"Feeling" & "Thinking"

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Xander

Mind you I'd like to see T and F divided without resort to rationality or logic as most who I've seen lay claim to such titles are the most irrational zealots and to me exude over reation like cheap perfume.

The only really good outcomes are when T's and F's listen to each other's reasoning and calmly come to an optimal position. Of course, any individual can do the same by employing skills developed to tap into the other function. It's called maturity.

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Myers didn't talk about "goodness" or "badness" but about "relative worth." That's why the emotions can stay out of it.

Unless feeling measures worth in a quantified way, as in monetary worth based on market value, then worth is defined emotionally. Something with high worth (of high esteem to ourselves) elicits a positive emotional reaction. If it didn't, then its worth would be diminished. Is there anything of high worth to you that elicits a negative emotional reaction?

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Jung states "For anyone who has known feeling only as something subjective, the nature of extraverted feeling will be difficult to grasp, because it has detached itself as much as possible from the subjective factor and subordinated itself entirely to the influence of the object...the valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or accord with traditional and generally accepted standards."

Jung's definitions of subjective and objective have no relevance here. What I interpret the quoted passage to mean is that extroverted feeling gets its values from outside of the self as opposed to within. As I mentioned before, we need not concern ourselves with the basis of the values themselves, for they don't have any bearing on the emotionality of feeling types.

What I mean is that any function that evaluates worth is dealing in emotional territory, because what is worth if it isn't either quantitative or emotional (and I'm sure the feeling function does not do quantitative market analyses on objects)? The feeling function itself is not emotional. If I valued, say, realism in painting, and I came across a surrealist or Dada painting (not that you do, or that this would be your particular reaction), I would evaluate it according to my values and determine that it is not high in worth in my estimation- I don't like it. The process of determining that would be mechanical and would not involve emotion (it would simply sift my sense data through my own particular filter of values), but as soon as I have made a determination, there would be an emotional reaction. It comes after the judgment. I dislike the painting, therefore I feel negatively towards it (even if only slightly). If I felt nothing about it, how could I say that it was high in worth to me?

I would be interested, edcoaching, to hear your account of why feelers are characterized in all the type descriptions as more emotional. Do you categorically reject them?

[Evan]

i agree with orangey's line of reasoning here.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Orangey

Unless feeling measures worth in a quantified way, as in monetary worth based on market value, then worth is defined emotionally. Something with high worth (of high esteem to ourselves) elicits a positive emotional reaction. If it didn't, then its worth would be diminished. Is there anything of high worth to you that elicits a negative emotional reaction?

At that point, Thinking types have an emotional reaction as well. What I am saying is that the extraverted Feeling mode of determining relative merit based on stepping into the shoes of others can be done, and is often done, without emotion. When I realize that someone really is going to be hurt, sure, emotion kicks in, but it can for Thinking types as well, especially if they disagree with the path being taken.

Originally Posted by Orangey

Jung's definitions of subjective and objective have no relevance here. What I interpret the quoted passage to mean is that extroverted feeling gets its values from outside of the self as opposed to within. As I mentioned before, we need not concern ourselves with the basis of the values themselves, for they don't have any bearing on the emotionality of feeling types.

I actually quoted this passage to highlight Jung's point that it is very difficult for non-Fi's to describe or relate to Fi since they don't communicate the process readily. One of the Fi's I interviewed about this said, "Until I taught preschoolers about faith, and had to get it into simple terms, I'd never been able to talk about those same concepts with adults. They just were, inside me as an image, not something crafted with words."

Originally Posted by Orangey

What I mean is that any function that evaluates worth is dealing in emotional territory, because what is worth if it isn't either quantitative or emotional (and I'm sure the feeling function does not do quantitative market analyses on objects)? The feeling function itself is not emotional.

