• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Is "Feeling" as RATIONAL as "Thinking"?

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
But this makes interpersonal standards the ultimate authority for Feelers...

That's simply not true. F and T functions exist in concert, not as separate entities. No one can truly be completely "F or T free".

It would be irrational to make that which is fallible your ultimate authority. In this case, were a Feeler rational, it'd be the result of epistemic luck (or grace) that the interpersonal standards to which he subscribed were rational, for there are entire worldviews and communities that are subjective, anti-realistic, and consciously illogical.

Feelings are not necessarily fallible; that's a pretty biased assumption you are making.

And Ti / Te are as equally fallible, and that's ultimately the point. Think of all the "common" knowledge that has been proven to be false throughout history. All those folks thought they were objective and "rational" but they didn't have all the data. Therefore their conclusions were proven to be incorrect and therefore must be deemed irrational! Everything from "the world is flat" to "hydrogenated fats are good for you".

Reflect too on the fact the "world views" of communities, religions or even individuals don't necessarily appeal to Fi or Fe as functions. T as a judging function loves structure and guidelines and ascribes to ideological structures to forge order. Many "believers" follow because of the influence of Ti or Te, NOT because of the feeling functions .....

Here is where feeling has the potential to prove ultimately rational to the higher truth, revealing that the shallow customs we follow sometimes are just that, because the truth is sensed to be beyond ritual.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
But this makes interpersonal standards the ultimate authority for Feelers, but it's clear that interpersonal standards, (e.g., tradition, ad populum, etc.), are fallible.

Well, to Fi it is objectively obvious what's ethical and what isn't.

It would be irrational to make that which is fallible your ultimate authority. In this case, were a Feeler rational, it'd be the result of epistemic luck (or grace) that the interpersonal standards to which he subscribed were rational, for there are entire worldviews and communities that are subjective, anti-realistic, and consciously illogical.

Fi sees considering people and the way they feel to be inherent in logical discourse...not saying I necessarily agree, just that Fi can't really separate itself and discuss in impersonal terms very well because it doesn't think there exist any situations where interpersonal reasoning shouldn't be applied.

Much like Ti's insistence on applying impersonal logic to everything.
 

fill

"Everything in its place"
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
507
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
753
I think, at least in terms of Te and Fe, that they are simply ways in which other functions are applied to the outside world. For example, an INTJ with high Te is commonly interested in the sciences, while an INFJ with a high Fe is commonly interested in people and their role in the world.

I don't quite understand Fi as I do Ti because Fi, and many of those who use it as a dominant function, have always confused me. But I think I might have it:

Fe - The world is subjective
Fi - Morals are subjective
Ti - Morals are objective
Te - The world is objective

I'm not sure how Intuition or Sensing plays a part in this. And, yes, I (one with Fe) do believe morals are subjective, but I also believe that the 'good' ones can be found naturally; so I suppose that isn't complete subjectivity.

Oh, and I have absolutely no evidence to back this up. Don't take it too seriously.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
That's simply not true. F and T functions exist in tandem, not as separate entities.

This may be so, but I was responding to SimW's theory that Feeling bases its logic on interpersonal standards, whereas Thinking bases its logic on impersonal constructs--(which, btw, may also be fallible. (Oh, you pointed this out below.) This definition would not rule out the possibility of irrational Thinkers. Of course, I'm assuming that it's irrational to subscribe to any form of fallibilism). This would make the two (Thinking and Feeling) distinct, even if they operated simultaneously. <--worst paragraph ever.

Feelings are not necessarily fallible; that's a pretty biased assumption you are making.

And Ti / Te are as equally fallible, and that's ultimately the point. Think of all the "common" knowledge that has been proven to be false throughout history. All those folks thought they were objective and "rational" but they didn't have all the data. Therefore their conclusions were proven to be incorrect and therefore must be deemed irrational! Everything from "the world is flat" to "hydrogenated fats are good for you".

Reflect too on the fact the "world views" of communities, religions or even individuals don't necessarily appeal to Fi or Fe as functions. T as a judging function loves structure and guidelines and ascribes to ideological structures to forge order. Many "believers" follow because of the influence of Ti or Te, NOT because of the feeling functions .....

