Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[nolla]

I don't think your responses have been very mature.

If I can't expect him to answer me, I don't have any motivation to argue with him.

You might ask what the hell I am doing here. I don't know, I guess I'm just expressing that I disagree while not going more deeply in the reasons.

And if you think I'm childish because I took ignoring personally... it isn't that personal. I just don't want to waste my time writing stuff that will not be read anyway. That's quite logical, since I have some drinking to be done today.

He drives folks to drink.

 

[Night]

The best thing to do with Bluewing when he starts threads like this one is to ignore him. He thinks that people ought to be more rational, and with that much most would agree. There is no abundance of rationality in the world, and too much irrationality, whether it manifests itself as dogmatism or relativism. However, Bluewing has, rather crudely, latched onto the thinking-feeling distinction from MBTI as a way to distinguish between rationality and irrationalty (there is, perhaps, a noteworthy correlation). In any case, emotions are not the enemy of rationality, and there is no intrinsic competition between feelings and reason. Indeed, even the most calm logician can make errors of reasoning, while an emotive student reasons with impeccable clarity.

I am profoundly passionate about rationality and knowledge, and that is not something which I want to lose. Emotions are not the enemy, they are the motivation.

Pay attention to this post.

 

[Ivy]

The best thing to do with Bluewing when he starts threads like this one is to ignore him. He thinks that people ought to be more rational, and with that much most would agree. There is no abundance of rationality in the world, and too much irrationality, whether it manifests itself as dogmatism or relativism. However, Bluewing has, rather crudely, latched onto the thinking-feeling distinction from MBTI as a way to distinguish between rationality and irrationalty (there is, perhaps, a noteworthy correlation). In any case, emotions are not the enemy of rationality, and there is no intrinsic competition between feelings and reason. Indeed, even the most calm logician can make errors of reasoning, while an emotive student reasons with impeccable clarity.

I am profoundly passionate about rationality and knowledge, and that is not something which I want to lose. Emotions are not the enemy, they are the motivation.

Hell yes.

 

[Little Linguist]

That's sweet of you. Well... honestly... I would like to begin by hammering out a definition of the Feeling function that everyone agrees on. Then Thinking... and then use real-life examples of how Rational decision-making does or ought to incorporate one, the other, or both.

Frankly, I'm largely in agreement with you, though I do feel Thinking ought to play a more substantial role in hammering out details and the larger arcs of the structures. I understand Feeling as crucial to setting up basic understandings from which one can move forward.

I actually need to go off for dinner (it's 9 PM here!) but I promise I'll be back.

All's well that ends well, eh L-square?

Right, hon, no worries! You make a good point which I should have asked before: How are we defining feeling and thinking?

If my assumptions are correct - regarding domestic and foreign policy - I think feeling could be defined as: "Ideologically-based decision making"

Thinking could be defined as: ummm...give me a second here..."Factually-based decision making." (That's an awful definition - maybe you can help me, here).

Assuming that feeling is ideologically-based decision making, one must define to which extent ideology, whether explicit or implicit, affects the decision-making process.

Is it even possible to make a decision that is totally "unbiased"? And how do we define "unbiased"? (e.g.: totally based upon fact without any external influence)? How can we be sure that our decisions are totally based on facts when facts themselves are determined from our own perceptions?

Assuming it is possible, how do we define who fits into this category and who does not? Blue maintains that there is some kind of evaluation system where this is possible, but I challenge him to prove it.

I think that's a fair and rational critique, right?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

My main problem with your policy, BW is that it contains a multitude of shoulds and oughts that seem to me to stem from your personal value judgements.

The difference is those personal values are backed up by analysis. Just like science and religion both have values but science unlike religion also wants to know why we should have such values.

 

[sriv]

Pay attention to this post.

Will do.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Pay attention to this post.

Would you reason better when you are calm and reasoning about a matter that you have very little or no emotional attachment to? Or about a matter concerning your children, your wife, your retirement fund, etc? When all 3 of those may be under attack?

At which time will you wish to submit a sample of your work as a thinker?

Who is less likely to make errors in reasoning, a logician? Or his student in his logic class who happens to be a melancholy poet?

The former seems to show that passions do indeed obtrude our rationale. The latter that the better we are at reasoning clearly(prerequisite for this is learning to put your emotions to the background as otherwise you're unlikely to follow the logical form accurately enough) the less errors in the process we shall make.

 

[Night]

Who is less likely to make errors in reasoning, a logician? Or his student in his logic class who happens to be a melancholy poet?

As I've said before, you must check out Decision Theory. You'd enjoy the numbers and bolts that configure into tiered logical nests.


Context is important when dealing with human interchange, BW. This isn't math. Rarely are important interpersonal decisions so clinically available for examination.

