Intro: Jungian functions are four (F, T, S, N) not eight (Se, Si, etc… are all types), and about that refer to the theoretical part of Jung Typology. Jung concepts about the functions is actually short for each function and doesn’t go much beyond the obvious, what gives depth to his types is the broad and deep E/I definitions rather than the definitions of the functions. All the definitions are expanded through MBTI, and I also use the Big 5 to expand them as well.
1 – Jung definition
2 – MBTI definitions & MBTI facets description
3 – Feeling on Big Five
1 – Jung definition
Feeling on Jung is related to Judging things based on things you simply like or dislike (“I like this”, “I don’t like that”) and on opinions (“The general feeling was in favor of the proposal.”). Both can be described as judgment of values (what you value and what you don’t value). These values does not relate to ethics on Jung: These notions only became later (so the “my values” thing on an ethical tone on Fi type didn’t existed on Jung). However, Jung did linked empathy with feeling (combined with ‘projection’; We can say that it is combined with Extraversion as well). Being moody also relates with feeling, while emotional, is only indirect related (emotion->affect->feeling).
Notice that Altruism, in Jung, was related to Extraversion, not Feeling. Abstract vs Concrete did belong to E vs I rather than N vs S, while Active did belong to Extraversion and Passive to Introversion, but for some odd reason here Passive did belong to Intuition as well.
Jung description of feeling:
“FEELING. I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions (q.v.). I am unable to support the psychological school that considers feeling a secondary phenomenon dependent on “representations” or sensations, but in company with Höffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Külpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function sui generis.”
Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (“like” or “dislike”).
The process can also appear isolated, as it were, in the form of a “mood,” regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.
Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. Even an “indifferent” sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation.
Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be.
When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect, i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.
Ordinary, “simple” feeling is concrete (q.v.), that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it affective or, as I have done in this book, feelingsensation, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking. Although feeling is, in itself, an independent function, it can easily become dependent on another function—thinking, for instance; it is then a mere concomitant of thinking, and is not repressed only in so far as it accommodates itself to the thinking processes.
It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. Just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) abolishes the differences between things it apprehends, abstract feeling rises above the differences of the individual contents it evaluates, and produces a “mood” or feeling” state which embraces the different individual valuations and thereby abolishes them. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discreteness of things, but only with their universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational (q.v.) function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws.
Naturally the above definitions do not give the essence of feeling— they only describe it from outside. The intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in conceptual terms, since thinking belongs to a category incommensurable with feeling; in fact, no basic psychological function can ever be completely expressed by another. That being so, it is impossible for an intellectual definition to reproduce the specific character of feeling at all adequately. The mere classification of feelings adds nothing to an understanding of their nature, because even the most exact classification will be able to indicate only the content of feeling which the intellect can apprehend, without grasping its specific nature.
Only as many classes of feelings can be discriminated as there are classes of contents that can be intellectually apprehended, but feeling per se can never be exhaustively classified because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, there still exist feelings which resist intellectual classification. The very notion of classification is intellectual and therefore incompatible with the nature of feeling. We must therefore be content to indicate the limits of the concept.
The nature of valuation by feeling may be compared with intellectual apperception (q.v.) as an apperception of value. We can distinguish active and passive apperception by feeling. Passive feeling allows itself to be attracted or excited by a particular content, which then forces the feelings of the subject to participate. Active feeling is a transfer of value from the subject; it is an intentional valuation of the content in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with the intellect. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of the will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. The latter would be undirected, passive feeling, as these expressions themselves show: the one is an activity, the other a passive state. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Strictly speaking, therefore, only active, directed feeling should be termed rational, whereas passive feeling is irrational (q.v.) in so far as it confers values without the participation or even against the intentions of the subject. When the subject’s attitude as a whole is oriented by the feeling function, we speak of a feeling type (v. Type).