Your last line--maybe we're actually in agreement here with a bit of a Fe/Ne mixup at attempting to extravert our thoughts and be understood by each other? And I'd say nonquantitative/nonemotional worth involves a sense of knowing that is so tightly tied to schema created through experiences (not unlike the categorical schema used by Te) that the judgment comes instantaneously when things are tied tightly to similar experiences, and with conscious consideration of the schema in more difficult situations.

Originally Posted by Orangey

I would be interested, edcoaching, to hear your account of why feelers are characterized in all the type descriptions as more emotional. Do you categorically reject them?

Which are you reading? My favorites are Lawrence's Description of the 16 Types, created in an iterative process by about 100 people of each verified type; the ones we did through extensive interviewing which were then edited by people of that type; Myers herself who doesn't talk about emotions; Kroeger, whose descriptions are much like mine. I tend to favor ones written by the types themselves or through extensive research with those types, but it's hard to know which those are without background information...

All that said...yeah, feeling types probably feel more free to express emotions partly because it's part of the feminine culture and there are still more female Feeling types...and Jung's descriptions definitely talk about Fe as emotional but he was describing type through the lens of psychiatric treatment--the Te's also sound crazy in his writing!

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

At that point, Thinking types have an emotional reaction as well. What I am saying is that the extraverted Feeling mode of determining relative merit based on stepping into the shoes of others can be done, and is often done, without emotion. When I realize that someone really is going to be hurt, sure, emotion kicks in, but it can for Thinking types as well, especially if they disagree with the path being taken.

Yes it is done without emotion. However, the conclusion you reach as to its merit is emotional by nature, because merit, unless based on some impersonal system of rank, is tied to what makes you feel good. If a thinking type is determining the merit of anything at all, then he/she is not using the thinking function.

Originally Posted by edcoaching

I actually quoted this passage to highlight Jung's point that it is very difficult for non-Fi's to describe or relate to Fi since they don't communicate the process readily. One of the Fi's I interviewed about this said, "Until I taught preschoolers about faith, and had to get it into simple terms, I'd never been able to talk about those same concepts with adults. They just were, inside me as an image, not something crafted with words."

I understand then. I thought you were bringing the issue of subjective/objective up again, which I think just confuses everybody.

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Your last line--maybe we're actually in agreement here with a bit of a Fe/Ne mixup at attempting to extravert our thoughts and be understood by each other? And I'd say nonquantitative/nonemotional worth involves a sense of knowing that is so tightly tied to schema created through experiences (not unlike the categorical schema used by Te) that the judgment comes instantaneously when things are tied tightly to similar experiences, and with conscious consideration of the schema in more difficult situations.

You are still talking about the judgment process itself. This is not emotional. It does not take emotion to use a predetermined system of values to sort sense information into categories, and I think we agree on this point. It's after the judgment that emotion manifests itself. If we haven't judged an object with the feeling function, then how can we have any feelings (emotion) about it? If we decide, via the feeling function, that something falls into the "worthy" category, then it is something that we feel positive emotions about.

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Which are you reading? My favorites are Lawrence's Description of the 16 Types, created in an iterative process by about 100 people of each verified type; the ones we did through extensive interviewing which were then edited by people of that type; Myers herself who doesn't talk about emotions; Kroeger, whose descriptions are much like mine. I tend to favor ones written by the types themselves or through extensive research with those types, but it's hard to know which those are without background information...

I'm referring mainly to the internet type descriptions that say things along the lines of "has a deep inner world of emotions" and so on.

Originally Posted by edcoaching

All that said...yeah, feeling types probably feel more free to express emotions partly because it's part of the feminine culture and there are still more female Feeling types...and Jung's descriptions definitely talk about Fe as emotional but he was describing type through the lens of psychiatric treatment--the Te's also sound crazy in his writing!

Well now we're talking about direct manifestation of emotion, which isn't always an indicator of what one is really feeling. INFP's, for example, say that they can be perceived as cold because they don't display the emotions. I'm sure I'm just repeating information that you know.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Orangey

Yes it is done without emotion. However, the conclusion you reach as to its merit is emotional by nature, because merit, unless based on some impersonal system of rank, is tied to what makes you feel good. If a thinking type is determining the merit of anything at all, then he/she is not using the thinking function.

