"Feeling" & "Thinking"

[Orangey]

The answer to this question is as follows; Feeling is a conscious assessment of emotion. Because it is focused on emotion, it attracts the passions to the psyche and therefore renders all of it higher on emotional content.

That seems to make sense.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So you disagree with what L.Haas & M.Hunziker write in their book about Feeling not being any more emotional than thinking types?

As I have stated in response to Orangey, Feeling in itself is a decision making faculty which isn't emotional, but it leads to a higher emotionality in the psyche because it focuses on emotion as such a decision making faculty is primarily concerned with assessment of the passions.

Feeling is analogous to emotion as a magnet to a metal.(This description excludes the mechanism of assessment of emotion implicit within the faculty of Feeling. The magnet-metal analogy also depicts the relationship between Intuition and imagination, Sensation and what could be sensed, Thinking and what could be analyzed from an impersonal angle.)

 

[edcoaching]

The answer to this question is as follows; Feeling is a conscious assessment of emotion. Because it is focused on emotion, it attracts the passions to the psyche and therefore renders all of it higher on emotional content.

I am perfectly able to focus on the emotions of others without becoming emotional. I've seen Thinking types, on the other hand, get extremely emotional while upholding the logic of their arguments.

In a recent workshop leading a T/F exercise where T/F groups grappled with an ethical dilemma, the Feeling types expressed admiration of the Thinking ability to outline their argument for their preferred path for going forward, the Thinking types expressed their admiration of the Feeling ability to identify all parties concerned and the needs they probably had in the situation. Emotions were not part of the equation. I use this as an example of what I am talking about, not as a "If it's true for these groups it's true for all" use of story...

 

[Orangey]

I am perfectly able to focus on the emotions of others without becoming emotional. I've seen Thinking types, on the other hand, get extremely emotional while upholding the logic of their arguments.

In a recent workshop leading a T/F exercise where T/F groups grappled with an ethical dilemma, the Feeling types expressed admiration of the Thinking ability to outline their argument for their preferred path for going forward, the Thinking types expressed their admiration of the Feeling ability to identify all parties concerned and the needs they probably had in the situation. Emotions were not part of the equation. I use this as an example of what I am talking about, not as a "If it's true for these groups it's true for all" use of story...

What governs the impulse to identify and care for the needs of others, if not emotion?

 

[edcoaching]

What governs the impulse to identify and care for the needs of others, if not emotion?

The rational process of understanding that things go more smoothly when others' needs are met. One doesn't have to have an emotional reaction to want to help, although compassion/pity/etc can be motivating. Thinking types might make the same decision out of the principle of altruism rather than compassion...

 

[redacted]

The rational process of understanding that things go more smoothly when others' needs are met. One doesn't have to have an emotional reaction to want to help, although compassion/pity/etc can be motivating. Thinking types might make the same decision out of the principle of altruism rather than compassion...

the bolded part is by definition thinking, not feeling.

feeling might say, when asked the question "how do you feel about others' needs?", "good". but it takes thinking to rationally assess options of action.

 

[edcoaching]

the bolded part is by definition thinking, not feeling.

feeling might say, when asked the question "how do you feel about others' needs?", "good". but it takes thinking to rationally assess options of action.

Both Thinking and Feeling are rational processes, but it's usually difficult for Thinking types to imagine rationality without logic. Logic can really lead to unwise, even irrational conclusions, especially when people are involved since people don't always act according to logic, to say the least.

Feeling types just use different criteria to work through their rational assessment. Thinking types can feel; Feeling types can think.

 

[redacted]

you may have misinterpreted my point. of course feelers think and thinkers feel. everyone thinks AND feels all the time.

feeling is as logical as thinking -- they're both deductive processes. but feeling uses different ideas as premises, therefore produces different output than thinking.

rationally deciding if you should factor in someone else's feelings is a question that thinking would answer, not feeling.

rationally deciding if someone else's feelings are good is a question that feeling would answer.

 

[edcoaching]

rationally deciding if you should factor in someone else's feelings is a question that thinking would answer, not feeling.

rationally deciding if someone else's feelings are good is a question that feeling would answer.

I think there's two different considerations:

• The Feeling function doesn't rely on emotions for decisions. See below
• If you're constantly stepping into the shoes of others you might more quickly empathetically react to what they are feeing, resulting in an emotional response
• That's different than making emotional decisions. Both T's and F's can make emotional decisions if they don't use the strengths of their function.