21a. FEELING, A (or FEELINGS). A feeling is the specific content or material of the feeling function, discriminated by empathy.” (Carl Jung on Psychological Types, chapter XI, which is the chapter of definitions)
2 – MBTI definitions & MBTI facets description
The definitions on MBTI changed substantially from Jung on feeling, although very few people did actually noticed this. The world values here changed in meaning and it was started relating to ethics (on the cognitive function websites this was explicit; On the MBTI, sort of implicit), so it is no longer what you value in terms of what you like or don’t, but now in terms of with values in terms of ethics and idealism. This was sort of a huge leap. MBTI also introduced the notion of harmony (good addition, in my opinion). But MBTI did expanded sympathy and started to link feeling to “relationship and people orientation”, which can be problematic because this on Jung would be related to Extraversion and sort of is related to Extraversion by definitions, even though MBTI does draw some lines and changes the meaning of “people orientation” on feeling and “people orientation” on Extraversion.
My recommendation here depends on whatever you pretend to use the Big Five or not and how. If you do not want to use the Big Five, then the MBTI additions are good, if you want to use it, then you can either separate some few aspects of feeling to Agreeableness and use Agreeableness and Feeling as separate, or simply merge “Agreeableness and Feeling” in a single dichotomy, but if you do that notice that Thinking won’t “oppose” much on Feeling (like, for example, intellect on Big 5 doesn’t have a negative correlation with Agreeableness). I think it is better to use them separate (some people just ignore Big 5, so…). Also take caution with the people & relationship feeling, since it simultaneously relates to Extraversion and Feeling except if you use very narrow and specific definitions (these can be read on the facets) that are design to avoid Extraversion.
MBTI description of feeling (https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm):
“I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful.”
MBTI facets description of feeling (from https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/descriptions-of-the-mbti-step-ii%EF%BF%BD-facets.222794/):
The Thinking-Feeling Facets
The Five facets of the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy are Logical-Empathic, Reasonable-Compassionate, Questioning-Accommodating, Critical-Accepting, and Tough-Tender.
Logical-Empathic
This core facet of the T-F dichotomy emphasizes the criteria we tend to use to reach a judgment.
Logical
People at this pole understand the world best if it makes logical sense. Objects, events, and statements must be analyzed using reason. If they are internally consistent and logical, they are accepted as true. If not, the issue in question must be either untrue or not understandable. It should therefore be rejected because illogical statements are not worthy of time and attention.
Logical people start with a set of assumptions or facts and use specific rules to make deductions. They assume that universal rules permit such logical deductions. Therefore, when they don’t understand something, they try to find out what the prevailing premises or assumptions are. Even when the other person is unaware of his or her implicit assumptions, the Logical person must discover the relevant premises in order to understand and proceed.
A person at this pole receives a great deal of confirmation that reason is a direct means to accuracy and understanding. This is because many things can be understood logically. Logical people may therefore find it hard to accept contradictory explanations that don’t follow the laws of logic. Their worldview is internally consistent and they expect everything to function in that same consistent way. Even though Logical people may at times be inconsistent in their views of themselves, other people, and the world, such inconsistencies are not bothersome if they do not directly contradict a Logical person’s scheme for understanding things.
When there are several competing viewpoints on a matter, Logical people are likely to be persuaded only by arguments that make logical sense. Facts must support conclusions and must be capable of fitting into the relevant logical scheme. Facts about another person’s emotional state may be just as relevant as “objective” facts. However, they too must fit into a consistent analytical framework. Any inconsistencies in another person’s chain of reasoning weaken the credibility of the other person, the other perspective, or both. This is especially true when the inconsistency is central to the person’s argument. A person at this pole can strongly disagree with another and still have respect for that individual. This is because logic is a personally detached process. The Logical person respects the other person’s ability as a thinker, not his or her viewpoint, because the person is separate from the viewpoint. Being able to think clearly and consistently is a highly valued general ability. Repeated signs of illogic, inconsistency, and contradiction in another’s statements can easily lead to diminished respect.
People at this pole tend to apply generalized and impersonal principles to a broad range of relationships. They value rights, fairness, and reasonableness as standards for making decisions in personal and contractual relationships. They apply these standards for deciding about others, and they expect others to judge them the same way. They view rights and reasonableness as good tools for relationships because they can be consistently, fairly, and logically applied. Everyone involved then knows what to expect from the others.
