types have their function stacks in different orders. The point I'm highlighting is that everyone's behaviour is as much based on emotion as logic.

The people with Feeling higher up the stack are more conscious of how to use emotion deliberately and proficiently in order to decide on something, influence someone, or take action - and less conscious of how to use Thinking that way. An example: if I tailgate you out on the road, it's because you are in my way, and I know that by driving close behind you I can make you speed up a bit or move out of the way - or at the very least punish you by making you feel guilty - and this is all quite deliberately chosen with that effect in mind. (I've used this example to illustrate that Fe can deliberately exploit a whole spectrum of emotions, from nice to neutral to nasty, in the way it judges and manipulates the world. I don't approve of tailgating at all and detest people who do it). I often use Fe in combination with Ti myself to get a good relationship going with a salesmen or other professionals in order to get a good deal or good attention - on say ... buying a car, or when I sold my dad's house. I always find it pays to use Fe fluently if I have to use a call centre because those guys get such a lot of grief from the public that they love you if you are nice to them and then they give you as good as service as they can. These are examples of where Fe is being used deliberately to gain advantage of some sort. In fact Feeling judgement may be anything but harmonious - in the UK at the moment both sides of the political Brexit argument are using F to create fear, distrust and disharmony as a means to a political end. Current US politics seems to be very similar in the way it presents to the people.

I think that the people who will best fit what @ClevelandINTP was originally looking for are not the Feeling types with the least intense emotions, but the ones who are most balanced in themselves and most expert in how they use their emotions as the basis for judging and influencing the world around them and the other people in it. In fact it's likely that the ones who will fit this best are people with very deep emotions indeed, but who have good mastery of them and how they relate them to the world. This is exactly analogous to saying that the thinkers best adapted to the world are the ones who have the greatest depth of thinking and good mastery of their thinking processes - a no-brainer I think/feel lol.

To my mind, the error that we are always at risk of making is to value depth of feeling in isolation to how well we can control our use of that feeling: to feel deeply without control is to be enslaved, and to be in disharmony with the world both inside and outside ourselves. To show how reasonable this is, just change the word 'feeling' for 'thinking' in that sentence and it becomes self evident - so it should be for feeling judgement.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

There's something that's really bothering me about the way this thread is going, and it's the same with almost all threads that talk about feeling - they persist in getting emotion, 'niceness' and feeling judgement all mixed up and switch promiscuously between them quite unjustifiably. Maybe it's me that has got this wrong, but I feel that this sort of discussion simply adds to the ongoing distortion of understanding about what is feeling judgement.

Don't you think this is a bit condescending, John?

We all implicitly accept that we're being imprecise here while attempting to chase a useful abstraction.

This does not mean that we deny the complications or don't acknowledge the liberties taken, and as far as I can see the theories/abstractions are put forward with the express intention of being critiqued and refined.

By contrast, you've come out from on high here, judged our prevailing method unworthy with deft Fe, and then proceeded to dismantle the question and not answer it, or rather provide an unhelpful answer about emotional maturity or control or something.

I was under the impression that @ClevelandINTP asked this specific question very precisely - perhaps to inform the type system he's working on - and so it's not necessary to redefine it for him by guessing his intentions and imputing a whole bunch of motives you imagined.

Now, this is INFJs.com, so I'm going to sound terribly mean and combative because I haven't bothered to Fe this whole thing, but needless to say my respect for you and the way you approach things is undiminished, despite the barbs... ahem*


*Actually, I was thinking why I felt the need for those 'barbs' half way through writing this, and it might be worth exploring.

I think I became concerned that this thread would be derailed by your redefinition, because in my mind what we're doing is fundamentally about seeking effective abstractions (which is why the imprescision of the terms is being tolerated).

This was a concern because of the presentation of your contribution - John K (highly respected) comes in and dismantles the whole thing with magisterial authority disguised by a thin veneer of Fe. I worried that people would just accept what you're saying uncritically because of the rhetorical cache you hold and apply.

Maybe it's because I'm INTJ that I'm sensitive to all applications of power and authority, or maybe it's something else, but your post certainly triggered those 'warning - authority' alarm bells in my mind.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

There's something that's really bothering me about the way this thread is going, and it's the same with almost all threads that talk about feeling - they persist in getting emotion, 'niceness' and feeling judgement all mixed up and switch promiscuously between them quite unjustifiably. Maybe it's me that has got this wrong, but I feel that this sort of discussion simply adds to the ongoing distortion of understanding about what is feeling judgement.

Let me explain my position on this.

Essentially I think you've 'Ti-ed' this process of concept-formation too early.

In this discussion, @ClevelandINTP has invoked a very vague, but nonetheless meaningful concept: 'feely/feelyness'.

We all share an idea of what this might mean and encapsulate - we all have an intuitive understanding of its bounds and limits, even if we aren't quite ready to express them. This is satisfying to our Ni in that we can sense the potential of a very useful and manipulable abstraction which renders a lot of detail into a single concept.

At this early state in the process of concept-formation, the logical (semantic) integrity of the concept isn't important - it will certainly have a lot of unnecessary cultural and personal associations attached to it, but these are being ignored for the time being while we explore what we want to do with it, what we can do with it, and what we ought to do with it. In this way the vagueness and ambiguity is indispensable to the process because in its flux, all associations are potentially useful.

So while a lot of your post advances this process, I want to object to the way you actually decide to try to shut it down or discard it (the beginning and end).