As all probabilities aren't explicitly available, it is illogical to presume that a reasoned paradigm is inherently reasonable in its physical discourse -and- that said discourse will necessarily bring about one's ideal goal.

What is one's ideal goal when dealing with others, BW?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

As I've said before, you must check out Decision Theory. You'd enjoy the numbers and bolts that configure into tiered logical nests.


Context is important when dealing with human interchange, BW. This isn't math. Rarely are important interpersonal decisions so clinically available for examination.

As all probabilities aren't explicitly available, it is illogical to presume that a reasoned paradigm is inherently reasonable in its physical discourse -and- that a reasoned discourse will necessarily bring about one's ideal goal.

What is one's ideal goal, when dealing with others, BW?

That depends on the context as you have mentioned before. We must sit down and analyze each situation the best we can and make the decision appropriate for what we are dealing with. Take it on case by case basis.

As you point out, there are difficulties establishing a system in such a clinical context, yet this does not at all show that these difficulties are insurmountable. Clearly, some will be very difficult to overcome, yet many of them we should be able to conquer. Our hitherto success in philosophy and science seems to attest to this.

 

[Night]

T hat depends on the context as you have mentioned before. We must sit down and analyze each situation the best we can and make the decision appropriate for what we are dealing with. Take it on case by case basis.

Precisely correct. Each scenario provides uniquely individual variables.

As you point out, there are difficulties establishing a system in such a clinical context, yet this does not at all show that these difficulties are insurmountable. Clearly, some will be very difficult to overcome, yet many of them we should be able to conquer. Our hitherto success in philosophy and science seems to attest to this.

I agree.

Efficiency in process is of primary importance, if one desires a conclusion of absolute merit (that is to say, a conclusion absent subjective variables extraneous to one's goal - if this outcome is to be believed as probable).

Stepping back, we need to confront a much larger obstacle.

Refining ourselves to our present problem of ignorance is the first - and greatest - trapdoor to traverse. Unfortunately, this first step must deal with a platform inherently committed to the development of falsifiable data. From objectivity, must objectivity properly develop...

The MBTI is thusly inapplicable for consultation.

 

[Little Linguist]

That depends on the context as you have mentioned before. We must sit down and analyze each situation the best we can and make the decision appropriate for what we are dealing with. Take it on case by case basis.

As you point out, there are difficulties establishing a system in such a clinical context, yet this does not at all show that these difficulties are insurmountable. Clearly, some will be very difficult to overcome, yet many of them we should be able to conquer. Our hitherto success in philosophy and science seems to attest to this.

You know what would interest me Bluey - seriously now? Take three government policies that are closest to your heart - I do not want to impose which ones; you may choose them - and tell me how you would use this rational decision-making process to create policy that is better than the current one. Then we can talk about it. I think you are right when you say we have to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. So choose three and provide alternatives. That would be interesting, and I look forward to your reply.

 

[Little Linguist]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

I was just wondering if people understood the distiction between feelings and the descision making function of Feeling.

?

I have really asked Bluey to first clarify what he means - now I would like him to give me some practical applications. Let's see if the guy responds.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The MBTI is thusly inapplicable for consultation.

The insight we can derive from MBTI so far is that emotions suffocate dispassionate reasoning. In order to think clearly, we must follow the logical form carefully. If we are not dispassionate enough, we will stray from the logical form in favor of embracing chains of reasoning, premises and conclusions favorable to our personal values?



Do you hold for this claim to be false?

 

[miked277]

here's an idea, bluewing you should just create your own type theory. you can call it bwti. all the definitions can be yours and yours alone and your own way of seeing things will lay the foundation upon which all others must build.

that would be more productive than arguing over definitions and/or limitations of mbti. i think you would get a better response by creating something of your own and labeling it as such rather than trying to shit all over mbti(central).

just a thought.

 

[Didums]

here's an idea, bluewing you should just create your own type theory. you can call it bwti. all the definitions can be yours and yours alone and your own way of seeing things will lay the foundation upon which all others must build.

that would be more productive than arguing over definitions and/or limitations of mbti. i think you would get a better response by creating something of your own and labeling it as such rather than trying to shit all over mbti(central).

just a thought.

Genius!

 

[ygolo]

Do you hold for this claim to be false?

It is a multi-part claim. I know this wasn't addressed to me. However, if we are following a universal form, the logic should be the same.

The insight we can derive from MBTI so far is that emotions suffocate dispassionate reasoning.

First, the use of the word "suffocate" either adds no content or makes the statement false if interpreted literally. Emotions do not "suffocate" nor is it possible for dispassionate reasoning to get "suffocated." Therefore giving critical thinking requires interpreting it as an analogy, but I believe it do be redundant.