Empathetic
People at this pole see the world as operating within a rational framework of relationships that link people and things to one another. They view detached logic as only one way (and a limited way) of understanding the world. For Empathic people, relationships, life experience, and personal meanings are what is important. Interactions within these areas are transformative. Thus life and the world are best understood as a drama with characters, themes, and plots. Just as the characters in a novel have distinct motivations and personalities that affect the twists and turns of an evolving drama. For Empathetic people, truth is not separate from people and their lives. It therefore makes no sense to apply logically consistent principles irrespective of the people involved. Understanding of the world comes from the mutual sharing of experiences, so understanding can occur through knowing someone else’s experience and not just one’s own experiences.
Empathic people put logic and reason into their conceptions of how life may be experienced and understood; just as Logical people put empathetic concerns into their logical schemas as a way of understanding them. The use of logic is just another human characteristic among many others. What is known through logic simply takes its place among many other human experiences, modes of understanding, and ways of living. These are all valuable and even necessary for grasping the meaning in life.
Empathetic Intuitive people have an implicit notion that every person’s life is a miniature variation on timeless, universal themes. Sharing a common humanity with others is a central aspect of caring for and staying connected to another person. For Empathetic Sensing people, the central focus is on the ups and downs of people they know or their own significant relationships. Empathy and meaning are grounded in the shared experience of personal histories. However, regardless of their Sensing or Intuitive preference, people at the Empathetic pole value other people for their basic humanness as well as for their worth as unique persons.
Truth for Empathetic people is both personal and universal, a view that is easily understood by Empathic people but difficult for Logical people to accept. Similarly, Logical people may find it difficult to convince Empathic people of the universality and absoluteness of detached logical truth. The inconsistencies in values of the Empathetic person primarily involve relationship issues. Compartmentalizing may be one way of handling these inconsistencies, as in heaving separate, circumscribed contacts with friends who don’t like each other. The Empathetic person may handle differences in more intimate relationships by accepting them as part of the other’s uniqueness as a person. This works best when the differences do not involve key values.
People at this pole pay more attention to the feelings than to the rights of other people. Someone who uses power in the name of “rights” demonstrates heartless self-interest, especially if another person is hurt by this. For the Empathetic person, impacts on people and personal feelings are of far higher value than any rights of standards of fairness that ignore the individuals involved.
Reasonable-Compassionate
This facet emphasizes the standards we use to maintain relationships when we make Thinking or Feeling judgments.
Reasonable
People at this pole tend to see their relationships as primarily task-focused. This includes factoring human needs into one’s problem-solving logic, since each person brings his or her needs into situations. Reasonable people, especially men, often demonstrate caring for others by analyzing and solving problems. They may analyze both the immediate situation and the long-range consequences of proposed solutions. They do not believe that sympathizing is a helpful approach to problem solving and decision making. While they may feel sympathy, they demonstrate their care for others by fixing or modifying things. This may involve adjusting an employee’s work schedule to deal with a family crisis, making exceptions when circumstances arise, or doing something special in recognition of someone’s extra effort.
Being Reasonable means being consistent. When exceptions are made for individuals, they must also be made for others having similar problems. If this does not happen, the making of exceptions is the same as playing favorites. There should be no favorites before the law. For reasonable people, mercy may be equivalent to letting sympathy for one individual overrule principles of fairness.
Reasonable people find it difficult to work for someone who is not consistent. Rewards and punishments from such a person would be divorced from task performance and therefore illegitimate. Reasonable people try to resolve disagreements so that positive or negative consequences are equitably distributed. The fairness in such solutions and the effort it takes to arrive at them are expressions of caring. For the Reasonable person, both giving and receiving fair treatment are ways in which everyone’s worthiness is acknowledged. This is far more important than attending to one’s own or others’ feelings or emotional states, since equity of treatment is independent of oneself or the particular other people involved. Their view is that attending to the feelings won’t really solve anything; it is more helpful to attend to the behavior or help the person see the consequences.