Feeling types don't rationally decide IF they should factor in others' _____[it's way more than their feelings]; that's a given to Feeling types. They rationally use how others would feel/react/buy in and then use that data to inform their decisions. It isn't just about values judgments on the good/bad of others' feelings; it's about reading a room, factoring in the importance of harmony or whether the reactions of others might derail an otherwise logical premise. Deciding the relative worth of different alternatives doesn't have to be emotional. Mature Feeling types keep their emotions in check even as they step into the shoes of others to weigh courses of action...

 

[edcoaching]

feeling is as logical as thinking -- they're both deductive processes. but feeling uses different ideas as premises, therefore produces different output than thinking.

Oh, and the Feeling function doesn't rely on logic; it uses other rational processes to discover where logic won't lead to rational conclusions. Our Western cultural bias tends to get us believing that logic always trumps but it isn't so.

 

[Nocapszy]

Western what?

Oh you mean science?

 

[Orangey]

Western what?

Oh you mean science?

I always thought that the western science tradition was more empirical than purely logical.

 

[Nocapszy]

Here we go again. By the definition of objective you've mentioned, all extraverted functions are objective, including objective feeling.

Context is relevant.
In terms of attention, Fe is objective. In terms of content, it is not.
Nice try.

 

[Nocapszy]

I always thought that the western science tradition was more empirical than purely logical.

Not really a serious remark, but you're right. We're beginning (thank fucking god) to get out of that trend. Pure logic is kind of a pain in the dick though (for everyone except us NTPs ).

Modern physics is good fun. Or electronics. Show me a feeling type who fully understands integrated circuitry, and I'll show you a liar.

Concerning that kind of stuff, logic (T) most certainly does trump... whatever it is your F's are claiming Feeling does.

 

[Night]

Oh, and the Feeling function doesn't rely on logic; it uses other rational processes to discover where logic won't lead to rational conclusions. Our Western cultural bias tends to get us believing that logic always trumps but it isn't so.

Agreed, with a slight caveat:

The error in reliability is owed more to instinctual desire to bolster trust within one's community - as a way to establish personal homestead; intermingle resources; collaborate against potential threats...etc.

If one evolutionarily polishes this desire for a few dozen millenniums, we see evidence baptized in our recent footprints - from government structure; economics; education; international relations - our heavy-browed brothers are everywhere. We depend on institutions to give us a basis from which we can then generate our "individual" thoughts...

As such, the error is one of instinct, rather than overt practice.

Logic is simply a mechanical description of pattern. If said pattern follows a falsifiable scheme - voila - an intellectual bylaw is born.

Logic is therefore a joke whose punchline we've long forgotten...

 

[Owl]

Oh, and the Feeling function doesn't rely on logic; it uses other rational processes to discover where logic won't lead to rational conclusions. Our Western cultural bias tends to get us believing that logic always trumps but it isn't so.

I find it interesting that you use the word rational twice in the post above; for the English word 'rational' is derived from the Latin word 'ratio,' (which is itself another English word with some tangential interest, but I digress). My question is this: can a process be rational if it is not logical?

Ratio: a reckoning, account, calculation, computation; that faculty of the mind which forms the basis of computation and calculation, and hence of mental action in general, i. e. judgment, understanding, reason; in rhetoric, a showing cause, argument, reasoning in support of a proposition; in philos. lang., a production of proof, argumentation, reasoning.

What does it mean to say that Feelers use rational processes to come to rational conclusions if they don't rely on logic? That is, if their thoughts and arguments don't obey the laws of logic, (e.g., if it's possible for their premises to be true, yet their conclusions to be false), to what extent are their thoughts and arguments, (if they present any at all), rational? What authority does such a process posses such that it demands belief on pain of being irrational?

I mean, Joe can say, "I feel that phi is true."

And Sally can say, "I feel that not-phi is true."

Of the two above, the rational person ought to believe whom?

It is also interesting to note that the Romans used 'ratio' to translate the Greek word 'logos', from which English derives its word 'logic.'

Agreed, with a slight caveat:

The error in reliability is owed more to instinctual desire to bolster trust within one's community - as a way to establish personal homestead; intermingle resources; collaborate against potential threats...etc.

If one evolutionarily polishes this desire for a few dozen millenniums, we see our ancestors baptized in our present footprints - from government structure; economics; education; international relations - our heavy-browed brothers are everywhere. We depend on institutions to give us a basis from which we can then generate our "individual" thoughts...

