# Thread: Theorem of Feel

1. "Modus Feel" is certainly a shitty way to argue. What people often don't realize, though, is that it's pretty easy to convert a Modus Feel argument to a Modus Ponens.

If you can't work backwards (make up premises that entail your conclusion), you suck at argument and shouldn't expect to win any.

2. Let us perhaps consider INTP vs INFP, Ti as the dominant process for one, Fi for the other. If the dominant process in one works well, does its job, is accurate, has whatever positive evaluation of functioning in general you wish to apply, why doesn't the other?

This is not the question of which evaluation system--true, false, good, bad--outranks the other. It is the question, if one type is genuinely effective at what it predominantly does, why isn't another analogously structured type likewise effective? Why isn't modus feel (introverted) as insightful, accurate and real as modus whatever-the-hell-it-is-Ti-types-use? Why isn't it valid in a proper logical sense?

And let ENTJ and ENFJ be the test cases for modus feel (extraverted) being valid. I don't wanna go up against INFJs, they fight dirty.

3. Originally Posted by Kalach
Let us perhaps consider INTP vs INFP, Ti as the dominant process for one, Fi for the other. If the dominant process in one works well, does its job, is accurate, has whatever positive evaluation of functioning in general you wish to apply, why doesn't the other?

This is not the question of which evaluation system--true, false, good, bad--outranks the other. It is the question, if one type is genuinely effective at what it predominantly does, why isn't another analogously structured type likewise effective? Why isn't modus feel (introverted) as insightful, accurate and real as modus whatever-the-hell-it-is-Ti-types-use? Why isn't it valid in a proper logical sense?

And let ENTJ and ENFJ be the test cases for modus feel (extraverted) being valid. I don't wanna go up against INFJs, they fight dirty.
What you're not factoring in is this: just because someone has a dominant feeling function doesn't mean Feeling can somehow do the same kind of thing as Thinking. In good conflict resolution, you must use Thinking, and you must use it well (as well as Feeling).

Anyway, I kinda think Modus anything is silly, as people just believe what they believe and then make up arguments later to make it consistent.

4. Originally Posted by Evan
What you're not factoring in is this: just because someone has a dominant feeling function doesn't mean Feeling can somehow do the same kind of thing as Thinking.
Same kind of thing? What they both do, that'd be the evaluating stuff, wouldn't it? Fi and Ti aren't structured in the same way? Sure, they deal with different entities, but aren't they both systems of subjective evaluation bulwarked, or maybe informed, by Ne?

Ooo, finally a topic that needs both sides of the fence to describe themselves to each other: why are Ti and Fi not isomorphic? And Te vs Fe too?

In good conflict resolution, you must use Thinking, and you must use it well (as well as Feeling).
Well yeah, but who gives a damn? The topic is whether or not Feeling is legitimate as a persistent, substantial, RELIABLE source of judgment, just like thinking.

Anyway, I kinda think Modus anything is silly, as people just believe what they believe and then make up arguments later to make it consistent.
See? Do you see, now? Dirty, dirty fighters. Low and cunning.

5. Originally Posted by Kalach
Same kind of thing? That'd be evaluating stuff, wouldn't it? Fi and Ti aren't structured in the same way? Sure, they deal with different entities, but aren't they both systems of subjective evaluation bulwarked, or maybe informed, by Ne?

Ooo, finally a topic that needs both sides of the fence to describe themselves to each other: why are Ti and Fi not isomorphic? And Te vs Fe too?

Well yeah, but who gives a damn? The topic is whether or not Feeling is legitimate as a persistent, substantial, RELIABLE source of judgment, just like thinking.

See? Do you see, now? Dirty, dirty fighters. Low and cunning.
Feeling is NOT a reliable form of judgment in conflict resolution. It follows rules just like Thinking, but not everyone shares those rules. Thinking is necessary to structure a discussion in any sort of meaningful way (unless the other person can somehow do it for you).