Compassionate
People at this pole see the world as personalized and interconnected rather than impersonal and detached. They therefore pay attention to the unique needs that other people bring to situations. Recognizing each person’s uniqueness is more important than policies, procedures, and rules. Laws, rules, and agreements help define the boundaries of relationships, but they are not their essence. People relate to each other through their shared experience as human beings. Each person has hopes, hurts, dreams, and discouragements that are similar to one’s own. They must be treated with recognition of that fact, not merely with fairness. Compassionate people also care for and about other people in a personalized way. For them, mercy is not spinelessness or an excuse to put sympathy ahead of law. Rather, mercy is the basis on which judgments of another person should be made. It also takes into account unique (and possibly mitigating) circumstances or characteristics of the person, and thus values the person over abstract principles. For the Compassionate person, fairness is not defined as treating everyone the same. Rather, it is judging each person in terms of his or her unique character and circumstances. Failing to take into account another person’s uniqueness when making a judgment hurts the other person as well as oneself. That “no man is an island” (in the poem by John Donne) is one reason that the hurt goes both ways for Compassionate people.
Compassionate judgment is active rather than passive. This quality is shared with the Feeling poles of several of the other T-F facets, specifically the Accepting and Tender facet poles. Both failure to recognize the need for compassion and failure to act compassionately hurt the other person because both failures yield the same outcome.
Finally, Compassionate people respond best in relationships if they are treated sympathetically and compassionately. They highly value being recognized as individuals who are connected to others in a network of friendships. Such recognition validates their uniqueness and the importance of their relationships. Sympathy, pleasantness, and compassion will give rise to devotion and loyalty in them, whereas fairness or mere consistency is unlikely to have such an outcome.
Questioning-Accommodating
This facet focuses on how people deal with differences in point of view as they attempt to arrive at a judgment. It is the part of the judgment-forming process that is involved when the judgments must be shared with others.
Questioning
People at this pole seek detached, impersonal truth. There are three typical motivations involved. The first is to find reasons that make logical sense; when questions, statements, events, or observations don’t fit together logically, Questioning people ask direct questions. They want what others say to be logically consistent with what they already know. Their Questioning approach is not a personal attack or disregard for other people. Rather, it is a attempt to get at objective truth. Questioning people may be somewhat distrustful of others who want them to agree to something before all their questions have been adequately answered. They tend to approach all statements with some degree of skepticism.
Questioning is also a way to solve problems. A Questioning person who prefers Intuition may question established practices, beliefs, information, principles, designs, or even facts. A Questioning person who prefers Sensing may similarly question solutions, changes, predictions, or the likely success of proposed problem solutions. Questioning people believe that there is a logical order to everything. If something is not working, it must be because assumptions about how its parts should go together are wrong. Questioning such assumptions may very well lead to a solution.
A third approach to Questioning is in dealing with other people. Questioning people may raise questions or objections when they are asked to accept or conform to things that don’t make logical sense. They question in order to find a common ground of understanding from which they and the other party can proceed. Truth is independent of personalities for Questioning people. Therefore, their questioning is not intended to disparage another viewpoint or person. If someone cannot satisfactorily answer their questions, however, Questioning people may take offense. Forcing a Questioning person to accept an important decision that has not been thoroughly examined is experienced as an affront to his or her intelligence. Such devaluing of truth is not likely to go unchallenged, and the Questioning person may use sarcasm to communicate his or her disdain. The hurt such a tactic may cause another person is felt to be justified by the offense to truth that has occurred.
Accommodating
For people at this pole, reality is socially defined. Accommodating people are much more concerned with how truth is understood, valued, ad used by others than with an assumed “objective” truth. Their primary focus is on their own and others’ experience and understanding of the world. If a person’s understanding is incorrect, he or she can be gently corrected, but never disparaged. Direct questioning of someone’s statements can be construed as a personal attack. Once that happens, the opportunities for growing a relationship or established consensus are diminished. If their questioning might threaten a relationship or their membership in a group, it is better to trust the statements and motives of others.
