Processing Emotions Differences between T and F

[Siúil a Rúin]

While the Feeling function is guided by ethics, morality, and reasoning based on subjective systems, the Thinking function values logic, reason, observable and measurable information. Since emotions have a strong subjective component, these are processed differently between the two types of functions. Of course "Feeling" doesn't refer to emotion, so a T or and F preference can have varying degrees of emotional responses in their personality, emotions are viewed and processed differently. How would you describe the differences? How would you describe your own approach based on your preference of F or T?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Thinking Function
My understanding is that people with a T preference tend to place a negative value judgment on any emotion that interferes with functioning or happiness. Because the emotion may be illogical, it is assumed an intrusion, a problem that must be eliminated. The Thinker will apply logic to crush the emotion out of existence. It is like a top-down approach that assumes logic=good, emotion=bad, and this leaves two options for dealing with an unwanted emotion: 1. crush it with logic, 2. compartmentalize it and ignore it. One of the best examples of success in this approach is in the story of the mathematician, John Nash, who had mental illness that caused hallucinations to which he applied logic and learned to dismiss. This is shown in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind". The negative possible consequence is that the emotion or psychological distortion is never fully understood by the individual, and so becomes suppressed psychologically and re-emerges in ways that the individual doesn't understand and may not entirely control. A Thinker can run the risk of psychological repression issues, so that the trouble is pushed down into the subconscious instead of being dealt with in the conscious mind. If the emotion or psychological issue is strong/deep enough, this is a likely outcome which can be expressed in back-wards reasoned passive aggression which the individual isn't conscious of acting out.

Feeling Function
The Feeler is more naturally interested in subjective systems that cannot always be fully, measured and defined. In this way the Feeler is less likely to place an initial value judgment on an emotion or psychological distortion, but to experience and observe it until it is understood. This is a bottom-up approach to dealing with the emotion, by first observing, then analyzing, then attempting to developing strategies for correcting the issue based on its own patterns and rules. The Feeler is more likely to be interested in the emotion and to allow it to run its course, perhaps channeling it into creative expression or another activity. The advantage to this is that the emotion or psychological issue can be addressed at its core and corrected at a deep level. The negative repercussion is that the individual can become "comfortable" with a negative, intrusive state of mind and be more willing to live with it consciously, rather than correcting it, but they will tend to be more conscious of its presence and where it came from.

 

[Fluffywolf]

As someone who has lived a, not sheltered but generally easy going life. I deal with emotions generally through acceptance. I don't dwell on emotions, neither negative or positive, continuously seeking a balanced neutrality in my life.

I feel an emotion, figure out what it means to me through rational thought, decide wether or not anything has to be done about it, lock it up and move on.



Your example of crushing emotion out of existance. Well, I guess that's technically true but it's much less intense as your description makes it out to be. At least for me.

 

[ceecee]

I agree with some of the T assessment, I disagree with some also. I really want to address compartmentalizing emotion. There are times - many in fact - that a person (T or otherwise) isn't going to have the time or the ability to deal with an emotion. That doesn't mean it permanently stays there.

If I can identify the reason for the emotion, I'm going to deal with it at some point because in the end, I don't want them to be there and I don't want negative emotions causing more harm than they already do. If that means I need to make a mess for a relatively short time to deal with them, I'd rather do that. Ignoring a problem solves nothing and if that is crushing emotion with logic, cool.

 

[EJCC]

It's worth noting that a lot of times, for Thinkers, reasoning your way out of the emotion actually DOES get rid of the emotion. For example, I tend to get very angry when I see people doing things that I perceive to be "stupid" or "illogical". And if I'm presented with a reason why those things are NOT "stupid" or "illogical", then I'm not angry anymore. I might be a little embarrassed for having gotten angry in the first place, but that's it.

The other thing I don't relate to:

Thinking Function
My understanding is that people with a T preference tend to place a negative value judgment on any emotion that interferes with functioning or happiness. Because the emotion may be illogical, it is assumed an intrusion, a problem that must be eliminated. The Thinker will apply logic to crush the emotion out of existence. It is like a top-down approach that assumes logic=good, emotion=bad, and this leaves two options for dealing with an unwanted emotion: 1. crush it with logic, 2. compartmentalize it and ignore it. One of the best examples of success in this approach is in the story of the mathematician, John Nash, who had mental illness that caused hallucinations to which he applied logic and learned to dismiss. This is shown in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind". The negative possible consequence is that the emotion or psychological distortion is never fully understood by the individual, and so becomes suppressed psychologically and re-emerges in ways that the individual doesn't understand and may not entirely control. A Thinker can run the risk of psychological repression issues, so that the trouble is pushed down into the subconscious instead of being dealt with in the conscious mind. If the emotion or psychological issue is strong/deep enough, this is a likely outcome which can be expressed in back-wards reasoned passive aggression which the individual isn't conscious of acting out.

