[toonia]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

My question is, could such emotion equally disrupt intuition or sensing? When someone loses temper their awareness of their surroundings change, they can punch a wall, not feel it, etc. They can also become oblivious to external information or processing associated with intuition, correct? There is no question that feeling can disrupt thinking, but is this relationship unique when compared to its disruption other traits?

Originally Posted by Fortunato

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

That implies a potentially emotional pairing with any function. Is that a consistent measure for a lesser function? Aren't there people who make inept decisions w/o anxiety? Couldn't someone be so oblivious to feelings that making personalized decisions that affect people would cause no anxiety whatsoever? It could cause discomfort to attempt to apply the wrong function to solve a given problem.

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."

Interesting. However there can be personal relevance w/o emotional ties. For example, one person could look at the table, remember how much it cost, the weight of it moving it through the door, that the leg landed on Jim-Bob's foot and made him holler, and that the scratches resulted from the cat tearing across the house and skidding across the top. The person may see this as emotionally neutral, but that is still their concept. Another non-emotional response could be seeing the table as an archetype. Is that partly an S N difference?

I agree that there are poles of thinking that should be explored. Some of these have to do with personalizing the information. Is it proven that personalizing information is necessarily related to emotional processing? (edit) There is a kind of stubborness of thought, a narrowed perspective encountered very often in people that doesn't 'appear' to have emotional ties. It has to do with faith in certain assumptions. That appears to be more of a polar opposite to logic and reason than emotional processing imo.

The MBTI step II uses logic vs empathy as two polar opposites. In my mind this distills the problem with this system. Empathy in its purest form is highly nuanced information. When I teach, I tend to have a certain degree of empathy for each student. This sometimes occurs without noticing it. When a student first comes to me and is anxious, there is a place in the back of my mind that mirrors this. What is interesting is that it makes me more effective teaching them because it is true and useful information to factor into the equation. The objective is to teach the student certain concepts. By having insight into their mind, its state, strengths, abilities, the path towards achieving this goal becomes clear. I can calm the student initially, because that is an effective first step. If I were not empathetic or aware of the need to accomplish this first step, I would be less effective as a teacher. Empathy contributes to reason and accomplishing a given task. It is information. How can that be a polar opposite of logic?