People at the Accommodating people may value harmony so highly that they are simply unwilling to question another viewpoint. If differences of opinion occur, they will try very hard to encourage a decision that satisfied everyone. If they are unsuccessful, they will feel somewhat dissatisfied with themselves. Accommodating people also work to ensure that harmony prevails at family gatherings. They will be greatly distressed if other family members are unable or unwilling to make concessions that will keep the peace.
For people at the Accommodating pole, the most important truths are validated by group consensus or by personal relationships. Truth is not separate from people, and groups cannot function well if different perspectives are not accommodated. Agreement and harmony are not merely signs of a good relationship; they are the mortar that keeps it together. Accommodating people avoid hurting other people’s feelings and expect the same consideration from others. Disagreements in intimate relationships are particularly distressing; people at this pole often avoid such disagreements and confrontations by letting matters pass unchallenged. It seems better to preserve the relationship by being agreeable than to risk the relationship itself.
Critical-Accepting
This facet describes what we do after our initial judgment has been made.
Critical
People at this pole are interested in correct what is incorrect and settings things right. They want to get at the truth in order to improve things, situations, or procedures. Their overriding motivation is to make things better; to do this, critiquing is necessary to determine an issue’s relative merits. Then a way to make things better can be devised. For the Critical person, not to critically evaluate is irresponsible. Because truth is more important than others’ feelings, Critical people may not exercise tact in communicating their judgments. They tend to see being honest with themselves and others as kinder in the long run than being untruthful. They usually point out what is wrong before noticing or commenting on what is right. That is because achieving accuracy is a major concern. They believe that there is no point in mentioning things that are all right because it wastes time and will make no improvement. On the other hand, telling someone what they did wrong may help them avoid getting hurt again.
Truth is so valuable to Critical people that they find it distasteful and dishonest when others try to smooth over disagreements or disagree so mildly that their objections are not registered. They do not value merely getting people to agree because that might compromise the truth and make things worse. Hurting someone’s feelings is a small price to pay for needed corrections and improvements. Critical people hold that people can recover from hurt feelings but the consequences of a wrong judgment or decision can hurt many people in the long run.
People at this pole tend to put others’ feelings, viewpoints, and emotional needs into broader contexts than their Accepting counterparts. They are not oblivious to the human factor, but they do not want to lower their standards or forget what they see as truth. They hold themselves and others to very high standards. To suppress the natural competitiveness that accompanies their high standards would be dishonest. For Critical people, collaborating with others or complimenting them simply with a goal or creating harmony compromises their beliefs or values and is disrespectful. However, when absolutely necessary, they can consciously decide to put up with others’ shortcomings and tolerate less-than-optimal standards, performance, or outcomes.
Accepting
For people at this pole, truth is quite different. Accepting people want to affirm a truth that focuses on the value and worth of other people’s ideas and viewpoints. “Objective” judgments about the truth are less important than the truth about other people and their relationships. For an Accepting person, the environment is primarily human and social. Passing critical judgment on someone’s ideas or contributions may harm the person and also destroy the relationship, whereas being open to and accepting of others’ views validates the person and enhances the relationship. Factual or nonpersonal issues are only of passing concern in comparison.
Building up relationships and people is as important to the Accepting person as is avoiding harm. Accepting people, therefore, do not merely tolerate lapses and “deficiencies” in others, they overlook them. Harmony is as essential to human sustenance as sunlight is to living creatures. Even though disharmony may sometimes be unavoidable, it must eventually give way to agreement between people. Acceptance brightens human relations and also nourishes them so they can achieve their full potential.
Acceptance for the person at this pole is a very active response that gives others the space and freedom to be themselves or to be right about an issue. Accepting someone in this way is not weakness, failure to recognize truth, a lack of sound judgment, or a mere passive reaction. Active affirmation of others is so important that it is often maintained despite potential risks to the Accepting person. Risks may range, for example, from financial loss from accepting a spouse’s decision to pursue a dream, to personal disappointment at seeing a child fail when given the freedom to test his or her wings. Accepting people tend to first notice and comment on what is right or well done, and offer correction only secondarily. This helps in accepting and affirming others; they are likely to take a collaborative approach, at times putting their own desires or ambitions aside in favor of those of others.
