The proponents of MBTI consistently refer to Feeler priorities as ``values'' and distinguish that from Thinker priorities. I think the distinction is misplaced. Both Thinkers and Feelers have values, qualities they value most in making decisions about their own plans and activities. They also apply these same values in praising or criticizing other people for living up to those priorities, or else failing to do so.
Feelers tend to criticize Thinkers for being uncaring, while Thinkers tend to criticize Feelers for hypocrisy. It's not that the Thinkers don't care about people, but they value truth and justice over affirmation. Everybody really wants truth to prevail -- especially when lies result in harm to themselves -- and most people are willing to ``live and let live,'' to allow other people the enjoyment of their own lives. This is especially so when people recognize that the tables could be turned, that they could be the recipients of comparable disaffirmation.
The conflict comes when the truth is disaffirming. People often need to know that they are part of the problem, so they can act to correct their participation in it. However, it is unpleasant to receive such criticism, and Feelers empathize with that unpleasantness. Thinkers, on the other hand, consider the truth more important than the fleeting discomfort. This is the fundamental difference between Thinkers and Feelers. Thinkers value the truth over affirmation, and Feelers value affirmation over the truth.
Everybody needs to be affirmed, but some of us don't want it at the expense of truth. Everybody needs the truth, but some people don't want it at the expense of affirmation. That is the fundamental difference between Thinkers and Feelers.
These two values have important social consequences.
The Feelers assert, with significant credibility, that ``people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.'' Telling somebody an uncomfortable truth tends to alienate them, putting them into a defensive posture in which accepting that truth becomes much more difficult. On the other hand, giving them only affirmation deprives them of the information they need to make corrective changes in their actions and plans. Small doses of facts or direction given in a context of large quantities of affirmation seems to work well in a workplace and in learning situations like the public schools. It also works well in health-care environments for encouraging reluctant patients to comply with prescribed therapy. Thus Feelers make better nurses and educators and middle managers. The gender distribution of the labor marketplace reflects that reality.
Science and technology, on the other hand, is about truth. Affirmation is irrelevant and generally counter-productive. The scientific method thrives on disaffirming the presuppositions of the status quo, and trying out new disruptive ideas. Technology works the same way, but focuses on new products rather than the laws of nature. Many of these new ideas don't work, but enough do succeed to make our culture the most prosperous in all of history. As a result, the vast majority of scientists and technologists are Thinkers. Again the labor marketplace reflects the reality of the work being done there.
There is a secondary social consequence of this particular distinction. Science drives technology, and technology drives the creation of wealth in this country and the world in general. Wealth in turn drives the power structure. This gives the Thinkers an unfortunate but significant boost in public stature over Feelers. Thinkers can afford to disaffirm the Feelers, because it is the Thinkers in the position of power, not the Feelers. The Thinkers themselves are less concerned with affirmation, but the Feelers mostly don't understand that, so they continue to lavish affirmation on the Thinkers in a subtle form of obeisance and homage.
Except in the arts and the churches. Successful artists and preachers tend to be Feelers. Preachers especially survive best by affirming their congregation. I suspect popular artists have the same economic motivation. When their art affirms the customer, the customer buys. If not, the artists must find some other way to pay their bills. Thomas Kinkade sells thousands of prints every year, because they give the viewers ``warm fuzzy'' feelings of nostalgia and comfort. Offensive artists like Serrano and Mapplethorpe need the support of rich collectors and government funds.
Movies are a widely patronized art form. Their
economic success is highly dependent on the tastes and whims of the public.
There are a few movies that glorify science, but a much larger proportion
of them paint the scientists and the industrialists as villains.
| << Previous | ToC | Next >> |
Rev. 2008 May 6