I see this as universal. Maybe unhealthy Thinkers are more at risk of this than others, but just about anyone can fall victim to it. Actually, the people who I've seen do this the most have been Fe-doms.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The other thing I don't relate to:

A Thinker can run the risk of psychological repression issues, so that the trouble is pushed down into the subconscious instead of being dealt with in the conscious mind. If the emotion or psychological issue is strong/deep enough, this is a likely outcome which can be expressed in back-wards reasoned passive aggression which the individual isn't conscious of acting out.

I see this as universal. Maybe unhealthy Thinkers are more at risk of this than others, but just about anyone can fall victim to it. Actually, the people who I've seen do this the most have been Fe-doms.

I agree with EJCC here, but I also have to recognize that I don't encounter very complicated emotions in my life in the first place. The emotions I run into also happen to be easy to 'deal with'. Thinking about this from an unhealthy situation, I agree that this can definately be an issue.

At same time I have to wonder, if a T encounters an emotion that they can't seem to deal with healthily, then does that say anything about their T or about another function all together. The way that T deals with emotions in my experience seems to be a rather simple process. For it to fail, it would most definately require another function all together to get in the way of that process.

Then, looking at this from a purely T vs F perspective, including this into the equation would make an unfair representation of the emotion dealing process.

Or perhaps, instead of looking it from a purely T vs F perspective, to deliberatly include other processes into the equition across the board and make this discussion about how each type would deal with emotions. Because while there are definately going to be recognizable similarities in dealing with emotions across the board between all T types. I doubt that these similarities give a sufficiently clear picture of how any individual T in particular deals with emotions. Not to mention that transcending that, the emotion triggering experiences a person has to deal with in their lives, vary enormously even across people of the same type.

An INTP from my perspective living a leisured life, compared to a similar INTP that encounters one hardship after the other, then looking at the process in its full complexity, our methods of dealing with emotions are probably going to differ wildly, even if the methods are fundamentally very similar or at least have very similar starting points. What works for me, probably won't work for the other INTP, who probably requires additional mental tools or avenues for dealing with their emotions healthily.

 

[Totenkindly]

I see this as universal. Maybe unhealthy Thinkers are more at risk of this than others, but just about anyone can fall victim to it. Actually, the people who I've seen do this the most have been Fe-doms.

Yes, it basically amounts to different motivations converging on the same resolution.

(For example, one person might suppress emotion because they feel that emotion confuses them or ruins their intellectual clarity. Another might suppress emotion that runs against their emotion, labeling those emotions as 'bad/bankrupt' and not worth indulging in... ie conflicts with their values.)

As a temporary measure, as ceecee says, suppression isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's when it becomes the 'go to' response with little care or discernment over emotions that are transitory versus deep-seated emotions based on a pervasive and ongoing life problem that a breakdown begins to occur.

 

[Qlip]

For the most part I am always engaged with my emotions primarily, and with the outside world secondarily. Actually, my 'objective' activities are always the end result of a process of constant negotiation with an emotional landscape. Which isn't to say that I don't compartmentalize or negate them, but when I do it for too long it ends up getting myself into a place where I am seriously off center and am in danger of violating my values or find myself with an end result that has no meaning for me.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yes, it basically amounts to different motivations converging on the same resolution.

(For example, one person might suppress emotion because they feel that emotion confuses them or ruins their intellectual clarity. Another might suppress emotion that runs against their emotion, labeling those emotions as 'bad/bankrupt' and not worth indulging in... ie conflicts with their values.)

As a temporary measure, as ceecee says, suppression isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's when it becomes the 'go to' response with little care or discernment over emotions that are transitory versus deep-seated emotions based on a pervasive and ongoing life problem that a breakdown begins to occur.

I used the example of John Nash to show a case of extreme logical reprogramming of thinking upon a serious psychological issue - pronounced mental illness involving hallucinations. This is an important point - the approach that the T takes to processing emotions may be the best approach for their internal framework, while the approach the F takes might be the most effective approach for their internal framework.

