User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 84

  1. #21
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvonne View Post
    ^ but why do we concider it necessary?
    Erm, because without it we could not achieve our goal. The point here is that people sometimes make choices that go against their feelings because they believe said choices lead to the outcome they're looking for. Essentially, an attitude that the ends justify the means is a rational one.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


  2. #22
    A passer by yvonne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by durentu View Post
    OP:

    First I'm throwing MBTI into the wind and talking about humans in general. I'm willing to bet that many people don't have the slightest idea what T/F preferences actually mean. (ref: Psychological Types: Jung)

    It is not possible to be involved in any issue without some emotive response. I speak in the neurological context. If you have zero emotive response, it would not enter your consciousness, therefore you would not have the mental activations to engage an issue and summon your cognitive faculties. If there is no emotive response, then you are indifferent to it and it would appear it would have never existed.

    Illustrative thought: How many steps does it take for you to get to the bathroom? Do you know for sure? Did you really count? Why not? (less OCD).

    Rationalization is not synonymous with truth. It is at best an opinion or a belief. If rationalization was indeed truth, there would be no need for peer reviewed journals at all.

    This, along with "I'm more rational than you" is a delusion and a logical fallacy. Specifically that of 'begging the question' or petitio principii.

    While it's not possible to remove emotions from an argument, there are tools to make a strong case. You start with a rationalization, then you work to remove all the objections and you arrive at some sort of truth.

    All decisions contain emotions, regardless of what that person believes. Even psychopaths
    All decision involve moral/ethics if it interacts with another human, regardless if it's wise.

    To make decisions that are clean, rational, and unemotional is a misnomer. In most cases, what they really mean to say that the decisions are without empathy.
    yes, thank you. do you mind if i quote you elsewhere?

  3. #23
    A passer by yvonne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Erm, because without it we could not achieve our goal. The point here is that people sometimes make choices that go against their feelings because they believe said choices lead to the outcome they're looking for. Essentially, an attitude that the ends justify the means is a rational one.
    it is just your preference. you prefer to disregard a certain emotion in the moment, because you think that by doing that you will reach a goal, which will satisfy you more in the end. this doesn't mean you don't concider your feelings at all.

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Please prove the number of Mersenne primes with your emotions alone.
    In that context I think the idea is if you remove the emotions you no longer have a proof.

    So, if you take the human away from the equation, it's no longer a proof, as proofs are a system of human understanding. You take the emotions away from a human and it's no longer a human, as it appears (according to the thread) that emotions are at the root of all high-end cognitive activities.

    It ultimately comes down to the idea that rationality without emotions is not a coherent one. Like the idea of shape without volume. It can be talked about, but doesn't really apply to reality.

    Old Related Thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tionality.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I agree with the concept that is provided within the context of this topic.

    An F, being totally emotional, would be in their own perspective, acting rationally. Thus, emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive, from a single perspective.

    That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.

    The seperation of rationals and non-rationals, has nothing to do with being emotional or not emotional. Rather, it has to do with how we reach our conclusions and descisions.

    Rationals see problems in everything, non rationals take many things for granted. Both may take the same course of action, but only the rational would be aware of it.

    So what defines rationality in NT's, is not the fact that we are more rational than others per se. But that we define ourselves by using rational factors to the best of our ability while making descisions, consciously.

    So, whilest everyone can be considered rational from their perspective. NT Rationals are the ones that do so proactively.
    Rationale I can see as a reference to the style NT's supposedly think and communicate with. Rational I'd see as either conscious thought, or intelligent thought, which is most similar to how you are using the word.

    Rationality is even vaguer than MBTI types, I don't know how one would come to your conclusion in the first place. But there's problems outside of that.

    Notably that rationality is a much more nurtured than natural behaviour, which goes against some foundations of MBTI. Outside of that, it's hard to see rationality as a preference, which is what cognitive functions supposedly are, as being or becoming rational usually involves going strongly against one's own natural preferences. Even further outside of that, it's hard to see a dichotomy between non-NT functions and rationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by durentu View Post
    All decision involve moral/ethics if it interacts with another human, regardless if it's wise.
    I'd make two points here.

    1: You always interact with the human that is yourself. Making a significant distinction between oneself and another human is actually very difficult to do.
    2: That's only one of the common definitions of morality. Another one is simply "how to live life" or "what decisions to make". Leading all decisions to be ethical/moral ones.

  5. #25
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal recurrence View Post
    I was reading this thread of 'what do you like about feelers' and one complaint is that there is a tendency to not be logical in arguments, make emotional appeals, or base their decisions on their emotions.

    So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

    This line: "I am being more rational than you" - may be an illusion for your rationality is just a set of learned ways of interacting that appear to lack emotion, HOWEVER! are not all decisions/arguments ultimately moral and emotional ones?

    TO put it in a strong way: I think people are fooling themselves if they think in life they are making 'clean' decisions, 'unemotional' arguments, or undertaking entire 'rational' courses of action.
    There is no such thing as an 'emotional argument'. An argument is a collection of premises that lead to a conclusion. If the argument is deductively valid and the premises are true, the conclusion must also be. An argument could be about issues that are emotionally loaded or issues that are completely dispassionate; that truly is irrelevant. Truth-preserving arguments are based on true premises and have deductive validity.

    No, its not impossible to make a truth-preserving argument when dealing with an emotional issue; nor is a sentimental person incapable of making such arguments. However, having strong personal biases or emotional committment to certain views or being in a sentimental mind-state create difficulties for people to make such arguments.

    This is the most important point of my post. Arguments of emotional people or arguments that deal with sentiment arousing issues are not meritless by definition. However, a person who fails to attain a high degree of detachment simply robs himself of the necessary resources to make a truth-preserving argument. Complete detachment is not possible and it is undesirable to attain the highest degree possible; as I said a merely high degree is necessary. An excessively high degree of detachment can rob a person out of the interest in the issue that he or she is pursuing.

    A failure to detach may make it too difficult for a person to reason clearly, but too high of a degree of detachment precludes a person having the requisite motivation to do so. Emoting is an inextricable part of sound reasoning and one should not attempt to minimize their impact as much as possible. However, if not restricted, this part of our cognition poses a pronounced hindrance to a person who seeks to construct truth-preserving arguments.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There is no such thing as an 'emotional argument'.
    They'd just said there is no such thing as an unemotional one.

    The idea being that emotions will always, somehow, be involved. Not that the abstract definition of an argument, which by definition does not contain emotion, involved emotions. Not abstract thought, but actual reality.
    I could throw the ontological argument for god, or anything defined as existing, your way if we gave any credence to abstract thought alone.

    But onto the more important question. Why do emotions have a good probability of impairing rationality? The whole post and you haven't answered that.

    I can only speak from my own experience, where emotions lead me to my most rational moments, and continue to do so. Where the majority of the time they occur, they either assist, or have no noticeable effect on my rationality.

    Not wanting to accept a certain truth, which I have also experienced many times, does hinder rationality, but is just one emotion in a myriad of them. You could see it as many emotions and it would still be dwarfed by the ocean that is the rest.

  7. #27
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Rationale I can see as a reference to the style NT's supposedly think and communicate with. Rational I'd see as either conscious thought, or intelligent thought, which is most similar to how you are using the word.

    Rationality is even vaguer than MBTI types, I don't know how one would come to your conclusion in the first place. But there's problems outside of that.

    Notably that rationality is a much more nurtured than natural behaviour, which goes against some foundations of MBTI. Outside of that, it's hard to see rationality as a preference, which is what cognitive functions supposedly are, as being or becoming rational usually involves going strongly against one's own natural preferences. Even further outside of that, it's hard to see a dichotomy between non-NT functions and rationality.
    If you wish to see rationality as an absolute, rather than a subjective interpretation based within our perception. Then yeah, I can see where you're coming from.



    My view of rationality, is that it exists within everyone equally, and it is different for everyone. Ultimatly, society brands everything that has a positive outcome and is explainable as rational. Still, each individual has their own view on what is a postive outcome and what is explainable.

    I could have stopped there, but since this is an MBTI forum, I also explained that the rationality within NT's is nothing more than proactive thought behaviour, rather than instinctual or emotional behaviour. Even though all three could be seen as rational in certain situations.

    To use a crude stereotypical example.

    For a feeler, comforting a person that's emotionally hurt by saying "Everything is going to be alright." is rational behaviour. A thinker would digress, and think that that approach is void and meaningless. And that different action should be taken in order to battle the pain, and think that is rational.

    So in that sense, like I said, I agree with the concept of the OP's post. Emotional and Rational are not seperated.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Ah, I don't disagree with that.

    I was really only targeting this:-
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.
    Which I thought fitted into the definition of rational I was using before.

  9. #29
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    I was really only targeting this:-

    -That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.-

    Which I thought fitted into the definition of rational I was using before.
    I definatly could've phrased that better. This would've been a better way of phrasing it I suppose.

    That which makes the NT's rational in the sense that MBTI brands NT's as rationals, is that we try not to rely on our instincts and emotions, and prefer to use what we know instead.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  10. #30
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvonne View Post
    it is just your preference. you prefer to disregard a certain emotion in the moment, because you think that by doing that you will reach a goal, which will satisfy you more in the end.
    That was my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    I would agree to the extent that it is altogether impossible to separate motivations and goals from emotions. There is no inherent meaning to our lives, thus there is no such thing as a rational goal: We pick an outcome we desire because we like it better than the alternative. Beyond that, however, it is indeed possible to be rational and objective in making a choice, which is most evident when we make a choice we don't like because we consider it necessary.
    Motivations are never rational. Actions can be.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


Similar Threads

  1. What is the difference between INTP and INTJ?
    By Triglav in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 03:25 PM
  2. What exactly is the difference between Ti and Ni, Si and Fi, and others?
    By Triglav in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 11:28 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-14-2009, 10:42 AM
  4. [ENFJ] What is the difference between ENTJ and ENFJ?
    By yenom in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 07:24 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 08:11 AM

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