• 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.

[NT] The separation between emotion and rationality is a myth.

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
This thread is amusing. I suggest everyone take a minute to look at a dictionary before commenting.

I wonder what my response would be if I said that "Fs" pretend not to think...

Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.

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.

I think the basis of your post is quite different from the conclusion you drew from it.

Complaining that people make emotional appeals is not the same as stating that all arguments are (or aren't) ultimately moral. Moral is not synonymous with emotional.

To emphasize the difference, Feelers may find their emotions and values at odds at times.

I think this applies to everybody.
 

eternal recurrence

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
46
MBTI Type
iNfj
Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.

Complaining that people make emotional appeals is not the same as stating that all arguments are (or aren't) ultimately moral. Moral is not synonymous with emotional.

What I'm saying is that some people convince themselves that they either think or feel at various stages in a discussion or argument - they argue as if they can separate the two and not do both at the same time.

2) what I notice is not that people just complain about others making emotional appeals, but that they appear to believe that it is possible not to do so. That is, the assumption while saying this is that they assume arguments do not ultimately have an emotional/moral source. i was being sloppy and using moral and emotional as synonymous because i think it applies to both here, but we can scrap moral and stick to emotional.

in any case, the 5th response in this thread seems to have settled the matter - with LuckyNoLimits stating that: "ive been trying to tell u ppl this for a long ass time. the same cognitive facility is used to dictate whether a feeling or a thought is right or wrong. there is no such thing as human rationality, but you can have an emotional sensitivity towards logical ends like math and science. some people are neurochemically tuned with structure while others are more in tune with fluid concepts like emotion and social dynamics."
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I agree. But the 5th response, while valid, doesn't seem to address what you are laying out here.

Some people prefer thinking and some prefer feeling. This is the basis of the T/F theory. You extrapolated that to state that people say that they can be devoid of one or the other. And now you are satisfied with the original statement that some prefer thinking (structure) and some prefer feeling (fluid).

Very confusing. But whatevs.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
^ good points jenocyde... but to have morale requires taking emotions into account. i think the only difference between thinkers and feelers, really, is that thinkers have thicker skin and would prefer that all people did (?)... they don't usually care much about being conciderate while making a point, while feelers try to do that...

i think ultimately we all want to pursue truth. i think thinkers can sometimes miss how feelings can affect people and feelers can get so caught up in their feelings that they lose sight of the pursuit of truth... i think both things will get you further from the truth...

i think learning each other's languages (first mastering your own, maybe...) would help. thinkers could try to see the point behind the feelings, at least something to grab a hold of... and feelers could try to just see the point a thinker is trying to make and not get offended, because the thinker didn't tend to their feelings. i think we all come from the place of values and beliefs with our opinions...

that has to be so, because none of us know the truth about things. for a feeler, they might feel that "this is right" and if science supports it, they make it a value/ belief... for a thinker they do it through science and then they adjust their beliefs and values accordingly. i think feelers feel strongly about the "this is right" feeling and thinkers feel strongly about science...

i hope i made some sense here :D
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
^ good points jenocyde... but to have morale requires taking emotions into account. i think the only difference between thinkers and feelers, really, is that thinkers have thicker skin and would prefer that all people did (?)... they don't usually care much about being conciderate while making a point, while feelers try to do that...

I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. I truly feel that I *am* being considerate by being direct with you. Would you rather have a doctor that shakes and lets you know that s/he freaks out at the sight of blood, or one that does the job efficiently and is a stable presence? Matching someone's emotional state or indulging in that one step too far in the wrong direction can have the opposite effect of what you had hoped for.

While making a point, to state something plainly is about the highest service I can give someone. I feel patronized and treated as stupid when others try to coddle me so I don't do that to others. I give to people what I want in return - I think we all do that.

Also, when I turn to a friend in a panic, I don't want sympathy - it offers me nothing and makes me feel like I have to now coddle you - what I want is results or assistance.

i think ultimately we all want to pursue truth. i think thinkers can sometimes miss how feelings can affect people and feelers can get so caught up in their feelings that they lose sight of the pursuit of truth... i think both things will get you further from the truth...
I don't know about that. My ENFP friend and I are always in conflict because I pursue the truth and she pursues peace. So she will concede points just to stop me from being upset with her, and that only upsets me more. She will sacrifice the truth in an eyeblink in order to maintain peace and harmony.