In MBTI terms this is frustrating because it seems like Ti has come in and ended Ni's party without understanding what was actually happening. 'Feely' - as a concept right now - is highly colligated, thus existing at a high-level (and hence exciting) abstraction: there is a beautiful sculpture inside this stone, but we don't yet know what it is - it would be unwise to start hacking at it now with a large chisel.

 

[Infjente]

@Infjente — I think that when it comes to historians and demographers talking about their work, the Si thing can be a bit tricky, because in a sense the methodology supporting their work has to be predicated on reliance on factual data. So you could easily think, "oh, that's Si at work". I think the tell-tale sign is more how they treat this data in their research. An Si-dom will likely take it as their purpose to give as faithful an account of what the data 'tells' them. But this is really not Todd's approach. He's typically interested in coming up with bold, against-the-grain theories based on the data he works with, usually with a predictive dimension that may or may not turn out to be confirmed.

Yeah, I agree, and I tried to be aware of that. In the first video it seemed to me that he was being as precise and generous with the details surrounding his personal history, as he was when discussing his work. I got a sense that history/the past was like the basis for his understanding of himself and the world, and not like "just another part of it" like I feel is more the deal with Se?

What I can grant you is that this element doesn't really come across very strikingly in the video I shared. Perhaps this other video in English of young Emmanuel will be more convincing. Look at this dashing young man

In his 'young video' he appears a lot more intuitive. Like he's aware of that 'something' in the future that we cannot see - like he can see the shadows in the future landscape, but can't tell what (concretely) is casting them. So he's trying to make sense of them by 'reading the contours' of the concrete past, and then make a prediction based on it all. It looks like Fi-Ne-Si to me.

In my head, Ni-Fe-Ti would be more like: "This (concrete and clear) is what will happen because of that (unclear and vague), please don't ask me to explain in details why it'll happen", while Fi-Ne-Si is like: "Bad things will happen in the future (vague) because of this and that (concrete and detailed), please don't ask me to explain exactly what is going to happen". The answers to why and what becomes the goals of their work (although they could probably just ask each other and be done with it).

Also this conference:

Here it looks like he is going through everything he found (concretely) and put together (intuitively), to make 'the unknown' obvious to others. The thoroughness and authenticity is perhaps what makes him look ISTJ to me.

Just my thoughts

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Here it looks like he is going through everything he found (concretely) and put together (intuitively), to make 'the unknown' obvious to others. The thoroughness and authenticity is perhaps what makes him look ISTJ to me.

I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.

The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.

 

[Ren]

The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.

Definitely. With every new big book it seems like he's super energized by his new theory. It's sometimes more on the factual side of things that he falters a bit I think, despite what he might say.

 

[Wyote]

I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.

The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.

Also, let's assume he is INFJ for a moment. As he ages he is going to naturally embody his shadow functions to a greater degree.
So it makes sense that his Ni appears on the surface to fade as time has gone on. But really, he's just gotten better at pulling up all of the functions.
Plus, academia is stressful (I use this term in an indifferent sense) so it will probably force you into that kind of growth.
I wonder if you could witness ISTJs getting caught up engaging in Ni to try and have an edge. Heh.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Definitely. With every new big book it seems like he's super energized by his new theory. It's sometimes more on the factual side of things that he falters a bit I think, despite what he might say.

A good impression of a historian who doesn't really bother with Si (because he isn't institutionally compelled to do so) might be Michel Foucault.

Also, let's assume he is INFJ for a moment. As he ages he is going to naturally embody his shadow functions to a greater degree.
So it makes sense that his Ni appears on the surface to fade as time has gone on. But really, he's just gotten better at pulling up all of the functions.
Plus, academia is stressful (I use this term in an indifferent sense) so it will probably force you into that kind of growth.
I wonder if you could witness ISTJs getting caught up engaging in Ni to try and have an edge. Heh.

Good point, and yeah you're absolutely right.

The institutional demands force you to operate in a certain way.

I know a postdoc at Durham who's a theoretical historian but can't find a permanent job (he's maybe mid-40s, and Norwegian) because he doesn't 'fit' in departments - not philosophical enough for philosophy, not empirical enough for traditional history departments, and without the background in sociology for that. He's been told, too, that he's 'too intellectual' and that this will put off the students he's trying to teach. Hence, if he wants a job he's going to have to output more 'Si-type' work, and this is what he's doing.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I wonder if you could witness ISTJs getting caught up engaging in Ni to try and have an edge.

Lol, I reckon I've seen that.

Giles Constable, the medieval historian, is a 'great compiler of facts', and yet he wrote a book entitled 'The Reformation of the Twelfth Century', implying a reformation in the twelfth century - i.e. a new macroscopic concept. When you start to read it, there's maybe two or three paragraphs in the introduction about the idea, and the rest of it is 'stuff I know about twelfth-century religious history'.

Well I mean he tried.

 

[Wyote]

Lol, I reckon I've seen that.

Giles Constable, the medieval historian, is a 'great compiler of facts', and yet he wrote a book entitled 'The Reformation of the Twelfth Century', implying a reformation in the twelfth century - i.e. a new macroscopic concept. When you start to read it, there's maybe two or three paragraphs in the introduction about the idea, and the rest of it is 'stuff I know about twelfth-century religious history'.

Well I mean he tried.

lmao his brain went into fact overload so hardcore he thought he had intuition, that's cute.
I think this stuff is pretty common, instances of it just aren't really discussed because well, for one it's a pretty niche concept haha.

 

[Infjente]

I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.

The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.

I don't feel understood.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I don't feel understood.

In what way?