Great question. I think the answer is related to how much agency we think we have in controlling how we feel, what events/circumstances we devote intense emotions to and how much we can control them, as Proteanmix said.
It's kind of like going to the gym and torturing yourself to build your muscles, except here the muscle is your F.
I like this analogy. I think some of the answer lies here. I also think of the ability to feel (I don't think feelers have a monopoly over this, of course) as a muscle. The better developed it is, over time, the more discerning we are of when to allow ourselves to feel things deeply and when we can let things go or step back because a deeply emotional reaction would be less useful.
Of course there's something positive to have strong emotional reactions at times. That's human. But people sound like they live is a state of constant emotional reactivity. I don't believe that's a defining feature of being NF nor should people pass it off as one.
I agree.
In my perception, I find there is an overvaluing of being emotional in threads like these. The more extreme the emotional reaction, the more eviscerating it is, the more real it is. There's very little advocacy to attempt moderation or regulation. If you're oversensitive, then that's beautiful. And then there's the pile on.
I think this makes you a slave to your own emotions. You're at their whim and mercy. That's not emotional processing. Is this empathy or is this empathy without discernment, without context, or without proportion? So yes this a contribution to the question of why NFs supposedly "need to feel upset so easily." I say they don't! It's not a prerequisite to being an NF as people are trying to pass it off as.
I see what you're saying but there seem to be a variety of experiences reflected here. Without knowing what these circumstances were that led to the emotions people are sharing, it's hard to assign value (less, balanced, more depend on the situation). I agree about moderation as a goal or some sort of modulator for feeling. It's important, without that, we seem to be constantly reacting without processing. I'm not sure that's useful for anyone, the feeler in particular.
The periods described here when everything is felt intensely describe a process without much control or modulation but perhaps not just over feeling but life more generally (I extrapolate from my own experience). Periods of high stress/weak physical health/overwhelming life circumstances....these are periods where everything seems to be felt intensely and we lose our ability to discern where emotional investment is wise and where it may be wasted.
However there are circumstances where I would argue modulation is not appropriate and may be counterproductive. Allowing oneself the ability to feel intensely may be a form of processing or at least necessary before one can detach and go through the process of healing. Loss of a loved one through death or separation is one such circumstance where trying to modulate the emotional reaction could be counterproductive. Modulation in this circumstance, for me, especially as an Enneagram 7 has meant burying the feelings and trucking on. As I get older, I don't find that useful because eventually those feelings catch you unaware and in a worse position to handle them. I'd rather deal with them in the circumstance where they were appropriate. I also find, however, that I am much better equipped to decide where the events/circumstances are not worthy of this investment and are best let go.
How you handle this in a work environment has more to do with professionalism than your ability to feel things intensely, in my opinion. It's a different question. We all have the ability to separate professional from personal even if some of us choose not to do so.
To clarify, though, I wasn't trying to imply that I'm biased against women, I meant that the scenario I illustrated above was over-simplifying the issue to be biased towards the cold, calculating guy.
Actually I don't see a bias here against cold, calculating men or women. The gender bias in your statements, however is not implied, it is clearly present.
The point you make is a valid one - feeling things intensely could be related to being selfish. Selfishness, however is not a trait exclusive to NFs or women. This could be the case for anyone who is blinded by their own emotions with no emotional space to "feel" for anyone else. There are periods in our lives where this is understandable but feeling this way all the time and particularly under the guise of empathy is a false indicator of empathy and more an indicator of a feeling junkie who gets off (mind my language) on any feelings, theirs or others.
One thing I have been doing a lot lately is getting to the heart of an issue. I want to take any issue and honestly examine it. Sometimes, in order to get in to the heart, it takes jumping out and watching it from an alternative viewpoint.
I hope my post caused a few people here to jump out and view a comfortably accepted position (e.g. the belief that empathy always stems from altruistic foundations) from an alternative viewpoint.
There is no issue with this - I commend your effort. I would commend it more if you could do the same to try and understand why you keep using the example of selfish women to illustrate your points. What is at the heart of this issue?
I think purplesunset was admitting to being bitter, rather than biased.
Ajblaise offers some clues to help answer the question.
Since relationships are one common catalyst for these kinds of intense feeling, it is worthwhile to really examine them. We claim that we have no control over them. "I cant help feeling this way!"
But I see one way to "help" it. Viz: Destroying the ego.
How many women are more in love with being in love than they are with the other person? "I feel so much inside for him!" "My heart palpitates at the thought of him." Perhaps, but obviously not enough to spare him the stake through his heart.
What makes you think this emotional blindness is particular to women? there is no perfect 100% altruism. We're all human. We feel the most empathy for people we love because we are invested in them. Hence we feel angry/upset/sad on behalf of someone we love precisely because
we love them. It's natural. This does not equal 100% selfishness either. At the other end of this spectrum, being emotionally blinded leads to men and women giving up on their own needs to fulfill the perceived needs of the partner.
Going back to the benefit of empathy that the original post referred to. Let's see how the ego can play a role in that form of empathy. "I want to help people because this will give me intense happiness." Why is your happiness so important? What if the thrill of helping goes away, and you personally start feel nothing after helping others. Although the other person would still be grateful for your help, will you stop because it no longer offers you the thrill inside?
Destroying the ego need not lead to low self esteem, and it need not turn one into an unfeeling robot. No, humans can never experience the "happy insensibility" of trees (barring psychosis).
Having found a way to help deal with these powerful feelings, the only problem I myself still haven't fully worked out is where to draw the line between selfishness and self-preservation. For now, I believe that it is self-preservation solely within the context of life and death situations. In any other context, we must be wary of the ego, especially within the context of "intense feelings."
There is confusion here, it seems between the value of stepping back and being able to examine what kind of help would be useful to the person in need versus what kind of help would give the provider satisfaction. That's very fair and could be easily confused when the provider gets carried away with emotions in this context. Destroying the ego, however, seems too unnecessary and not very useful. Why should we change our motivations? What's wrong with attaching value to providing help? What's wrong with deriving happiness from it? The idea that deriving satisfaction from this process and actually being of help are necessarily contradictory seems false. The idea of killing ego for 100% altruism seems unrealistic because the idea of 100% altruism is unrealistic and not human. We are motivated by a complex set of concerns - part altruism and part selfishness seems like a safe, human mix for the self-preservation/help balance.