I don't know about Te, but Ti isn't fallible. (*INTP preens himself*)

Honestly, I think the F/T dichotomy collapses upon analysis. No, scratch that. I think Myers-Briggs, Kiersian, socionics whatever is wrong, and that the F/T dichotomy would need to be collapsed in order to maintain systemic integrity. I think the closest interpretation to Jung's intent would be to maintain that F's are more concerned with ethics, whereas T's are more concerned with logic, (or philosophy of language), epistemology, and metaphysics. Alas, F's are frequently portrayed as people/relationship oriented types, not as rational agents using their minds both to distinguish the valuable from the base, and to determine what is valuable and what is base.

edit: however, this would likely make many F's concerned with people, because there is little that is more valuable than human relationships.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I would've said more of a misunderstanding of the OPs intent. I think this is where the difference in focus between F and T lies. I know the Jungian categories "thinking" and "feeling" probably won't be in my Oxford, I actually saw this problem in a flash when I read the message, but the more interesting thing for me to focus on is the misunderstanding of the OP. ie. communication breakdown because the person's intent was not considered when reading the message, so it was taken in the wrong context.

I was referring only to the quoted part, i.e. the notion that words inhabit some sort of meaning in pristine form, disassociated from the individuals who wield the words. Dictionaries have their place, but people use language to construct meaning and they most often do not crack open their OED before employing the words as tools to accomplish their objectives--when one seeks after meaning, referring to the dictionary definition is often a moot point.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Well, to Fi it is objectively obvious what's ethical and what isn't.

I'm going to get in trouble with the F's on the board, but this is exactly why I think T's should run the world. F's are more likely to assume that the epistemological/metaphysical frame they're given in childhood or that's widely believed in their community is true: value/ethical pondering F's are not inclined to think about logic, epistemology, and metaphysics, and so are more likely to assimilate the worldview of their family or culture osmosis like, and just run with it. That is, ethics rests on metaphysics, which rests on epistemology, and someone who isn't inclined to ponder these more basic disciplines is less likely to ferret out any errors in them.

Thus, F's need T's to tell them what to think. (*runs and hides in his mother's basement*) :peepwall:

Fi sees considering people and the way they feel to be inherent in logical discourse...not saying I necessarily agree, just that Fi can't really separate itself and discuss in impersonal terms very well because it doesn't think there exist any situations where interpersonal reasoning shouldn't be applied.

Much like Ti's insistence on applying impersonal logic to everything.

^This is where my ideas don't square with Myers-Briggs at all. I 'spose there really are people like this, and that Fi is used to try to capture this reality, but, if this is the case, then F truly is irrational. Seriously, interpersonal dynamics aren't the be all and end all of all decisions.
 

MFJAGgernaut-B

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INFP
Isn't that a bit harsh? :shock:
I mean... a lot of people figure things out by asking others. Not all are the bookworm type. And he clearly has done some reading, but currently has conflicted ideas about the subject, so he initiated a discussion about it. Isn't that why we're all here for?

Apologies if it sounded harsh. I had just come home from a night shift, I hadn't taken my ADD meds, and I was a little miffed at having to wait an hour and a half to take my morning shower.

That was my point, harsh as I worded it. Dictionaries always list the most relevant definitions of a word first; int he case of "feelings," they would list feelings as a thought process along with feelings as opinions and feelings as emotions. A quick look-up would easily answer most questions an OP would have about the word's meaning. It would also cut back on the number of threads posted by people unaware that "feelings" does, in fact, relate to an actual rational thought process.

To answer the OP's question in a more civil tone, the four letters in an MBTI type stand for the four parts of our thought pattern. Feeling and thinking are the third letter, which defines how we interpret information. Feeling types interpret based on the effect on people. Thinking types interpret based on the effect on logic. INFJs and INTJs are good examples of this contrast.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
I 'spose there really are people like this, and that Fi is used to try to capture this reality, but, if this is the case, then F truly is irrational. Seriously, interpersonal dynamics aren't the be all and end all of all decisions.

OMG, where do NT's (by this, I mean, you Sim!!! YOUUU!!!! Nah, I'll save that for your thread in the graveyard) jump to this conclusion from? I think people who prioritize interpersonal dynamics from a rational stand point are very very very few and far between.

Also, it's kinda a moot point because even in terms of Myers-Briggs theory, everyone uses all the function (not just the top 4) and use them in tandem/simultaneously. We just have preferences (which do not necessarily correlate to strengths).