Tough-Tender
This facet focuses on the impact of our judgment and how we carry out a decision once a judgment has been made.
Tough
People at this pole stand firm in the judgments they have made. This stems from exercising other facets of their decision making in their assessment. For the Tough person, a thorough, well-considered evaluation must result in the best decision that can be made. Compromise is not appropriate under these circumstances, even if it would avoid hurt feelings or outcomes that might hurt some people. A judgment that was honestly and thoroughly processed must stand, regardless of one’s own or anyone else’s personal opinion. Anyone who used the same information and the same judging process would arrive at the same conclusion. It does not matter to Tough people whether those conclusions are popular or welcome. The rightness of a conclusion is independent of both the person making the decision and other people.
Tough people distrust considerations based on feelings, personal attachments, or a desire to maintain warmth and harmony. Judgments based on such criteria play havoc with their trusted decision-making process. Personal considerations should be weighed along with all nonpersonal factors in making a decision. But once a judgment is reached, there is no justification for changing it simply because it is unpopular or may have negative personal impact. In fact, the value of a detached Thinking assessment is that unassailable logical truth can be achieved regardless of personal attachments. Compromising the truth is repugnant for Tough people, even if they themselves experience a negative outcome. They want to “stand firm” behind a decision that they believe in.
Tender
For people at this pole, the effects one’s decision may have on others far outweighs any logical process by which one reaches the decision. Tender judgments focus on the impacts of a decision on people. Tender judgments focus on the impacts of a decision on people. Kindness, caring, and consideration of others are primary concerns in both making a decision and implementing it. Tender people bring warmth and concern for others to decision making because the well-being of people is integral to their decision-making process. Having arrived at a Feeling decision, the Tender person may be just as convinced of the rightness of a conclusion as if the Tough person. However, his or her tenderness, warmth, and gentleness will be used to communicate the decision to others. If that decision is unpopular or hurtful to some of the people involved, the approach of the Tender person includes caring concern for those people. For Tender people, there is no absolutely correct truth apart from the way things affect people. They therefore insist that others be treated with kindness and consideration. People at this pole also respond best when they are treated with the same gentleness and warmth they so willingly give to others.
3 – Feeling on Big Five
Feeling on Big 5 is linked with Agreeableness, but with a weak link. As I said earlier, there are different ways of seeing this: You can merge feeling and agreeableness, even with weak correlations, or see them as separate. Which I recommend? I never decided that even on my own. The good about uniting them is having one index. The bad about uniting them is because agreeableness does have some relationship with someone being “a good person” (more precisely, pro-social, “being good to others”; Agreeableness have weak relationship with Extraversion as well, weak but existent). “But, wait, does T and F relates you being a ‘nicer’ person?” Well, here it is a controversy and a delicate subject, but, well, if you think about ‘bad’ person in terms of disorders, antisocial, sadistic and narcissistic disorders, all of these 3 at least in the correlation department are more pro-Thinking rather than pro-Feeling. The MBTI did have this weird notion (ok, this notion is actually popular) of “intelligent vs good”, where you are either a good person or intelligent person and pushed that to Thinking, but Thinking failed to correlate strongly with intelligence. So, it does exist, but they do some job at trying to counter that by putting some morality things on part of thinking (it is almost always on a fairness vs mercy fashion) which probably helps soft this factor but does not really solve it. In Jungian terms, the empathy related to feeling also pushes towards this as well. The advantage of using them as separate is that this becomes weak (F relationship with being pro-social decreases and gets low – pro-social here doesn’t mean extraversion, rather just being cooperative, kind, etc…), while using them together makes this strong (F-A relationship with being pro-social is very connected). As a whole, even with these entities separates, some MBTI are still “nicer” than others (if you attach F-A then that is definitely).
