Do we need so much emotions in life?

[Virtual ghost]

The theory would work so long as everyone was on the same page. Seeing as people are rarely on the same page together (yes, even logical T's) I think it wouldn't be better, just different. Too many other factors involved. There are still motivations, and agendas involved.
And for a NF, I'm not so attached to the human race. Convince me on my terms, and I can be just as ruthless, and heartless as any other type (and efficient).
I think the real problem with the world today, is we don't learn from history, we don't focus on the future, and western civilization is far too disconnected from nature.
I don't think whether you are a T or F really comes into play.

Yes it would work, but why are people not on the same page?
If we want to survive we will have to think much more similar to each other.
I am not saying that we should think the same just similar.

I agree about what you see as problems.

Why do you say that you can be

I can be just as ruthless, and heartless as any other type (and efficient).

What you are tring to accomplish with this, the fact that you need to act hartless and ruthless only proves that current system is not enough rational.
If our goal is to try to survive then this kind of behaviour does no make much sense.

 

[Litvyak]

I don't see the point in discussing this topic. Repressing emotions is difficult and unnecessary (very unhealthy, actually), so why do it? Every human being is more or less emotional, and emotions proved to be pretty useful in human evolution. We're better of with them than without them.

(putting that aside, I'd hate to imagine a world without cute NF girls )

What in practical sense means that you don't need to be touched by problems of people, to do something about it.

Oh yes you do. Or at least most people need to be touched to act, they can't be persuaded by simple arguments.

So in the end this means that you will just feed them and aid them until you will not be able to do so any more since there is too many of them.

Better conditons => less children. Look it up.

I think that the world be a better place if the most emotional people are somewhere around 20%T.

Debatable. We could list countless arguments for and against this statement, but why should we? It's nothing that we can change. Furthermore, variability is usually a good choice for most species.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't see the point in discussing this topic. Repressing emotions is difficult and unnecessary (very unhealthy, actually), so why do it? Every human being is more or less emotional, and emotions proved to be pretty useful in human evolution. We're better of with them than without them.
(putting that aside, I'd hate to imagine a world without cute NF girls )

Oh yes you do. Or at least most people need to be touched to act, they can't be persuaded with simple arguments.

Better conditons => less children. Look it up.

First I want to say that this entire thread is highy hypothetical.
Also big picture efects agruments as well and this picture is not included.



Back to the thread.

First you are generalising I never said that in this case we should exterminate emotions completly, I said that we need to reduce their impact.

Just because they have proved useful in our evolution that does not mean that they will be so useful in the future. That is because as tech level is going up some kinds of behaviour are not good options.

We sill have tribe mentality in us but that mentality could lead to total catastrophe. Just take a look at the cold war.

 

[FDG]

I am talking from experiance. My T is extreme and it appears that I am more emotinally stabile then people around me.
The fact that this works for me is plobably because I am extreme introvert and the reason why you have problem with this concept is because you are E.

Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.

I see your point but I disagree.
What I am saying is that more T world probably be more organised and rational. What means that the social system would be like this as well.
Since goals would be more realistic in many cases there should be much less stress and that would change ratio of good and bad emotions.

Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion.

Maybe it is cultural thing, but did you ever encounter people who desperately want something what they can have?
Since they want it so badly they are willing to take chances to get it even if offer is a bad one. Why do you think someone is willing to become a drug lord?

It would be completely rational to become a drug lord if that was what gives the person the highest expected utility. Say a person is not very risk-averse, then becoming a drug lord can be a rather reasonable choice, since profits can be very high. Conversely, a feeling type might be disinclined to become a drug lord because it goes against hir morals - no matter what the payoff is.

To get things he could not afford when he was a kid.

That's extremely simplicistic. I doubt most drug lords buy toys for themselves.

I stand by my post since it is highly questionable what is rational and what is emotional in this case. Why all those people have to place so much imperative on their interests? Because someone made them believe that this are their interests.

I don't know man, but your post really seems to be full of non-sequitors. They may just really be their interests, not everybody is brainwshed. Also, thinking types are no less immune to brainwashing than feeling types.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.

As a said few posts ago the point is not that everybody are totally emotionaly stabile.

Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion

That is true but this agrument is based on asumption that we a species have plenty of options. What is not true if you ask me.

It would be completely rational to become a drug lord if that was what gives the person the highest expected utility. Say a person is not very risk-averse, then becoming a drug lord can be a rather reasonable choice, since profits can be very high. Conversely, a feeling type might be disinclined to become a drug lord because it goes against hir morals - no matter what the payoff is.

Or T would find it ilogical and F would want more money.
I think that in this kinds of things there is not too much difference.

That's extremely simplicistic. I doubt most drug lords buy toys for themselves.

I think that everything they buy more of less is for some kind entertainment even when they buy a complany, that in a way for entertanment.

don't know man, but your post really seems to be full of non-sequitors. They may just really be their interests, not everybody is brainwshed. Also, thinking types are no less immune to brainwashing than feeling types.

To tell you the truth I am not too sure about this one. F are more likely to have "get along" strategy then Ts
It is easy when things are clear but when things are not that much obvious F will probably be more friendly. I am not saying all F are sheeps that just waiting to be brainwashed.
When you say brain washed that sounds like something that can be linked to politics. But what about modern advertising technics?


I did not open this thread to make a some strong inflexible point. It is just that it look to me that we will need to push entire spectrum towards the T side. Since that is only way to prevent getting lost in our own game.

 

[ThatGirl]

I didnt read the whole thread so I will just go with what I know is true here. Feelings distort everything. They are NOT important and should not be aknowledged as anything more than a sensor. Take a perfectly good situation and mask it with feelings and you are bound to have a mess left to clean up as the situation is never properly handeled due to compensation.

 

[Frank]

I didnt read the whole thread so I will just go with what I know is true here. Feelings distort everything. They are NOT important and should not be aknowledged as anything more than a sensor. Take a perfectly good situation and mask it with feelings and you are bound to have a mess left to clean up as the situation is never properly handeled due to compensation.

Your kidding right? What do you mean by sensor?

 

[Pancreas]

That is true but I think that things are not that simple.

This is one of my main issues with what you’re saying. What you’re saying could happen, if you don’t let things get too complicated. Also, things would have to go perfectly, and that rarely happens.

What is greed for you ?

Greed is wanting excess. I don’t believe it’s an emotion. You could act upon it using feeling or thinking to make a decision. You could make equally good or poor decisions using either, depending on the people involved and the circumstances.

Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.

Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion.

Good points. Not to mention all the variability you get from one person to the next.

I think that everything they buy more of less is for some kind entertainment even when they buy a complany, that in a way for entertainment

Really? It couldn’t possibly to make more money? Or for any other reaons? You can’t just simply a group of people into one group and then say they make a tonne of different decisions for the same underlying reason.

I did not open this thread to make a some strong inflexible point. It is just that it look to me that we will need to push entire spectrum towards the T side. Since that is only way to prevent getting lost in our own game.

Maybe this is the main reason I disagree with you: I don’t think that you can change human nature by shifting the way most people make decisions slightly. People can still be irrational and illogical, greedy, xenophobic, selfish, etc., no matter whether they have a slight preference for thinking over feeling.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Why do you say that you can be



What you are tring to accomplish with this, the fact that you need to act hartless and ruthless only proves that current system is not enough rational.
If our goal is to try to survive then this kind of behaviour does no make much sense.

What I was trying to put across using rather emotive language, I admit, and rather vaugely, was when presented with a convincing argument with the facts checking out, and gut feeling, I too can put aside feeling, and make the logical desicion. Example, the kids are starving, and we own a cow. I have nothing else to sell, and the cow's milk has dried up. The logical option is sell the cow, and/ or kill it, sell the meat for exchange for seed, or money.
I like the cow, I'm rather attached to it emotionally because I raised it from a calf. Logically speaking it will take more effort and time to sell the cow whole. I know my neighbours will exchange seed for some meat, my kids will get an meal or two sooner rather than later, and plus we have some thing to provide food later. Flawed example I know, but what I was trying to demonstrate, there is no way I'm going to let my feelings for the cow get in the way, of feeding my kids (which by the way I have none, but you get the idea).
As to getting everyone on the same page, world view wise, it would help if the powers that be, actually listened,with an open mind and no agenda, to experts in pertinent fields and varying opinion. If they listened, that would be the first steps.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is one of my main issues with what you’re saying. What you’re saying could happen, if you don’t let things get too complicated. Also, things would have to go perfectly, and that rarely happens.