I also want to make sure people realize, I separated my post in response to the OP to place it on equal footing with everyone else's response. I didn't want it in the OP because I'm not presenting it as a point of reference any more than anyone's posts. It also contains generalizations that occur at the far end of the spectrum of T processing extreme issues - it won't apply in all cases. Also, the Feeler can get stuck in the bottom-up processing of emotion and never move through it, so it isn't necessarily the model for everyone either.

From one perspective it can just be different approaches which are all of equal value depending on the individual. There is also some question in my mind that if in MBTI theory, the Thinker tends to have a higher skill level with logic and objective systems, then perhaps on average the Feeler will have a higher skill level with subjective systems, which could include emotional processing. As a Feeler, I don't claim to have it all figured out in processing what I've had to experience, so I'm also wondering if others, both Ts and Fs, are conscious of both their personal strengths and weaknesses in emotional processing. I will suggest that it is a rare person (if such a person exists at all) who has it all figured out and processes all their pain and trauma in the perfect, most effective manner at all times.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I will suggest that it is a rare person (if such a person exists at all) who has it all figured out and processes all their pain and trauma in the perfect, most effective manner at all times.

I had a thought, it's not very amazing but might be interesting.

Perhaps T's deal with their emotions flexibly (because they can), while F's resiliently weather their emotions (because they feel the need to do so).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I had a thought, it's not very amazing but might be interesting.

Perhaps T's deal with their emotions flexibly (because they can), while F's resiliently weather their emotions (because they feel the need to do so).

In some cases, this is true. As I was thinking about this topic and various responses, I can see at least four continuums that significantly influence.

1. The T - F continuum, is just one that we are examining here

2. Male - Female aspect of brain compartmentalization is significant, to the extent that the hardware of the brain is structured a little differently in terms of connective tissue between the hemispheres.

3. There is also a continuum that could be named something like Naivete - Trauma. The amount of emotional/psychological "stuff" that needs processing in the first place is significant. In observing people, there is an enormous disconnect between people who process abuse, trauma, severe pain issues and those who have not.

4. In addition to this there is the degree of basic self-awareness - self-obliviousness.

A highly self-aware Thinker woman who has survived trauma will have a different internal system and skill set than a self-oblivious, naive male Feeler, or any other combination of these four parameters. I've also personally used different tools depending on the issue. I've struggled with obsessive thinking when triggered by fear and rejection. I've learned one strategy to deliberately think random thoughts like "bird, red sneaker, twig by a stream, manilla envelope, etc." to break apart the neurological pathways triggered by the fear. That is an example of an relatively objective approach because it is inspired by my understanding of how the brain works as a machine. I can also see use in "demolition therapy" and once tried to start a club with friends where we meet once a week to demolish stuff and learn how to shoot arrows. On a personal level most Thinkers, and in some cases men who are Feelers, tend to dismiss some of my approaches to my emotional processing, which is unfortunate because I have some ideas about my own needs that are insightful and correct. I've tried not to impose my approach on them because I don't think it would necessarily work.

 

[ceecee]

It's worth noting that a lot of times, for Thinkers, reasoning your way out of the emotion actually DOES get rid of the emotion. For example, I tend to get very angry when I see people doing things that I perceive to be "stupid" or "illogical". And if I'm presented with a reason why those things are NOT "stupid" or "illogical", then I'm not angry anymore. I might be a little embarrassed for having gotten angry in the first place, but that's it.

I relate to this very much. I see the T reasoning as different than say, justifying. The reason I may have to compartmentalize something could be because there is a bigger crisis to deal with, other people to deal with or pressing issues...whatever. The stupid and illogical thing I also agree with because it happens just this way somewhat often. If people explain what they're doing and why - there is almost always no issue after that. I never stay mad and I wouldn't be mad at someone because their reasoning was different from mine. If we are working towards the same goal, that's what matters.

 

[Qlip]

I relate to this very much. I see the T reasoning as different than say, justifying. The reason I may have to compartmentalize something could be because there is a bigger crisis to deal with, other people to deal with or pressing issues...whatever. The stupid and illogical thing I also agree with because it happens just this way somewhat often. If people explain what they're doing and why - there is almost always no issue after that. I never stay mad and I wouldn't be mad at someone because their reasoning was different from mine. If we are working towards the same goal, that's what matters.

Mentioning, [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION], since this was a response.

I really don't think it's correct to attribute reasoning and understanding as an investigative process to Thinking. An F'er would do the exact same thing, but they'd call it sympathy/empathy. I'd hazard at saying what we get offended about, and what we reconcile it to is more indicative of the F/T divide than being able to understand the situation.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm aware that I do repress and compartmentalize emotions from time to time... often either because I'm not sure what to do with them, I'm not sure if I CAN deal with them or most importantly, they're counterproductive or illogical

emotions are confusing to me in a way and it usually takes a while to even figure out what I'm feeling, so unless I have a good bit of time set aside for figuring that shit out, I'll push them aside and move on to the next thing

not that this is a good idea... if I'm dealing with too many things there's always the possibility that the dam may break and drown the villages below it

 

[EJCC]

Mentioning, [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION], since this was a response.

I really don't think it's correct to attribute reasoning and understanding as an investigative process to Thinking. An F'er would do the exact same thing, but they'd call it sympathy/empathy. I'd hazard at saying what we get offended about, and what we reconcile it to is more indicative of the F/T divide than being able to understand the situation.

I don't think there was a question of whether Feelers do that. I think there was a question of whether Thinkers do that. I was addressing a particular section of the Thinker description which suggested that it is nearly always suppression when we reason our way out of an emotion.

 

[Coriolis]

While the Feeling function is guided by ethics, morality, and reasoning based on subjective systems, the Thinking function values logic, reason, observable and measurable information. Since emotions have a strong subjective component, these are processed differently between the two types of functions. Of course "Feeling" doesn't refer to emotion, so a T or and F preference can have varying degrees of emotional responses in their personality, emotions are viewed and processed differently. How would you describe the differences? How would you describe your own approach based on your preference of F or T?

You aren't making any distinctions between Te/Ti or Fe/Fi here, and I suspect that is important. For instance, your T description here seems more externally oriented, in terms of what is observable. Not being a Ti user, I can't really say how that operates, but I have read that it is the application of logic to internal mental structures rather than outwardly observable things. Some similar distinction would apply for F.

Thinking Function
My understanding is that people with a T preference tend to place a negative value judgment on any emotion that interferes with functioning or happiness. Because the emotion may be illogical, it is assumed an intrusion, a problem that must be eliminated. The Thinker will apply logic to crush the emotion out of existence. It is like a top-down approach that assumes logic=good, emotion=bad, and this leaves two options for dealing with an unwanted emotion: 1. crush it with logic, 2. compartmentalize it and ignore it. One of the best examples of success in this approach is in the story of the mathematician, John Nash, who had mental illness that caused hallucinations to which he applied logic and learned to dismiss. This is shown in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind". The negative possible consequence is that the emotion or psychological distortion is never fully understood by the individual, and so becomes suppressed psychologically and re-emerges in ways that the individual doesn't understand and may not entirely control. A Thinker can run the risk of psychological repression issues, so that the trouble is pushed down into the subconscious instead of being dealt with in the conscious mind. If the emotion or psychological issue is strong/deep enough, this is a likely outcome which can be expressed in back-wards reasoned passive aggression which the individual isn't conscious of acting out.

I find the above simplistic, but can't exclude the possibility that some T types actually do operate this way. I can describe only what I do. To start, I make a big distinction between the experience of an emotion and the expression of it. I place a negative value not so much on emotions themselves, but on their interference with functioning, particularly decision-making, and on their negative expression. I understand, for example, that people feel anger. It's when they let their anger get the better of them and lose control that it becomes a problem.

I don't apply logic to crush the emotion, but I do use it to try to figure out what has caused the emotion. Especially if it is negative, it suggests some problem that needs to be addressed. I identify that and take steps to address it. Usually this is enough to let the emotion itself dissipate. It has done its job. I therefore don't dwell or focus on the emotion itself, but rather on what it is telling me, all the while working to prevent it from disrupting what needs to be done. This last comes more from habits of self-discipline rather than any explicitly logical process. I suppose a by-product of this approach is that I don't have much appreciation or even vocabulary for emotions themselves. I don't bother trying to describe them, or to differentiate much one from the other, or to examine the sensation of having them in the moment.