“What about Neuroticism?” Its true that some studies relates weakly feeling and neuroticism, most don’t. Jung did used the word Neurosis all the time on his Psychological Types book. But for Jung, every type has a Neurosis on its own. Big 5 facet Neuroticism is sort of more mental healthy related rather than a characteristic, even though it is as stable through time as the other ones (so the issues related to it are not really easy to ‘fix’), but it does not do fair to Jung original conception. Facets Anxiety, Depression and Vulnerability are all “emotional-related” so they are related to a Feeling neurosis, while an equivalent neurosis for Thinking doesn’t exist on Big 5 Neuroticism but it does on Personality Disorders and on Jung, even when you take pro-social vs anti-social (not on a E/I sense) out of the table. Immoderation is related to a MBTI P Neurosis, while self-conscious is almost the same as being shy and related to social anxiety, which relates to a sort of Introversion neurosis. Anger-hostility is the one most surprising in terms of stats: Although it is an emotion, it does not relate to Feeling on stats, it doesn’t relate relevantly to anything at all, just points softly towards ISTJ/ESTJ. Another interesting thing is that the happiest type (happiness as “Cheerfulness” facet) and the saddest type (sadness as “Depression” facet) are both feelers, which is naturally because they feel these things with more intensity than thinkers, so if we were to do a graph “How happy are you?” or something like that (with more depth), we would find feelers on both extremes while thinkers being more towards the middle. Actually, the extremes tends to be populated with xxFP types because the facet ‘spontaneous’ does relate to releasing feelings in more a spontaneous way (rather than giving them goals and purposes). This leads to another thing: Emotions. MBTI tried to detach emotions from feeling, probably because of correlations. To be honest, I barely ever truly understood why they are only weakly connected. Big 5 facet ‘emotions’ from Openness to Experience relates only mildly to Feeling, rather than strongly, and when I gathered data I couldn’t help but notice emotional INTPs and INFPs dry on emotions. And the worst thing: Big 5 facet ‘emotions’ is sometimes called ‘feelings’ as well. So, emotions are only weakly connected with feeling from Jung and MBTI (yes, both, using the Dario Nardi test as a reference for Jung, which is not a proper one but better than nothing), and it is not unusual emotional thinkers and unemotional feelers, but I still use, specially to type others (which is a thing that I don’t do usually, I usually take a lot to type others around me, not counting type me threads; When it is fictional characters, I am even lazy about it and search on the web and opinions of others first), emotion as if it were a facet and aspect of feeling. On the tests, I generally mix a bit feeling and emotions and mix a bit Agreeableness and Feeling (generally only on the Modesty and Sympathy facets), but I mostly go through the separation paradigm.
So I will first order the facets of Big 5 in terms of affinity with Feeling, and then create two lists: One as Feeling-Agreeableness as if they were one and listing all facets, and another one with them disconnected as much as possible (sharing only empathy as facet). The correlations can be found here (https://typologytriad.wordpress.com/mbti-enneagram-big-5-correlations/) and here (https://typologytriad.wordpress.com/2020/05/13/cognitive-functions-and-big-5-correlations/), while the Big 5 descriptions I take them from here (http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIPNEOdescriptions.html).
High affinity
Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
Medium affinity
Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people.
Emotionality (Openness to Experience facet). Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly.
Low Affinity (weakly/very mild positive correlated)
Trust [also relates with extraversion)] A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous.
Altruism. [also relates with extraversion] Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment.
Vulnerability [Neuroticism facet]. High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed.
Depression [Neuroticism facet; Also relates with Introversion on statistics]. This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings.
Anxiety [Neuroticism facet]. The “fight-or-flight” system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless.
Artistic Interests [Openness facet; This is way stronger on Intuition]. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts.
NOTE: Morality (or straightforwardness) and Cooperation (compliance) are too mildly to be even considered weakly correlated, although they are seem to be always positive correlated, but too close to zero.
Feeling-Agreeableness (united)
Big Five Facets: Altruism (Agreeableness), Cooperation (Agreeableness), Modesty (Agreeableness), Morality (Agreeableness), Sympathy (Agreeableness), Trust (Agreeableness), Emotionality (Openness to Experience).
MBTI Facets: Empathetic, Compassionate, Accommodating, Accepting, Tender.
Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth.
Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way.