Feeling is also necessary. They just evaluate completely different things.

It's kind of a pointless debate. Both are always necessary. They do different things. A T is likely to be better at one part, an F is likely to be better at the other, but maybe not.

To be clear: Feeling is a reliable form of judgment overall (it always does what it's supposed to do based on its rules ). It's just not particularly useful by itself.

P.S. I'm not fighting dirty. Plus, I'm Ni/Ti-ing, Fe is only flowering up my prose.

6. Originally Posted by Evan
Feeling is NOT a reliable form of judgment in conflict resolution.
So?

It follows rules just like Thinking, but not everyone shares those rules. Thinking is necessary to structure a discussion in any sort of meaningful way (unless the other person can somehow do it for you).
Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual, and far away from their dominant processes, and only really get involved properly in discussion if all the preceding processes are involved meaningfully first?

I suspeculate us IJs (and the EPs) need to watch out a little with assertions of thinking and feeling interdependence because we do have the processes closer together than others, and so what of the poor, suffering EJs and IPs? They seem to function anyway.

Furthermore, what I'm wondering about is F and T as dominant processes and why they should or shouldn't be understood as analogous in operation. Sure, no process does anything much if it isn't balanced by something else, but still, how does an F process do anything? Take Fi for example. It's more properly called personal ethics, isn't it, rather than feeling per se? A particular bout of, say, introverted feeling is transistory, presumably, but the result, given some introspection and suffering or joy or whatever, is some addition to the more long lasting process, Fi, an evaluation!

If we're going to go ahead and say "good" and "bad" as primary evaluations are and always will be merely subjective, then in fact we're ignoring the contribution of other, grounding or verifying processes, like something with a little e attached, Ne, Se, Te, whatever. Besides, ask an INTP and they'll say all "truth" is subjective, if not solipsistic... won't they?

Blah blah blah, and how come Fi isn't a process analogous to Ti in its construction of connections between this Fi (or Ti) entity and that Fi (or Ti) entity? From a formal point of view, why does modus Feel not operate in just the same way as modus Think? That is, does Fi have and use an inference process, or does it not? Surely, it does. Surely?

(*Ditto paragraph for Fe and Te inference here*.)

Feeling is also necessary. They just evaluate completely different things.
Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)

7. ## pwned

Originally Posted by Kalach
So?

Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual,
I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

My gift, to you, as an F dom.

8. Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise
I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

My gift, to you, as an F dom.
That's nice. But this thought process I'm going through here is an Ni product, can't touch this!

And the jab about instinctual thought processes (a) could have used a better adjective, or, like, say, a phrase such as "under minimal conscious control", and (b) wasn't meant to be taken seriously as a theorem, rather as a kind of reductio to shake Evan's faith in thinking.

Incidentally, if INFJs and INTJs get started on this discussion, it's going to go to poo because both sides will be indulging in tertiary temptation romanticisms, the TJs wondering at the glories of feeling and the FJs getting all logical.

So, INFPs, does Fi use rules of inference or what?

9. Originally Posted by Kalach
So?
Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual, and far away from their dominant processes, and only really get involved properly in discussion if all the preceding processes are involved meaningfully first?

I suspeculate us IJs (and the EPs) need to watch out a little with assertions of thinking and feeling interdependence because we do have the processes closer together than others, and so what of the poor, suffering EJs and IPs? They seem to function anyway.!)
Muhahaha! I have let many an unwary EFJ wonder into this trap...
It is sooo eaaasssyyyyy..... (Insert Guilt)
Good point about interdependance of the aux/tert functions.

Originally Posted by Kalach
Blah blah blah, and how come Fi isn't a process analogous to Ti in its construction of connections between this Fi (or Ti) entity and that Fi (or Ti) entity? From a formal point of view, why does modus Feel not operate in just the same way as modus Think? That is, does Fi have and use an inference process, or does it not? Surely, it does. Surely?

Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)
Evan said F has rules. But maybe that is Fe, cause my Fi doesnt have clear rules.

Fi-FOR ME- is more like an energy(unhappiness) minimizing function. It evaluates the localized energy (unhappiness) landscape, identifies areas of low potential energy (low unhappiness) and tries to identify the lowest energy(lowest unhappiness) solution.

What drives this is that Fi acts like a mirror. I sense anothers emotional state as I perceive it and then physiologically mimic it. Fi dislikes pain and likes pleasure as much as the next person. Thus Fi is driven to reduce thier pain so I reduce my own pain. It is a nasty evolutionary trick to enforce empathy me thinks. It is localized as it doesnt feel the pain it doesnt see.

So in a problem, Fi will find the lowest unhappiness solution for the localized enviornment. It is very utilitarian in this approach. Just like a complex energy landscape there may be several solutions that are of equal energy that have to be selected from.

Not like Ti, but still quite practical dependent upon the problem at hand.

10. Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
Given that about half the population makes decisions via "Nonlogical" methods, anytime you are approaching that group you have to assume they are doing this already. So to work with, them convince them, interact with them, you have no choice but to accept some level of "belief". The pure logic of the discussion is beautiful, however practically, this will always be present. .
True, it may be the case that a lot of people will simply have a difficult time reasoning in a deductively valid manner. In fact doing so may be so difficult for them that it would cause them great distress. The distress could be so great that it may not even be worth trying to help them to use this method as the damages will significantly outweigh the assets.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
Evolution and societal pressures pushed us to find the most ideal solution to achieve species permanancy. So, in spite of its flaws, the thoery of feel may be a very practical biological tool. .
It may be and it may not be. It is true that Evolution conditioned us to develop certain instincts to adjust to our environment and ultimately survive. However, we must keep in mind that the instincts that we have now were those that our ancestors needed in order to survive in their environment, they may not serve us well in ours. For example, we may have an instinct to look down when we hear something crawling, no doubt our ancestors found this to be a useful instinct to avoid stepping on snakes. We no longer live in an environment where we must fear snakes, hence this instinct is useless. Some instincts that our ancestors needed may not only be useless for us, but also harmful. Perhaps our male ancestors were forced to kill other males in order to reproduce successfully. This tendency may have been passed down to us in the guise of an instinct of hostility towards other men. Accepting this instinct will not lead us to do anything productive or even conducive to our survival and propagation of our species in the present day. This will only cause us to be in disharmony with many members of society with whom we would be much better served cooperating.

In one sentence, I impugn the claim that just because we have certain instincts, it is necessarily the case that they serve us well because evolution led us to have them.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
Ti seems to form very concrete, logical steps, which are easy to diagram and construct. So for a Ti dom, I can see logical arguments as being instinctual. Why would you discuss or deside any other way?.
I never mentioned that there is a problem with all instinctual thought, just with instincts being the sole item of justification for our conclusion. Using logic properly by virtue of instincts is not the same as using instincts in a whimsical fashion. Bottom line is, as long as your reasoning remains consistent it can be justified by a non-Feel theorem, whether such reasoning derived from instincts or not is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
It seems-from what I have understood-NeTi doesnt happen so cleanly. Chunks of the Ti patterns seem to "crystallize" out of the Ne connections. Then the patterns get more solidified and confirmed. Sometimes the different pieces of Ti actually show up out of order, then get connected in the right order??? So the result looks like Ti logic, but did not start there (still gathering data though, very tentative). Much of this seems to occur under the hood of the concious mind.?.
We cannot control our unconscious thought easily. My suggestion is that we separate the Modus Feel from other rules of logical derivation.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
But as the problem becomes fuzzier and more ill defined, especially involving human uncertainties, then the theory of feel becomes more applicable. The case of religion is an extreme one, however daily dscisions involving the human aspect almost always rely on some level of "feel"..?.
Regarding religion, do you mean that Modus Feel offers a good way to attain knowledge, or a good way to do something beneficial to you? The latter may be the case if it is useful to believe in things that are false, but I do not at all see how Modus Feel could get us the truth. It is the case that religion is not like mathematics and physics where answers could be deduced with clarity and precision, but it does not mean that we are free to assume whatever we would like about religion. For the very least, instead of using Modus Feel we could rely on educated guessing (Inductive Reasoning) and see to what parts of Religious inquiry, if to any, we can apply deductive reasoning.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
I think of Fi as being a math function in which I seek to minimize local unhappiness. Perhaps all of the "feel" could be thought of as complex, fuzzy ill defined tools developed by evolution for complex, fuzzy, ill defined problems."..?.
Perhaps this is where Modus Feel is useful. Very few people who have made the decision to devote their lives to making others happy have done so by logical reasoning. They have arrived there by following their instincts. Such instincts likely were deceiving these people into believing that they are good by nature, or that they can really be helped and so on. Modus Feel, or intellectually dishonest reasoning could be used to convince people that such conclusions are true. Again, this goes back to the previous problem of whether or not Modus Feel leads to beneficial practical results. I think it just might as it can create devoted philanthropists.