That's what I'm saying--it actually gets pretty impersonal because the framework of "how will each person be affected? What happens to community?", if you really are Fe it just happens. So merit is less about ranking (not a real F tool) and more about a matrix of knowing the impact.

Originally Posted by Orangey

You are still talking about the judgment process itself. This is not emotional. It does not take emotion to use a predetermined system of values to sort sense information into categories, and I think we agree on this point. It's after the judgment that emotion manifests itself. If we haven't judged an object with the feeling function, then how can we have any feelings (emotion) about it? If we decide, via the feeling function, that something falls into the "worthy" category, then it is something that we feel positive emotions about.

Because Feeling isn't about judging with feelings or emotions. Instead of worth or merit, think "community impact" for Fe and "consistency with who we want to be" for Fi. It gets away with the ranking idea and hints at the complexity of the process.

Originally Posted by Orangey

I'm referring mainly to the internet type descriptions that say things along the lines of "has a deep inner world of emotions" and so on.

There are some really bad ones out there that are stereotypes rather than type descriptions...

Originally Posted by Orangey

Well now we're talking about direct manifestation of emotion, which isn't always an indicator of what one is really feeling. INFP's, for example, say that they can be perceived as cold because they don't display the emotions. I'm sure I'm just repeating information that you know.

If we were in the same room I'd suggest we shake hands.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

The only really good outcomes are when T's and F's listen to each other's reasoning and calmly come to an optimal position. Of course, any individual can do the same by employing skills developed to tap into the other function. It's called maturity.

That much is true. What I meant was that it'd be nice to be able to describe the two functions without resorting to using such subjective words as objective, rational, logical and so forth. It always reminds me of one NTs quote "NFs will always tell you that they ARE logical, but they're not". That statement immediately brought to mind an NFs quote of "If I didn't follow my feelings it wouldn't make them go away and that can make me miserable and depressed so you see it IS logical for me to follow my feelings" now I could not argue with that kind of reasoning. It's not NT but it does have logic to it.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Xander

That much is true. What I meant was that it'd be nice to be able to describe the two functions without resorting to using such subjective words as objective, rational, logical and so forth. It always reminds me of one NTs quote "NFs will always tell you that they ARE logical, but they're not". That statement immediately brought to mind an NFs quote of "If I didn't follow my feelings it wouldn't make them go away and that can make me miserable and depressed so you see it IS logical for me to follow my feelings" now I could not argue with that kind of reasoning. It's not NT but it does have logic to it.

I've found the biggest understandings come when I have T and F groups work through the same decision and record everything they discussed. So often they come to the same place but via radically different paths. We really don't get how the other reasons unless we see it all spelled out. Break into the middle of the process and we start judging each other.

And I won't tell you I'm logical--unless a task requires me to painfully retrieve that skill and chart out my reasoning.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

I've found the biggest understandings come when I have T and F groups work through the same decision and record everything they discussed. So often they come to the same place but via radically different paths. We really don't get how the other reasons unless we see it all spelled out. Break into the middle of the process and we start judging each other.

And I won't tell you I'm logical--unless a task requires me to painfully retrieve that skill and chart out my reasoning.

That was the odd thing about it. The NT I'm refering to is a consultant who regularly gets groups of people to do such things. Now I'd have thought that such observations would be obvious from that standpoint but he maintains his 'bias' (I'm only assuming it's a bias as he's much more experienced than I am).

Oh and the funniest anti "NTs are logical and NFs ain't" has to be when you prod an NT a little too much. Such festering illogical-ness well concealed beneath the surface

I guess that's why NTs tend to make me laugh harder than NFs. Esp INTJs and ENTJs cause half the time they're just looking at you wondering what it was that they said which was so funny. "It's all completely logical, why's he laughing?"