Things in reality are not simple only people make them look simple by
simplifing them. The question is not about what can be done but what should be done.

Greed is wanting excess. I don’t believe it’s an emotion. You could act upon it using feeling or thinking to make a decision. You could make equally good or poor decisions using either, depending on the people involved and the circumstances.

I disagree. Greed is a emotional need which appears when someone is hurt and insecure. You are using thinking to achive your goals but goal is purely emotional.

Really? It couldn’t possibly to make more money? Or for any other reaons? You can’t just simply a group of people into one group and then say they make a tonne of different decisions for the same underlying reason.

Why would they want money? What they are going to with it?

They need it to buy things they want and large number of them are for pure entertainment. When you have that much money the amount you spend on basic biological needs is small in percentage.
Why would they want so much money in the first place?
They want it so that they can spend it or to get more influence. What is again a form of entertainment.
What I am saying is that our most basic need do not fit the reality we are living in and if we don't start to make more decision on statistics and hard science we will have some serious problems.

Maybe this is the main reason I disagree with you: I don’t think that you can change human nature by shifting the way most people make decisions slightly. People can still be irrational and illogical, greedy, xenophobic, selfish, etc., no matter whether they have a slight preference for thinking over feeling.

What I am doing here in this thread is questioning how long will this behaviour last. From the start of the thread I know how people act, but that does not mean that this is a right choice.

I see that people are taking this this thread purely as philosophical argument but it was not designed to be just that.
I had that part about Africa in the OP for reason and I said that I will not make big arguments but it look I will have to since people don't understand about what kinds of things I am talking about.


Here is a amall part of one of my big posts and I have more of this kinds of arguments but I think this one hits the point.
How would you solve this one?

But parents don’t die when they have children so when you have 2 parents with 2 children you are not at 0 you have 100% increase. The point is not that we will decrease number with time the point is that we are spending more then it can be produced/ regenerated and we are destroying the system by our actions.
In about 2 years from now there will be 7 billion people on this planet. So let’s say that in the next 10 years billion women and billion man will have children. If they have only one child we will have another billion and there is no way that everybody will have just one. Of course old and smaller generations die but world still has a strong surplus.
In a case that we get 1.5 billion of new people and about 0.5 billion dies as old (generation is smaller) we will get an extra billion.

One billion divided in 10(years) = 100 000 000 extra every year. Divide that with 365 and you get about 270 000 per day. What means that you need to build 270 elementary schools for 1000 children each day just to get the most basic education for those children. Not to mention high schools and colleges and place for a job. This is simplified but it is obvious where this leads us.
Plus we are in the middle of global economic crisis, energy crisis and crisis of food and fresh water. I think that forming a logical conclusion about this is really not that hard.

 

[Pancreas]

I disagree. Greed is a emotional need which appears when someone is hurt and insecure. You are using thinking to achive your goals but goal is purely emotional.

Unless you’re generalising the causes of greed, you have to reconsider. When I’m being or feeling greedy it’s usually NOT because I’m hurt or insecure.

Food is a good example nowadays. Yes, people overeat for various reasons, but if you look at overeating due to greed, then some people do it because they like the food, and so eat more. They enjoy the food, so they eat more. Where is the emotion in that?

Ugh, sometimes I wish English had more distinctions between things. Greed is a feeling, perhaps, but not an emotion in the sense that it’s related to feeling functions.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Suggesting that it’s related to F, though, would imply that people who prefer feeling would have more moments of greediness than others (regardless of whether they act upon them). And I think that’s BS.

I see that people are taking this this thread purely as philosophical argument but it was not designed to be just that.

I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say it was probably because it sounds as though you think part of the solution to make the current world better is a shift towards the majority having a slight preference for thinking. Which is simply not going to happen. This is why I’ve approached this as though it were all a hypothetical scenario.