And HA, I will laugh politely at your 'T's need to teach F's how to think' and not chase you into your mom's basement. Lucky for you, I'm tired today. :altongue: I give lessons on "how to feel" though if you're interested, I go on a self-help tour next month. :altongue: x 2
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
OMG, where do NT's (by this, I mean, you Sim!!! YOUUU!!!! Nah, I'll save that for your thread in the graveyard) jump to this conclusion from? I think people who prioritize interpersonal dynamics from a rational stand point are very very very few and far between.

Also, it's kinda a moot point because even in terms of Myers-Briggs theory, everyone uses all the function (not just the top 4) and use them in tandem/simultaneously. We just have preferences (which do not necessarily correlate to strengths).

And HA, I will laugh politely at your 'T's need to teach F's how to think' and not chase you into your mom's basement. Lucky for you, I'm tired today. :altongue: I give lessons on "how to feel" though if you're interested, I go on a self-help tour next month. :altongue: x 2

How exactly the four non-natural functions are used is quite a matter of debate.

To put it as succinctly as possible, we find it very hypocritical that Fs:

A) Have no problems pointing out all the ways Thinkers could learn to improve upon their personal reasoning, and
B) Don't seem to believe there's anything at all they can or should do to work on their impersonal reasoning.

It's as if you think Fi is just automatically superior in all situations. You see our inferior Feeling skills and treat us like children because your Fi doesn't see any reason you should have to bother learning anything about Ti and/or assumes you understand it fully (trust me, you don't.)

I get tired of hearing, "You are such an insensitive jerk who really needs to learn to pay attention to people's feelings...but ME? I can't possibly remove my emotions from my viewpoint, why...that'd just be removing the very essence of who I am! You Ts should really grow up and learn to act more like Fs though. kthx"

And my GOD, I don't even have enough exaggerated words to properly express how frustrating that is.

See SciVo in the "Simulated Hijacks..." thread. Look at the end where he:

A) Declares that I'm an emotional child in need of learning about emotional intelligence,
B) Declares that having a math degree means he knows everything there is to know about the Thinking perspective, and
C) Considers the Feeling perspective to be obviously and objectively superior.

Why should he bother learning anything about an obviously inferior system that he clearly already knows everything there is to know about?

And self-improvement is supposed to be high on Fi's value list! How the hell do you communicate with someone who won't acknowledge, and moreover ISN'T EVEN AWARE, that he could possibly learn anything from your value system or that his isn't 100% objectively the best?

That sounds like the definition of closed-mindedness to me. At least thinkers ACKNOWLEDGE our Feeling deficiency from time to time...half the time it seems Feelers aren't even aware that there's anything of value to be learned from Thinking, which is rather a bit distressing for those of us Thinkers who are trying to better understand Feeling.

You need to meet us half way.
 

MFJAGgernaut-B

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INFP
How exactly the four non-natural functions are used is quite a matter of debate.

(snip)

You need to meet us half way.

Very well. Instead of singling out the T's, I'll just apply the word "jackass" to BOTH sides. Because putting it bluntly, both sides need to SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET A BLOODY GRIP!

*Takes a deep breath*

As I said before, "thinking" and "feeling" only describe how a personality type rationalizes information. Emotions have just as much effect on one type's decision-making abilities as it does the other's, meaning neither Thinkers nor Feelers are no more sensitive or resolute than the other.

Feelers are not a bunch of dull and dimwitted flower children. They rationalize information by how it effects people's opinions on a subject...their feelings on it. If the conditions are right, an ESFP can still grasp hard logic.

Thinkers are not a bunch of cold and insensitive robots. They rationalize information by how it effects the logic of the subject...the way of thinking about it. If the conditions are right, an INTJ can still be caring and sensitive.

Now, can we PLEASE knock off this bullsh*t debate?!

*exhales* I need to go to bed...
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
More generalizations please.

I love it.
 