Feeling and Agreeableness (separated)
Another advantage of this separation is that you can supply Agreeableness with HEXACO and forms some sort of pro-social scale (that will get a mild connect with Extraversion). HEXACO does have a emotionality domain as well, but it is more of a blend between Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Feeling (Fearfulness, Anxiety, Dependence, Sentimentality). HEXACO is a personality system based on the Big Five, but with different categories. HEXACO descriptions are taken from here (https://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions). I actually find personality tests that have “I tell the truth” as self-report to be quite unreliable (reason: A 16Personalities internal research where some countries where simultaneously on the top or on the bottom on phrases that were alike these two: “Others around are lie”/ “I tell the truth”) and I think they are more useful as concepts, although I have my own secret ways of trying to figure which types are more or less honest.
So here in this division Feeling and Agreeableness only shares Empathetic/Sympathy facets (one from MBTI and other from Big 5 that are similar) and Dependence/Sentimentality (from Hexaco Emotionality domain), you can throw them to one side or another as you like, but the most sensible is still use these in common (I mostly forget Hexaco to be honest and only consider empathetic/sympathy as common).
FEELING
Big Five Facets: Emotionality (Openness to Experience), Sympathy (Agreeableness).
MBTI Facets: Empathetic, Compassionate, Accommodating, Accepting, Tender.
HEXACO Facets: Dependence (Emotionality), Sentimentality (Emotionality).
The Dependence scale assesses one’s need for emotional support from others. Low scorers feel self-assured and able to deal with problems without any help or advice, whereas high scorers want to share their difficulties with those who will provide encouragement and comfort.
The Sentimentality scale assesses a tendency to feel strong emotional bonds with others. Low scorers feel little emotion when saying good-bye or in reaction to the concerns of others, whereas high scorers feel strong emotional attachments and an empathic sensitivity to the feelings of others.
AGREEABLENESS
Big Five Facets: Altruism, Cooperation, Modesty, Morality, Sympathy, Trust.
MBTI Facets: Empathetic.
HEXACO Domains: Agreeableness (A), Honesty-Humility (HH).
HEXACO Facets: Sincerity (HH), Fairness (HH), Greed Avoidance (HH), Modesty (HH), Forgiveness (A), Gentleness (A), Flexibility (A), Patience (A), Dependence (Emotionality), Sentimentality (Emotionality), Altruism (O).
The Sincerity scale assesses a tendency to be genuine in interpersonal relations. Low scorers will flatter others or pretend to like them in order to obtain favors, whereas high scorers are unwilling to manipulate others.
The Fairness scale assesses a tendency to avoid fraud and corruption. Low scorers are willing to gain by cheating or stealing, whereas high scorers are unwilling to take advantage of other individuals or of society at large.
The Greed Avoidance scale assesses a tendency to be uninterested in possessing lavish wealth, luxury goods, and signs of high social status. Low scorers want to enjoy and to display wealth and privilege, whereas high scorers are not especially motivated by monetary or social-status considerations.
The Modestyscale assesses a tendency to be modest and unassuming. Low scorers consider themselves as superior and as entitled to privileges that others do not have, whereas high scorers view themselves as ordinary people without any claim to special treatment.
The Forgivingness scale assesses one’s willingness to feel trust and liking toward those who may have caused one harm. Low scorers tend “hold a grudge” against those who have offended them, whereas high scorers are usually ready to trust others again and to re-establish friendly relations after having been treated badly.
The Gentleness scale assesses a tendency to be mild and lenient in dealings with other people. Low scorers tend to be critical in their evaluations of others, whereas high scorers are reluctant to judge others harshly.
The Flexibility scale assesses one’s willingness to compromise and cooperate with others. Low scorers are seen as stubborn and are willing to argue, whereas high scorers avoid arguments and accommodate others’ suggestions, even when these may be unreasonable.
The Patience scale [also relates inversely to Neuroticism facet anger] assesses a tendency to remain calm rather than to become angry. Low scorers tend to lose their tempers quickly, whereas high scorers have a high threshold for feeling or expressing anger.
Typology Triad 