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
We are not all designed biologically to be deductive. ..
That is true and this was the point you made in your first paragraph. My question is, is it desirable for us to persuade people to go against their nature and try to reason in a deductively valid fashion as much as possible?

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
You can teach the basics of this, but it will never naturally be the default manner in which some make choices.."..?.
We certainly could inspire people to make choices this way as frequently as possible, but is it worth it?

Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
If they tried I would question thier choices and look for errors, due to faulty reason. An example-when I took quantum, I would understand the concepts very well, understand the math, but would make tiny errors in five page long problems and get the problem wrong. I have learned to use Ti, but would you trust me to design the brakes in your car? In the same light would I trust you to design a course of therapy for a mentally ill patient or put together a marketing campaign? Find the right tool for the job, I'd say....
I would say that deductively valid reasoning is necessary when designing therapy or doing auto-mechanics. It is necessary when doing all tasks, otherwise you are at the mercy of your intuitions regarding the truth of the subject-matter that you are studying. Again, this goes back to my previous point that Modus Feel is desirable only in the regard of convincing people to believe in useful fictions. I cannot imagine how it could be a worthwhile source of knowledge.

Just like in the case of religion, we must rely on deductive and inductive reasoning as much as possible. That is to be decidedly preferred to mere whimsical guessing (Modus Feel). Think about all the tedious reasoning processes counsellors must go through in their classes that prepare them to conduct therapy. Certainly they are taught ways of solving problems about people and their personal lives in a rigorous way, they obviously are not merely being told that they are free to make whatever conclusions they would like about the nature of their patients and their circumstances. The same is the case with mechanics, they obviously are not instructed to assume whatever they'd like about the cars they are supposed to fix. (Modus Feel again).

Originally Posted by Nunki
Modus Tollens is the same thing as Modus Ponens, the only difference being the starting point for its application.?

No, Modus Tollens is distinct from Modus Ponens.

Modus Ponens states the following,

Premise 1:if A then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: B

Modus Tollens states this.

Premise 1: If A then B
Premise 2: Not B
Conclusion: Not A

The two theorems differ in premise 2 and the conclusion.
Originally Posted by Nunki
It's true that some form of Modus Ponens is always necessary in order to have a system, but what you seem to miss is that Modus Feel is a form of Modus Ponens..?
Modus Feel cannot be a form of Modus Ponens as Modus Ponens is a term reserved only to one theorem that I have just discussed in this post.

However, lets explore the thought experiment of whether Modus Feel could be a theorem of any kind.

Principle: The conclusion is true regardless of the premises.

Practitioner of Modus Feel A: X is true, premises are irrelevant.

Practitioner of Modus Feel B: it is true that X is false, premises are irrelevant.