Second, how is that the type indicator teaches us this? It is simply a test, that by design, places T and F on scale to decide preference. However, as is mentioned often in the literature, scoring an F does not indicate lack of logic. Again, the part about MBTI giving us a particular insight is highly suspect. It also seems irrelevant to the central claim you were making. If MBTI does not give us the insight in question, your statement is false. Therefore, I will remove that part also, and analyze what is left.

If we were to replace it with the statement, "Emotions are incompatible with dispationate reasoning." The statement may appear to be true for the simple reason that being "dispasionate" is incompatible with emotion. However, I submit a paradigm where "calm" is an emotion. It is a state of chemical activity, as are anger, anxiousness, depression, and others. Emotions are simply reflect our internal chemical states.

So at this point, I have interpreted your statement as, "Strong emotions are incompatible with a state of calm."

In order to think clearly, we must follow the logical form carefully.

I interpret thinking clearly to mean thinking accurately. Even if we follow logical form carelessly, we can still be accurate (simply because of prior practice and luck for examples). So once again, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I interpret your statement to mean, "Taking care in our reasoning aids in our accuracy of our reasoning."

If we are not dispassionate enough, we will stray from the logical form in favor of embracing chains of reasoning, premises and conclusions favorable to our personal values?

This part takes the most interpretation. Generally speaking, the choice of premises is the most difficult part of reasoning. Care must be taken to chose a set of premises that are "obvious." This is often a difficult task.

Nevertheless, loosing composure does not necessrily lead to poor reasoning. One reason, is that many people are so well practiced in situations so that they will reason accurately even when their sympathetic nervous system is at full arrousal.

But if I interpret your statement as "Stress is less conducive to accurate reasoning." I would agree with it. However, I have weakened your initial statement a lot to get to that agreement. Since you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove the initial stronger claim.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It is a multi-part claim. I know this wasn't addressed to me. However, if we are following a universal form, the logic should be the same.



First, the use of the word "suffocate" either adds no content or makes the statement false if interpreted literally. Emotions do not "suffocate" nor is it possible for dispassionate reasoning to get "suffocated." Therefore giving critical thinking requires interpreting it as an analogy, but I believe it do be redundant.

Second, how is that the type indicator teaches us this? It is simply a test, that by design, places T and F on scale to decide preference. However, as is mentioned often in the literature, scoring an F does not indicate lack of logic. Again, the part about MBTI giving us a particular insight is highly suspect. It also seems irrelevant to the central claim you were making. If MBTI does not give us the insight in question, your statement is false. Therefore, I will remove that part also, and analyze what is left.

If we were to replace it with the statement, "Emotions are incompatible with dispationate reasoning." The statement may appear to be true for the simple reason that being "dispasionate" is incompatible with emotion. However, I submit a paradigm where "calm" is an emotion. It is a state of chemical activity, as are anger, anxiousness, depression, and others. Emotions are simply reflect our internal chemical states.

So at this point, I have interpreted your statement as, "Strong emotions are incompatible with a state of calm."



I interpret thinking clearly to mean thinking accurately. Even if we follow logical form carelessly, we can still be accurate (simply because of prior practice and luck for examples). So once again, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I interpret your statement to mean, "Taking care in our reasoning aids in our accuracy of our reasoning."



This part takes the most interpretation. Generally speaking, the choice of premises is the most difficult part of reasoning. Care must be taken to chose a set of premises that are "obvious." This is often a difficult task.

Nevertheless, loosing composure does not necessrily lead to poor reasoning. One reason, is that many people are so well practiced in situations so that they will reason accurately even when their sympathetic nervous system is at full arrousal.

But if I interpret your statement as "Stress is less conducive to accurate reasoning." I would agree with it. However, I have weakened your initial statement a lot to get to that agreement. Since you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove the initial stronger claim.

It really is not that complicated. My point was when your emotions run high, it is difficult for you to think clearly.

Do we agree on this.

Lets just work with this for now.

Will slowly get to all the other stuff step by step later.

 

[Sunshine]

It really is not that complicated. My point was when your emotions run high, it is difficult for you to think clearly.

This is true.

If that's your whole point then why drag Myers Briggs Feeling into it?

 

[ygolo]

It really is not that complicated. My point was when your emotions run high, it is difficult for you to think clearly.

Do we agree on this.

Yes, I agree with this. It is indeed difficult for me to think clearly when my emotions run high.

 

[Sunshine]

Yes, I agree with this. It is indeed difficult for me to think clearly when my emotions run high.

Same. Well some of the time...it depends on the emotion...sadness and happiness never seem to affect me in that department. Anger, fear, and frustration seem to though.