Disregarding that whole ‘preference for thinking’ part though, you present a very interesting question: How are people going to make it through the next few hundred years? My guess would be not very well. I think you could construct and perfect solutions for years, but they simply will not be practical in any sort of large-scale implementation.

They want it so that they can spend it or to get more influence. What is again a form of entertainment.
What I am saying is that our most basic need do not fit the reality we are living in and if we don't start to make more decision on statistics and hard science we will have some serious problems.

Okay, fair point.

Here is a amall part of one of my big posts and I have more of this kinds of arguments but I think this one hits the point.
How would you solve this one?

But parents don’t die when they have children so when you have 2 parents with 2 children you are not at 0 you have 100% increase. The point is not that we will decrease number with time the point is that we are spending more then it can be produced/ regenerated and we are destroying the system by our actions.
In about 2 years from now there will be 7 billion people on this planet. So let’s say that in the next 10 years billion women and billion man will have children. If they have only one child we will have another billion and there is no way that everybody will have just one. Of course old and smaller generations die but world still has a strong surplus.
In a case that we get 1.5 billion of new people and about 0.5 billion dies as old (generation is smaller) we will get an extra billion.

One billion divided in 10(years) = 100 000 000 extra every year. Divide that with 365 and you get about 270 000 per day. What means that you need to build 270 elementary schools for 1000 children each day just to get the most basic education for those children. Not to mention high schools and colleges and place for a job. This is simplified but it is obvious where this leads us.
Plus we are in the middle of global economic crisis, energy crisis and crisis of food and fresh water. I think that forming a logical conclusion about this is really not that hard.

Alright, I’m going to ignore the 20% T bit because, again, there’s no point hypothesising about that when it won’t actually happen, and your main aim is to think up realistic, or at least feasible, solutions.

I’m not sure this is one of the problems you can fix by simply patching it up with duct tape. This is more the kind of problem where you have to chuck out half of what you have and start again.

As it is, the world already has too many people if you’re looking at it from a purely sustainable aspect. The only way that people are going to be sustainable on a large scale is if there are less people.

So I can’t solve that one. I don’t think anyone can.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Unless you’re generalising the causes of greed, you have to reconsider. When I’m being or feeling greedy it’s usually NOT because I’m hurt or insecure.

Food is a good example nowadays. Yes, people overeat for various reasons, but if you look at overeating due to greed, then some people do it because they like the food, and so eat more. They enjoy the food, so they eat more. Where is the emotion in that?

Where is emotion in that?
Maybe in liking of the food?

Ugh, sometimes I wish English had more distinctions between things. Greed is a feeling, perhaps, but not an emotion in the sense that it’s related to feeling functions.

I am well aware of the problem.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Suggesting that it’s related to F, though, would imply that people who prefer feeling would have more moments of greediness than others (regardless of whether they act upon them). And I think that’s BS.

It is related to F but in Fs and Ts. Overal reduction of F could reduce this over the "critical line" and reduce this way of acting by a large degree.
What I am saying is that there is so much greed out there because the foundations of modern society are not based on logic. At least that is how I see it.

I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say it was probably because it sounds as though you think part of the solution to make the current world better is a shift towards the majority having a slight preference for thinking. Which is simply not going to happen. This is why I’ve approached this as though it were all a hypothetical scenario.

Well, all of this is just hypotetical.
What I am saying is that as tech level grows we will need more and more thinking to controle it and if we don't we will have problems(capital problems)
I am perfectly aware that shifting a entire thing toward T part of the speturm is impossble or qute unlikely. But that does not kill an argument that we need more retionality in this world. At least to pulls ourselfs out of this mess.

Disregarding that whole ‘preference for thinking’ part though, you present a very interesting question: How are people going to make it through the next few hundred years? My guess would be not very well. I think you could construct and perfect solutions for years, but they simply will not be practical in any sort of large-scale implementation.

I am not sure that you see at what I am shooting at here.
The moment when majority of people even starts to acknowledge the big picture and its details you are already shifting toward the T (and N).