I should point out that logic and emotion are not opposites, but rather different beasts entirely. Logic is a process, while emotions are data, inputs to the process. Even a T type cannot make decisions completely separate from emotion, or from Feeling as the subjective judgment function. We need these to tell us what is important, what our priorities are. What I try to avoid is having that one data point - how I feel about something - singlehandedly dictate the outcome. I especially avoid kneejerk reactions to things, since that is most likely a raw emotional response, and has not gone through that logical process along with all the other relevant inputs.

Finally, I do try to keep a tight rein on emotional expressions of all sorts, good and bad. I view my emotions as a private and personal matter, and share them primarily with those close to me. They are no one else's business. This is a good example of where Fi vs. Fe might influence what happens.

 

[Luke O]

I don't deal with emotions very well, I hide how I feel and I don't like talking about how I feel (my experience is that hardly anyone wants to know anyway). I have a hard time dealing with other people's feelings, but I know they need addressing in ways which follows 'logical' rules, it's a different language altogether - so I'll mind what I say, show I care and try to sort it out.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I find it interesting that almost only Ts have decided to respond to this thread. bservation:



In short:


When MBTI test gives me 75% thinking I will say to myself that "Wow I am touchy feely today". While tests with black and white answers are like likely to give me 100% thinking.
Therefore in me feeling are more like a support system that gives me meaning, desire and ambition and wish to push forward. I enjoy good emotions and over the bad ones I reflect since they indicate a problem. Feel free to check the thread about 1s and their anger in enneagram subforum for an example.



I am a person that believes that removing all real life problems will heal almost all of your emotional problems and that emotional problems are almost entirely consequence of problems in environment. Therefore thinking must be used to detect problems in environment as well as interconnections of such problems. Once that is done solution(s) will become pretty much obvious and when they become obvious problem(s) can be removed and with that the emotional problems will disapear as well. However I often have a problem dealing with situations where feeling itself is a solution and this is something that people around me tend to comment. (romance is obvious example of this)

 

[Tennessee Jed]

A comment on the thread in general (IOW, not directed at any one post in particular):

Ti-Doms and Te-Doms may love their T, but they also all have an F function somewhere in their top 4 functions, and they may be quite good at using it. Similarly, I'm an Fi-Dom. As a result, Ti is my bottom-most function. But I know how to use it; I'm not brilliant at it, but I can use my Ti better than many.

A simplistic analogy:

One can make generalizations about the life of dancers (feet-users) versus the life of artisans (hand-users). You do this by looking at dancers and artisans as two separate groups and you make predictions as to how their preference for one or the other affects their life: Artisans will probably be more sedentary than dancers; dancers will probably spend their lives in clubs and have more love affairs than artisans; and so on. But it's more difficult to make generalizations about how this or that dancer uses his hands. After all, dancers have hands, and they know how to use them with at least a minimum level of proficiency. One shouldn't treat the dancers as being handless.

So as others in this thread have suggested, it's one thing to make generalizations about how T works vs how F works. But it's quite a different thing to make generalizations about how T-users use their F or how F-users use their T. Everyone has access to both T and F in varying degrees, and some people can be quite good at using their lower functions.

Also, one has to look at the action of the Inferior function. The Inferior tends to "warp" the use of any given function a bit. For example, here at TypoC we talk a lot about Ti-Doms and their incompetence with Fe. But one can't extrapolate from the example of Ti-Doms and conclude that all Ts are equally incompetent at F in general or Fe in particular. A Ti-Dom's love/hate relationship with Fe is just a reflection of the special status of the Inferior, not a universal template for how all Ts deal with their F.

You aren't making any distinctions between Te/Ti or Fe/Fi here, and I suspect that is important. For instance, your T description here seems more externally oriented, in terms of what is observable. Not being a Ti user, I can't really say how that operates, but I have read that it is the application of logic to internal mental structures rather than outwardly observable things. Some similar distinction would apply for F.[...]

This raises a good point. I/E orientation is going to have a big effect. We're really talking about four separate functions here. I may be quite good at handling emotions inwardly but don't manifest that outwardly (or vice versa). People may see one thing whereas I'm experiencing quite another. Again, that makes it difficult to make generalizations about individual users of these functions and their facility with their lower functions.

[...]I find the above simplistic, but can't exclude the possibility that some T types actually do operate this way. I can describe only what I do. To start, I make a big distinction between the experience of an emotion and the expression of it. I place a negative value not so much on emotions themselves, but on their interference with functioning, particularly decision-making, and on their negative expression. I understand, for example, that people feel anger. It's when they let their anger get the better of them and lose control that it becomes a problem.

