How many people with a preference for Feeling have been offended, for example, during a performance review by a supervisor who details what the employee is doing wrong, and almost as an afterthought finally mentions what she is doing well? If she knows or guesses that the supervisor has a preference for Thinking, she may quickly stereotype him and perhaps all Thinkers as being cold, critical and insensitive.
My choice of pronouns in this post is dictated by the fact that 65% - 70% of males prefer Thinking and 60% - 65% of females prefer Feeling. This is according to "Estimated Frequencies of the Types in the United States Population", a handout published in 1996 by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.
As we've discussed in the previous posts in this series, one of the keys to unlocking stereotypes and trading them in for an accurate picture of the opposite preference is to try to understand why people with that preference behave as they do. It should not just be assumed that everyone's motivation is the same. It is also good to remember that the stereotyped behavior isn't done to be annoying.
Building People, Building Programs, by Gordon Lawrence and Charles Martin, which I mentioned in my post about Introversion and Extraversion, gives a very good example on p. 182 of a misunderstanding which could occur in a staff meeting. Since a preference for Thinking goes hand in hand with valuing precision, it's natural for Thinkers to clarify things said by others in order to get them said in the precise way with which they are most at home. Although it is usually nothing personal, the Thinker's style may come across as critical to someone with a preference for Feeling.
Contributing to this is the fact that explanations provided by those who prefer Feeling may be less direct than a Thinking type prefers. Again it's nothing personal and Feeling types are not trying to be annoying, but
...they value getting a complete picture that shows the interconnection of people and events. Thinking types value a linear, impersonal way of reasoning, and...may dismiss the more inclusive explanation as "fuzzy - minded" rather than seeing the value that the F speaker added to the dialogue.
Those caught up in the discomfort of such a misunderstanding may be surprised to learn what is really at the root of the stereotype that Thinkers are critical and Feelers are soft and/or indirect. The basis of this stereotype is the common, admirable desire of both types to be helpful although in different ways. The Thinking type's approach is to focus impersonally on what needs to be fixed, while the Feeling type's more personal approach is to focus on what is going well or being done right, in hopes that this will encourage the person who will be making the needed improvement.
As we've said in previous posts in this series, stereotypes come from projecting onto others the motives that would cause us to do something, forgetting that what motivates other people may be very different than what motivates us. In this case the Thinker is motivated by impersonal logic while the Feeler's motivation is personal values. It is easy to see someone negatively when what motivates him or her is the opposite of what motivates us and they seem to neglect what we value. According to Building People, Building Programs, "Those people who neglect the values we care about are the ones we most likely will stereotype as immature or having bad motives (p. 184)."
Another basis of the stereotype that those who prefer Feeling tend to use an indirect approach may be the Feeling tendency to repeat things to make their point. A Thinker is more likely to say things only once. This is based on the Feeler's regard for personal values and persuasion and the Thinking type's regard for precise impersonal analysis. When the Thinker doesn't respond to the Feeler's statements, or fails to react to show that he understands, she feels she needs to try harder to persuade him and make a personal connection. Thus the Thinker may stereotype Feelers as repetitive, when simply showing he understands will make Feelers comfortable saying something only once.
There is an even more powerful antidote to stereotyping than trying to understand the behavior of the opposite preference. While that is a good beginning, why not try going a step farther and learning to appreciate those behaviors which initially annoyed us? This will go a long way toward creating a society where people of opposite preferences can cooperate and learn from and help each other. The photo at the end of this post shows a poster which explains how Thinking and Feeling types need each other. As much as some people might hate to admit it, people of opposite preferences really do need each other and the world would be incomplete and even boring without these personality differences.
Building People, Building Programs provides a simple way on p. 184 to turn stereotyping among any of the preference pairs into something more positive if not actually appreciative. With the catchy name The Four As it should be easy to remember. When someone has a negative reaction to someone else due to personality type differences, they should try this method of focusing on the positive value of the opposite preference.
Alert: Recognize your negative reaction,
your irritation, when it happens.
Acknowledge/Appreciate: Look for the
possible positive meaning of the
irritating statement or action, and
acknowledge to yourself or aloud the
potential value of it.
Accept: Accept the statement or action
as if it were positive and helpful.
Ask: Ask the co-worker to say more
to help your understanding.
Although this suggestion is aimed at problems in the workplace I believe it would work in other relationships as well, since whether we work, live, play, worship or go to school together, we're all a team. And that stands for
Together Everyone Achieves More.