Alright, I’m going to ignore the 20% T bit because, again, there’s no point hypothesising about that when it won’t actually happen, and your main aim is to think up realistic, or at least feasible, solutions.

Well that 20% we presented just to provide an idea about what I am talking about and I have no intentions to blindly stick to it.

I’m not sure this is one of the problems you can fix by simply patching it up with duct tape. This is more the kind of problem where you have to chuck out half of what you have and start again.

As it is, the world already has too many people if you’re looking at it from a purely sustainable aspect. The only way that people are going to be sustainable on a large scale is if there are less people.

So I can’t solve that one. I don’t think anyone can.

1. Correct.

2. There is too many of them already but the thing is that most of people don't pay almost any attention to it. Finding a perfect solution is extremly unlikely. But at least we can start to think in a way "Save what you can"
What would lead to retionalization to some degree.

 

[Pancreas]

Where is emotion in that?
Maybe in liking of the food?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t get emotionally attached to my food.
It’s sensory, not emotional.

I am not sure that you see at what I am shooting at here.

Yeah, apparently I don’t...

I don’t really have time for a longer post at the moment, either, so I might just leave it at that for now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t get emotionally attached to my food.
It’s sensory, not emotional.



Yeah, apparently I don’t...

I don’t really have time for a longer post at the moment, either, so I might just leave it at that for now.

1. Neither do I, I have even created a thread about this kinds of things.
This is probably because we are both stabile Ts. For me is not sensory, just something that has to be done.


2. If you say so.

 

[Tiltyred]

I think a reasonable Feeler can see that some actions should be taken or not taken for the sake of the greater good. Feelers are not always self-indulgent. I happen to agree about not supporting unsustainable systems and overpopulation and I'm a high F. Some things are sad but true.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think a reasonable Feeler can see that some actions should be taken or not taken for the sake of the greater good. Feelers are not always self-indulgent. I happen to agree about not supporting unsustainable systems and overpopulation and I'm a high F. Some things are sad but true.

I am aware of that. It is just that solutions for some big problems could be in conflict with positions Fs are holding.

I placed that Africa example there for a reason.

Also it is easy to look at this kinds of things from the position of Western culture that has a well developed critical thinking. (more or less)
But the thing is that logic of/in many other parts of the world is quite different.

 

[Tiltyred]

I think T's rule the world, don't they? There are more Ts than Fs, especially in places of power.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think T's rule the world, don't they? There are more Ts than Fs, especially in places of power.

The title is "Do we need so much emotions in life" for a reason since I am attacking emotions in Fs and Ts.
As tech level goes up our responsibility goes up and the only way to control the situation is by reducing impact of things that can be described as personal values.

 

[Tiltyred]

*light bulb goes on*

Ok, I'm listening.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, to create a miodel that will get us out of this mess without saking everything is quite unlikely.

What means that we should at least start to think about things that can be saved. I said that I am attacking F in Ts and Fs but that is incomplete/incorrect statement. What I am attacking is right to make a desision on on a principle "Just because I feel like it" what Fs and Ts do.

Somebody will call it reduction of freedom, I am calling it fight for survival.

In incoming years the undeveloped world will take a hardest hit from making a bad choices. While developed world mostly lost connection with reality.
Developed world lives as ther is no tomorrow in many aspects.


Why have I said that we need some shift towards T?
Exactly because we need more critical thinking to retionalise resource production. But if we do that we have pushed entire thing towards T (and N)

Today people buy plenty of things they don't need. I dont think that in a way that they will use it and enjoy it. I mean they are will not even use it.
I am simply questioning the sanity of this kind of behaviour.


Another example is that your boss will give you a hard time on your job.
But he/she is doing it not because it is he/she trully likes it (in most cases) but because that is in job description and he/she is under pressure form his/her boss etc. So in the end you are getting huge amount of stressed people who can take it even physicaly.
Why so many people need professional help and commit sucide?
If you ask me it is because of they can no longer see the logical purpose.
In a cese they do they would probably try harder and have more energy.



All of this is just because entire system is more or less built on personal belifs and not in a way that it is stabile on the long run. What is by my opinion lack of critical thinking and I think that in this aspects we should almost completly replace compulsive emotional needs with critical thinking.