Wild horses

New member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
1,916
MBTI Type
ENFP
There are definately two different types of emotions, those that affect a physiological change and those that don't. A large part of my feeler function is based in the later section and as a result I often struggled classifying myself as a really emotional person. I could often state in quizes that I make decisions based on my emotions, however, the way I made decisions didn't 'feel' very emotional to me. I think this is why even two NFs can be very different with regards to their emotional lives and I found the enneagram system to shed some light on this issue basically seperating ENFPs into two main types; 4 and 7 (I think the difference between these two can be laregly explained by the difference between the two types of emotions) I also find myself judging emotins as much as the Ts on the board do, however, whilst they often judge them as rational or irational I often judge emotions based on whether or not they fit my personal set of values. For example, would anger be moral in this particular situation.

Thus said I still don't know if I would call this type of emotional rational. It depends how you arrived at you personal value system surely. You could have arrived at it by completely irational means, it could be a spiritual value system or a factual one. So whilst I do see the differecen in the two types of emotions I am unsure whether or not this can classified as rationality
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Very well. Instead of singling out the T's, I'll just apply the word "jackass" to BOTH sides. Because putting it bluntly, both sides need to SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET A BLOODY GRIP!

*Takes a deep breath*

As I said before, "thinking" and "feeling" only describe how a personality type rationalizes information. Emotions have just as much effect on one type's decision-making abilities as it does the other's, meaning neither Thinkers nor Feelers are no more sensitive or resolute than the other.

Feelers are not a bunch of dull and dimwitted flower children. They rationalize information by how it effects people's opinions on a subject...their feelings on it. If the conditions are right, an ESFP can still grasp hard logic.

Thinkers are not a bunch of cold and insensitive robots. They rationalize information by how it effects the logic of the subject...the way of thinking about it. If the conditions are right, an INTJ can still be caring and sensitive.

Now, can we PLEASE knock off this bullsh*t debate?!

*exhales* I need to go to bed...

Wow great job, you just solved Thinking vs. Feeling in three paragraphs.

Give yourself a pat on the back.
 

MFJAGgernaut-B

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INFP
Wow great job, you just solved Thinking vs. Feeling in three paragraphs.

Give yourself a pat on the back.

I would, but growing the extra elbows is a pain in the right ass, and I don't think the designated back-patter's ready to come out of his clone vat, yet.

Seriously, though, I hate petty arguments over stupid crap. The only thing that comes out of the Feelers VS Thinkers debate is evidence that people on neither side fully understand the subject. I was trying to talk some sense into the debate by answering the OP's original question: Is "Feeling" as rational as "Thinking"? Looking back, though, I do admit that my own answer wasn't very definitive.

My answer that is yes and no. As I've explained before, "feeling" simply means your thinking is centered around people and their opinions, whereas "thinking" means your thinking is centered around logic. Both can be rational or irrational, depending on the situation and the maturity level of the person using either one. The above argument is an example of both being irrational; An F type condemns a T type for being insensitive, and the T type responds by slamming the F type for being immature.

An example of a Feeler being rational would be grief counseling. The grief counselor's job if to connect with survivors of the recently-deceased on a personal level (a skill inherent to feeling types), and then find a way to help them cope with their loss.
 

Unique

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
1,702
No the feeling preference is not "rational" by definition

Correct me if I'm wrong, though is your real question "Can F types BE rational?"

My answer:

Of course!

Just like I used N about 6 seconds ago despite being an S a feeler can use thinking when necessary... they just prefer otherwise
 

MFJAGgernaut-B

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INFP
No the feeling preference is not "rational" by definition

Correct me if I'm wrong, though is your real question "Can F types BE rational?"

My answer:

Of course!

Just like I used N about 6 seconds ago despite being an S a feeler can use thinking when necessary... they just prefer otherwise

Since we seem to have trouble locating our dictionaries in this thread, I took the liberty of looking up both words.

The definition of "rational," as defined by Webster's:
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

The definition of "feelings," as defined by the same:
1 a (1) : the one of the basic physical senses of which the skin contains the chief end organs and of which the sensations of touch and temperature are characteristic : touch (2) : a sensation experienced through this sense b : generalized bodily consciousness or sensation c : appreciative or responsive awareness or recognition
2 a : an emotional state or reaction <a kindly feeling toward the boy> b plural : susceptibility to impression : sensitivity <the remark hurt her feelings>
3 a : the undifferentiated background of one's awareness considered apart from any identifiable sensation, perception, or thought b : the overall quality of one's awareness c : conscious recognition : sense
4 a : often unreasoned opinion or belief : sentiment b : presentiment
5 : capacity to respond emotionally especially with the higher emotions

6 : the character ascribed to something : atmosphere
7 a : the quality of a work of art that conveys the emotion of the artist b : sympathetic aesthetic response
8 : feel 4


"Rational" does NOT mean "logical." It means "reasonable," which means "within reason," which means "not taken to the extreme." "Logical" means "valid," which can apply to anything considered to be "within reason."

"Feelings" does NOT mean "emotions." It also means "opinions," "thoughts," and "impressions."

Therefore, when you put the two words in their proper context, "feelings" can be "rational." This is the basis of the Feeling function; we rationalize what other people will rationalize about the subject. What thoughts and opinions people will have toward the subject. How they will feel about it. ("If X happens, then people will think Y about it.") This is in contrast with the rationalization of a Thinker, which is generally focused directly on the subject. ("If X happens, then it will mean Y.")


As for the Thinker VS Feeler argument, both sides are right about one thing: their respective accusations against each other. The Feelers in the argument ARE immature and hypersensitive, and the Thinkers in the argument ARE insensitive pricks. If they weren't, there would be no "Thinkers VS Feelers" argument, because everybody would be too busy not giving a damn.

Feelers, you are NOT the Guardians of the Loving Heart. If you were that emotionally solid, you wouldn't get riled up every time a Thinker posts a thread slamming feelings as rational. It doesn't do anybody any good when one of you gets a hair up your ass because one Thinker didn't have his facts quite right. Swallow your pride and go do something else.

If you MUST post a rebuttal, do it with hard facts, not a river of tears. Thinkers don't pity; they respect. To earn their respect, you show them you're at least half as intelligent as they are. You do that by providing them with documented evidence to the contrary, not by flying into a rage and telling him he's an A-hole.

Thinkers, you are NOT the Grand Intellects of the human race. If you were that smart, you wouldn't engage in stupid arguments over who spouts the stinkiest bullsh*t. Check your egos at the door and stop belittling every Feeler that gets his panties in a wad.

If you MUST post a response, post "sorry, my bad" instead of sarcasm or a counter-argument, even if it wasn't your fault. Believe me, nine times out of ten, we'll drop the issue in a heartbeat. And you'll save on Advil!
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
Very interesting discussion, you guys. :)

I still would like to know what you think about the quotes I posted in the O.P.

Jung, Meyers, and Thompson all seem to be defining "Feeling" as a "rational" function, every bit as reasonable as "Thinking".

Is that your understanding of the quotes, or are they saying something else to you?


I'm trying to figure out if there is any kind of consensus about what these terms mean, and whether people accept these definitions or prefer something else.

Do you find the quotes from Jung, Meyers, and Thompson helpful?

Do they make sense to you?

Do they seem accurate to you?

Do you think they should be re-examined? Redefined? Totally thrown out?
 

MFJAGgernaut-B

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INFP
Very interesting discussion, you guys. :)

I still would like to know what you think about the quotes I posted in the O.P.

Jung, Meyers, and Thompson all seem to be defining "Feeling" as a "rational" function, every bit as reasonable as "Thinking".

Is that your understanding of the quotes, or are they saying something else to you?


I'm trying to figure out if there is any kind of consensus about what these terms mean, and whether people accept these definitions or prefer something else.

Do you find the quotes from Jung, Meyers, and Thompson helpful?

Do they make sense to you?

Do they seem accurate to you?

Do you think they should be re-examined? Redefined? Totally thrown out?

Explained by someone who isn't concerned with boosting his ego by bashing someone else's, perhaps?

Seriously, being the first person to give an informed answer using actual research to an honest question is very disconcerting. Especially when the overall consensus among all the other posts is "I'm important, screw you."

*sigh*

In answer to your question, if you put all the terms in their proper context, all of the quote are 100% accurate. I pretty much outline my reasons in my previous post.

To summarize, "feelings" is used to define opinions and reactions, which are measurable parts of human psychology. People's feelings in this context occur in a predictable cause-effect pattern. Feelers rationalize (or "reason") people's possible feelings about a subject based on that pattern, using existing feelings about parts of the subject. ("X is a part of Y, and people think Z about X. Therefore, they will also think Z about Y"). This presents a logical equation that some Thinkers don't recognize right away, because they don't always see feelings as something that can be evaluated logically.
 
Top