Granted, it depends on the issue, but it happens more often than not.

i think learning each other's languages (first mastering your own, maybe...) would help. thinkers could try to see the point behind the feelings, at least something to grab a hold of... and feelers could try to just see the point a thinker is trying to make and not get offended, because the thinker didn't tend to their feelings. i think we all come from the place of values and beliefs with our opinions...
Agreed.

that has to be so, because none of us know the truth about things. for a feeler, they might feel that "this is right" and if science supports it, they make it a value/ belief... for a thinker they do it through science and then they adjust their beliefs and values accordingly. i think feelers feel strongly about the "this is right" feeling and thinkers feel strongly about science...

i hope i made some sense here :D

I understand you. Maybe a more accurate statement is "this is right" vs "this is truthful"?
 

William K

Uniqueorn
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
986
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Everyone thinks and everyone feels at all times. This should be obvious.

Agreed, but the way Jung uses the word Feel as a Judging function is different from the everyday use of the word. For example, if you put your hand in a fire you will feel pain, so you learn not to put your hand in the fire. This is something everyone does and I don't consider it as a Feeling-based Judgement. A feeling-based judgement would be something like "Should abortion be legal?" which as you mentioned is not necessarily a moral question.

My main disagreement with the OP is the phrase "Feelers base their decisions on their emotions" which I think is not correct.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Agreed, but the way Jung uses the word Feel as a Judging function is different from the everyday use of the word. For example, if you put your hand in a fire you will feel pain, so you learn not to put your hand in the fire. This is something everyone does and I don't consider it as a Feeling-based Judgement. A feeling-based judgement would be something like "Should abortion be legal?" which as you mentioned is not necessarily a moral question.

My main disagreement with the OP is the phrase "Feelers base their decisions on their emotions" which I think is not correct.

Agreed. "F" is not the same as "feelings," though we'll often use the word "feelings" as shorthand for what F does.

"F" is "how we process feelings." In the abortion question, for instance, Fi would perhaps identify with the baby, and judge that abortion is wrong, or identify with the mother, and judge that it's her body, her choice. Fe would make similar judgments (pro or con), in terms more objective (but still rather subjective) concepts such as "rights" and "fairness."

Ti, on the other hand, might evaluate it terms of logical self-consistency: how is it reasonable that a mother can abort her own child, but it is potentially murder or manslaughter (or is it just simple assault) for someone else to kill that child? Te would evaluate it in terms of practical logistics: Te might argue that if a mother chooses to not have a child, that it simply conserving resources that might be better spent towards what the mother does want, or Te might argue that it was sloppy planning in the first place to engage in activities that resulted in pregnancy.

[CAVEAT: I'm not personally arguing the abortion debate, and will not respond to posts that attempt to divert to that tangent. These are just examples of how each judging function might process the decision.]

Notice that the judging function in these examples has nothing to do with the conclusions (pro or con w/r to abortion rights) one derives. Also notice that while Fe and Fi would make "moral" decisions (possibly based on some degree of emotion or feeling), Te and Ti are using nothing resembling morality or emotion. "T" has priorities and preferences, yes, and some of these are likely emotionally (or maybe even morally) based, but the actual processing isn't emotional or moral, but more about "does it make sense?" or "does it work?"

Even if we limit the cases to just "F" style decisions, the decisions might even contradict how one personally feels. "F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy. A preference for "F" does not imply that one does what whatever one feels like, emotionally.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
While making a point, to state something plainly is about the highest service I can give someone. I feel patronized and treated as stupid when others try to coddle me so I don't do that to others. I give to people what I want in return - I think we all do that.

Also, when I turn to a friend in a panic, I don't want sympathy - it offers me nothing and makes me feel like I have to now coddle you - what I want is results or assistance.

i understand this. for me it's important that people don't coddle my feelings (and that i'm not taking them too far), but don't think i am being ridiculous for having them. that to me is conciderate. i want results and assistance, too, but only if i trust the person, and i don't trust people, who think that having feelings is ridiculous. = i am ridiculous.

I don't know about that. My ENFP friend and I are always in conflict because I pursue the truth and she pursues peace. So she will concede points just to stop me from being upset with her, and that only upsets me more. She will sacrifice the truth in an eyeblink in order to maintain peace and harmony.