Because Modus Feel engenders a contradiction, it cannot be accepted as a Theorem of any system of logic.

Originally Posted by Nunki
In this case, A = a conviction and B = the truth. By definition, Modus Feel is used consistently: any departure from Modus Feel is something other than Modus Feel...?
So your suggestion is that Modus Feel inheres within all theorems of Logic, even Modus Ponens.

For instance, If A then B. A, therefore B. I have a feeling or a conviction that this is a true conclusion, therefore I am using Modus Feel. No, this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel does not consist in merely involving feelings in your reasoning process, as this is what we all as human beings do inevitably. Modus Feel uses Feeling as not just one criterion for justification, but the only. Modus Ponens does not include Modus Feel because it consistently obeys the rules of its system of derivation and does not rely exclusively on Feelings to support the conclusion it propounds.

Originally Posted by Nunki
All logical systems allow contradictions. Contradictions are simply put in a separate category from the rest of the data. It's a form of inclusion by exclusion....?
Exactly, contradictions are put in a separate category. The fact that they are put in a separate category shows that these contradictions are NOT part of our logic system, in other words they are in a category OTHER than the category of our logic system.

The task of a logician is to construct a system where contradictions are placed in a category separate from the category in which all of his theorems are in.

For instance, if a logician has a theorem that Modus Ponens is an acceptable rule of derivation, it is his responsibility to make sure that he lacks a theorem that Modus Ponens is not an acceptable rule of derivation.

Originally Posted by Nunki
It's impossible for a system not to have those characteristics. A system is made of rules, and any departure from those rules constitutes a new system.....?
A system is merely a combination of rules. All rules must be consistent with each other, if they are not, the system is self-contradictory.

Originally Posted by Nunki
In this case the "mystic" clearly gives precedence to his own feelings. I don't see the inconsistency. The inconsistency only exists when you take someone too literally when they say that feelings prove the truth. When someone says that, they're usually referring to what they feel, or else they would also have to accept all the views that oppose theirs......?
This is not what the mystic that I have in mind does. The mystic that I have discussed is like a typical political or a religious demagogue. He does not merely state that he has a feeling something is true and this feeling is something that noone else has to accept. He asserts that others must believe that he has the truth. This is where the contradiction comes in; when others tell him that they also have a feeling, but it leads to a conclusion that contradicts his, he insists that they are wrong. The contradiction his system engenders is as follows, feelings are indicative of the truth and feelings are not. Namely, his feelings are indicative of the truth and the feelings of those who disagree with him do not.

Originally Posted by Nunki
That's your definition of a good logician. For my part, I don't see anything wrong with someone mixing up the rules every now and then. If you didn't, you would never grow as a human being; you would be stuck with the same perspective, day in and day out.?
The bottom line is, if you have contradictory rules, you will fall short of the truth as your system of logic will not allow you to deduce anything successfully. However, as you say, it may still be good despite this. It may help you grow as a person. That is the main question of my discussion, is Modus Feel, or a contradictory system of logic useful to us even if it is completely useless in the regard of acquisition of the truth.

Originally Posted by Nunki
In what way is an elected set of rules not arbitrary?
They don't have to be non-arbitrary, they just have to be consistent. Though the Classical system of logic was designed in a way that would allow us to analyze arguments of the English language. It allows us to analyze them all. Some logics of computer science allow us to construct computers in such a way that they work efficiently. The bottom line is, our logic will execute whatever plan it has as long as it is consistent. Are the foundations of our logic arbitrary? The principle of consistency certainly is not, as it is an elusive, nearly ethereal essence of thought itself, much like mathematical entities. Are theorems like Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens, arbitrary? Possibly, they are constructs that we created in order to analyze arguments of the English language. Is our wish to analyze the English language arbitrary? To a degree yes, as there is nothing inherent in nature that makes it necessart for us to do such analysis, but it is certainly useful to us.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO