Feeling Function

[Johnny]

I'm extremely fascinated with the feeling function, but I don't really understand it. I am discussing the feeling function on another "Jung" forum, but I want to do this here also and see what we INTPers can make of it. :nerd:

As far as I can surmise, the feeling function, when existing in our conscious minds, is almost entirely about value. Lenore Thomson appears to describe feeling in a similar manner also, "positioning objects within a system of values already constellated", exercising apperception. :nerd: :nerd:

Yet I am not clear on the meaning of value as it pertains to either Jung's psychological theory or Myers-Briggs. All I have to relate to this is (another, *sigh*) Ashley Brilliant cartoon, where 5 guys are wrestling and tumbling near the caption: "Watch Out! You're Stepping On My Values!" :lol:

So how does value get determined? Are those who possess the dominant feeling function looking for answers through value in the same manner as we INTP'ers use our tools of logic, through trial, error, and trial again? Is value a universal system in the manner of Euclidean geometry, or is it entirely personal, based solely upon experience? Could it be possible that there is a quick-and-dirty rule regarding thinking and feeling, that thinking apprehends things while feeling apprehends people? As the feeling function is our inferior function, rarely utilized, often subjugated by our thinking function to the point that it must make herculean efforts to come out and express itself through us, is it our duty to bring the feeling function into consciousness rather than continue honing our thinking function further? Finally, is any discussion on the feeling function, by an INTP, capable of truly capturing the "essence" of the feeling function, or would such an attempt (either consciously or unconsciously on the part of the INTP'er) only subjugate the feeling function once again with the thinking function? :blink:

[Johnny]

Interesting. Jung seems to use the word aesthetics quite a bit when he discusses the feeling function, and people with dominant or auxiliary feeling are often described as sensitive to artistic expression.

I love art as well, but I can't match colors to save my life nor have the sense of aestheticism that I attribute to others. With music I am most keen on rhythm and intonation, but when it comes to expression (e.g. discriminating use of dynamics, accents, vibrato, melody, et al) I am almost lost to using them without guidance or a recording of another to mirror. Or in using your example, a dream I recall may not be what I wished to recall, but I don't think that describes the kind of disturbance you are referring to. Or perhaps some work I offer may suggest verbal artistry to an INFP, but as an INTP I could only reply "Thanks, I was trying to be clever there." :D

To me here's a very good example of a thinking vs. feeling description: one can listen to Edgar Meyer perform his Concerto in D, and then listen to his performance of Bottesini's Concerto no. 2. His own concerto is, of course, virtuosic, but it sounds like he's elaborating on an interesting math equation, where Bottesini's concerto is just downright beautiful.:lol:

What can INTP's do in order to have a better understanding of why this is through the feeling function available within us? What is value and beauty, truly?

[INTrPosr]

As far as I can surmise, the feeling function, when existing in our conscious minds, is almost entirely about value. Lenore Thomson appears to describe feeling in a similar manner also, "positioning objects within a system of values already constellated", exercising apperception. :nerd: :nerd:

Actually like all terminology used by MBTI enthusiast, it is interchangeable. Whereas Fi dominant types do not like their values violated, Ti dominant types do not like their ruling principles violated. They are actually the same. When you look at Fe and Te, they are both similar, except one takes the human factor into consideration, whereas the other sees things in black and white.

[nobarcode]

It's been awhile, but I've spent some time in therapy...group therapy. I definitely got more in touch with my feelings and tried to embrace them (such pop-psycho babble makes me ill), but in the end my feelings still seem to be a chemical reaction to whatever conceptual "event" may or may not be occurring. However, rarely do I express them in any kind of extroverted way.

*edit- Maybe this discussion was meant to be more conceptual, not personal. Eh....I'll leave that up there anyway.

[Johnny]

Oops, you're right! Jung wouldn't allow me to propose anything without the caveat that I'm talking out of my ass...um, I mean, that I am not really capable of ever discribing the feeling function truly in-itself. That's an important consideration, and perhaps I should also throw in this caveat more often (at the very least, to remind myself :D ).


Feeling (in its "pure" form) is ascribed making decisions and judgements based on assessing the related affective impact. Thus when one's focus is upon the related affective impact, "values" (either, personal, societal, or traditional) are highlighted and conscious... I may organize, gauge and judge my experiences, myself or the outer world of objects to these values - abstract quality ideals or conditions.

I think I'm getting the reasoning behind the feeling function as being rational, according to Jung. The feeling function isn't described as a "reception" function, but a "broadcast" function. We exert our values upon our experiences...and use our experiences (however gained) to consciously compose the values we wish to exert on ourselves and others.

There was a while where I thought that the idea of T and F opposing one another could be challenged quite easily. In expressing my Fe within in this forum (where there is a written record and I can go back to "analyze"), when I bring my T function in I'm almost paralyzed and unable to find it useful. I think I end up resorting to sharing experiences, sensory data, and making intuition-flavored statements instead to justify the value I'm expressing. It's quite amusing, actually, because if I were to justify a logical expression as useful I might have to do the same thing! :lol:

[Johnny]

I probably use the "computer" solution most myself, but I can identify with all the resolution strategies ( :laser: :whistle: :devil: ;P :cry: :nerd: :mad: , et al) in the writeup link. It may be because my thinking function isn't differentiated from my feeling function so well that's making it difficult for me to single out a reactive behavior that I favor most, but I think I'm at my most effective in "computer" mode and looking for rationality. Interesting read!