As such, the error is one of instinct, rather than overt practice.

Logic is simply a mechanical description of pattern. If said pattern follows a falsifiable scheme - voila - an intellectual bylaw is born.

Logic is therefore a joke whose punchline we've long forgotten...

What error?

Do you mean that the priority assigned to logic in the West is due to an instinctual desire to bolster trust within the community, and logic appears to facilitate that desire? Do you mean that logic is merely a description of the pattern, (of the ultimate reality?), and not the/a means to discover the pattern?

 

[alcea rosea]

One thought came into my mind based on this thread.

Let's say that Feeling functions are not emotion based (but maybe linked to emotions in value level). So, people with F-preference are not any more emotional than people with T-preference. BUT people with F-preference are affected by other people's emotions (they live through somebody else's emotions). So, in this case it would look like the F-preference person who feels what other people are feeling in addition to their own emotions would have more emotions going on than the T-preference person who is not affected by other people's emotions.

So, is there a connection between empathy and F?

 

[Night]

What error?

Do you mean that the priority assigned to logic in the West is due to an instinctual desire to bolster trust within the community, and logic appears to facilitate that desire? Do you mean that logic is merely a description of the pattern, (of the ultimate reality?), and not the/a means to discover the pattern?

Logic is ultimately a series of learned cues designed to stabilize us towards a certain threshold - the specifics of which is relative to the institution one is consigned (academics; politics; theism; etc...)

As such, the error (or strength...) is in our inherent vulnerability to the system by which we are fed our logic.

As human thought is only able to concisely interpret pattern against the directives of his education/intuition (not MBTI; more like visceral intelligence); he is unavoidably distanced from the interrelationships that flutter inches (or miles, depending...) from his intellectual fingertips...

Take our conversation. As we both offer unique insight (funneled extravagantly through subconscious cognitive "filters" (ranging from the simple - how tired/hungry/sick/etc... we are, to the abstract - Aristotelean logic comfort/discomfort; Theistic background; comfort with uncertainty; etc...)), we are each proffering incredible sacrifices to arrive at an approximate accord (comprehension as agree/disagree/uncertain) as a way to increase our individual understanding to achieve an end intimate to our personal desire...

The dramatics of which make legitimate connection/communication nigh impossible...

Think of how profound this problem becomes when we use other people's poetry as our braille.

 

[Orangey]

What does it mean to say that Feelers use rational processes to come to rational conclusions if they don't rely on logic? That is, if their thoughts and arguments don't obey the laws of logic, (e.g., if it's possible for their premises to be true, yet their conclusions to be false), to what extent are their thoughts and arguments, (if they present any at all), rational? What authority does such a process posses such that it demands belief on pain of being irrational?

I mean, Joe can say, "I feel that phi is true."

And Sally can say, "I feel that not-phi is true."

Of the two above, the rational person ought to believe whom?

If they're saying that the term "rational" encompasses non-logical conclusions/decisions, then I can rationally decide that Sally is correct. Just don't ask me why .

On a more serious note, I too fail to see how a conclusion/decision can be non-logical and rational at the same time. Perhaps some sort of subjective logic? Oh, and I don't mean "rational" in the Jungian sense.

Logic is ultimately a series of learned cues designed to stabilize us towards a certain threshold - the specifics of which is relative to the institution one is consigned (academics; politics; theism; etc...)

As such, the error (or strength...) is in our inherent vulnerability to the system by which we are fed our logic.

As human thought is only able to concisely interpret pattern against the directives of his education/intuition (not MBTI; more like visceral intelligence); he is unavoidably distanced from the interrelationships that flutter inches (or miles, depending...) from his intellectual fingertips...

You are saying that logic is a structure that is imposed on our minds through external education? And you believe this to be a limiting structure, in its way?

 

[Night]

You are saying that logic is a structure that is imposed on our minds through external education? And you believe this to be a limiting structure, in its way?

My initial point was to needle logic as a fragile entity.

The manner in which we perceive - as a telescope versus kaleidoscope - offers fundamental obstacles to our decision-making process. We cannot see all the available options to us at any given time. Education is a brilliant step towards mending this deficiency, but isn't to be trusted as a system of pure objectivity, as it was crafted with the same limitations it seeks to correct.


Education is learned conventionality - our best minds guessing together. There is nothing wrong with this. Look how far we've gotten.


Ultimately, perhaps the greatest lesson our perceptions can collectively teach is humility.