I don't apply logic to crush the emotion, but I do use it to try to figure out what has caused the emotion. Especially if it is negative, it suggests some problem that needs to be addressed. I identify that and take steps to address it. Usually this is enough to let the emotion itself dissipate. It has done its job. I therefore don't dwell or focus on the emotion itself, but rather on what it is telling me, all the while working to prevent it from disrupting what needs to be done. This last comes more from habits of self-discipline rather than any explicitly logical process. I suppose a by-product of this approach is that I don't have much appreciation or even vocabulary for emotions themselves. I don't bother trying to describe them, or to differentiate much one from the other, or to examine the sensation of having them in the moment.

I should point out that logic and emotion are not opposites, but rather different beasts entirely. Logic is a process, while emotions are data, inputs to the process. Even a T type cannot make decisions completely separate from emotion, or from Feeling as the subjective judgment function. We need these to tell us what is important, what our priorities are. What I try to avoid is having that one data point - how I feel about something - singlehandedly dictate the outcome. I especially avoid kneejerk reactions to things, since that is most likely a raw emotional response, and has not gone through that logical process along with all the other relevant inputs.

Finally, I do try to keep a tight rein on emotional expressions of all sorts, good and bad. I view my emotions as a private and personal matter, and share them primarily with those close to me. They are no one else's business. This is a good example of where Fi vs. Fe might influence what happens.

This explanation resonates with me. I'm an Fi-Dom but I've gotten pretty good at regulating my emotions with my T over the years (I'm getting on 60 years old). Basically: I experience an emotion. I look at where it's coming from. I decide to give it some weight and act on it, or I blow it off and move on.

More specifically: I see emotions mostly as the result of either boundary issues or emotional bonds*. If it's a boundary issue, then I ask myself if I want to act on it and enforce the boundary. If it's a question of an emotional bond to a personal identity or external idea or person, then I ask myself if it's good or bad and/or something I want to act on.

For example, I have learned over time that I have kind of an enabler/rescuer mentality. Knowing that, I question some emotional attachments that arise within me and I tell myself, "No, forget about it. You know better than to mix yourself up with a person like that." Another example: Some other individual with a history of anger management issues would hopefully across time learn to question his/her irritations and angers and learn to regulate them rather than acting upon them thoughtlessly.

So in my case it's all become kind of T-ish. Emotions are warning bells telling me that something is up and that I may need to act. But I suspect that it's largely a T process as to how I decide to handle the emotion.

_____________
* I did a post about the nature of emotional bonds here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...g-relationships-ltr-marriage.html#post2511151

 

[21%]

I guess it's hard for me to put into words how exactly I process emotions, because as a Feeler, I sort of 'feel' my way around and there is no good way to describe why something 'feels' right.

For me, emotions are emotions. Sometimes they don't really need processing. I always like to know why I feel a certain way, but that's not completely necessary. I'm more interested in the quality of the emotion. What is it like? How do I describe it? It's like looking at the pretty colors through a kaleidoscope. I experience the colors, the patterns, without needing to understand why this piece is where and how it affects the overall pattern.

Sometimes strong, negative emotions are a bit difficult to handle, and these I will try to process, because I don't like them. Most of the time I feel like they are not entirely pure emotions. They are unconscious instincts showing up on the surface (mostly fear). Here I explore what causes the emotion. I explore similar scenarios, both real from the past and imaginary, and see how I felt or would feel and if I can find a pattern. I try to get down to the bottom of it to see exactly what it is made of, in its undisguised form. Most of the time it leads to abstract concepts and existentialistic questions. What is fear? What is death anxiety? What is the self? Of course there are no answers, and eventually, after going down bottomless holes of emotions and sub-emotions, I get a little weary, and I come back up to a more concrete layer. The answer then is, since I don't know, I will make my own meaning. I reconnect with real life elements around me. My thoughts and feelings reach out to people, to the immediate environment, and I feel a connection. What is left then is usually lingering sadness and a strange kind of joy -- of being here, of being alive, of being empowered -- and maybe even compassion that extends to others around me. Then I feel peace.

I guess, to make it short, I 'feel' it through, sometimes with a bit of logic here and there to guide the journey. But it's not exactly 'thinking' about my emotions. It's not a logical puzzle that needs to be solved. The heart drives the process, with the head throwing alternative scenarios in for the heart to experience and explore.