Granted, it depends on the issue, but it happens more often than not.

i won't go against what i perceive to be true just to make someone feel better, but i try to go to my feelings and find something there to relate to the other person, if i see them getting upset. that usually brings the conversation back on track...

I understand you. Maybe a more accurate statement is "this is right" vs "this is truthful"?

maybe "this is what i feel/ is felt to be true" vs "this is what is thought/ i think to be true"?

i don't know. it's tricky... it really is.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
"F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy.

Definitely a good hypothetical example. Your whole post was pretty good a description of F vs T.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,193
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Agreed. "F" is not the same as "feelings," though we'll often use the word "feelings" as shorthand for what F does.

"F" is "how we process feelings." In the abortion question, for instance, Fi would perhaps identify with the baby, and judge that abortion is wrong, or identify with the mother, and judge that it's her body, her choice. Fe would make similar judgments (pro or con), in terms more objective (but still rather subjective) concepts such as "rights" and "fairness."

Ti, on the other hand, might evaluate it terms of logical self-consistency: how is it reasonable that a mother can abort her own child, but it is potentially murder or manslaughter (or is it just simple assault) for someone else to kill that child? Te would evaluate it in terms of practical logistics: Te might argue that if a mother chooses to not have a child, that it simply conserving resources that might be better spent towards what the mother does want, or Te might argue that it was sloppy planning in the first place to engage in activities that resulted in pregnancy.

[CAVEAT: I'm not personally arguing the abortion debate, and will not respond to posts that attempt to divert to that tangent. These are just examples of how each judging function might process the decision.]

Notice that the judging function in these examples has nothing to do with the conclusions (pro or con w/r to abortion rights) one derives. Also notice that while Fe and Fi would make "moral" decisions (possibly based on some degree of emotion or feeling), Te and Ti are using nothing resembling morality or emotion. "T" has priorities and preferences, yes, and some of these are likely emotionally (or maybe even morally) based, but the actual processing isn't emotional or moral, but more about "does it make sense?" or "does it work?"

Even if we limit the cases to just "F" style decisions, the decisions might even contradict how one personally feels. "F" can feel the pain of the mother's plight, and her desire to not be pregnant, yet still decide, morally, that it is right to require that the mother follow through with the pregnancy. A preference for "F" does not imply that one does what whatever one feels like, emotionally.

Good summarization of different approaches among the Tx and Fx functions.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
Notice that the judging function in these examples has nothing to do with the conclusions (pro or con w/r to abortion rights) one derives. Also notice that while Fe and Fi would make "moral" decisions (possibly based on some degree of emotion or feeling), Te and Ti are using nothing resembling morality or emotion. "T" has priorities and preferences, yes, and some of these are likely emotionally (or maybe even morally) based, but the actual processing isn't emotional or moral, but more about "does it make sense?" or "does it work?"

yeah, you gave a good explanation... but how is it possible that i have thought about this example issue from every angle you described, if according to my type i use primarily Fi and Te... i just can't simplify it like this... :huh:
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
yeah, you gave a good explanation... but how is it possible that i have thought about this example issue from every angle you described, if according to my type i use primarily Fi and Te... i just can't simplify it like this... :huh:

He's talking about making the actual decision not just deliberating. When it comes time to the decision making, which aspect holds greater weight...
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
yes, i thought that was it, too. :) i think i might make the decision based on the circumstances, or something...

also... what i said about the arguing... i might sometimes say something specifically to make someone feel better. i think that's important in itself. it means i recognize the emotion, i recognize the good and i want to "feed" the good. i think that's building trust. i can only trust people who make the effort to see good in me and try to relate to my feelings. i can take criticism much better from people i trust than those i don't.

obviously, i make mistakes, also.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
yeah, you gave a good explanation... but how is it possible that i have thought about this example issue from every angle you described, if according to my type i use primarily Fi and Te... i just can't simplify it like this... :huh:

If you think about it, *I* have also thought about it from every single angle, yet I'm clear about my type and what functions I use. Personally, I would be dissatisfied with any law that does not meet my T-style requirements. The moral considerations are also important, and would be used to choose between acceptable, workable alternatives.

Forced to choice between options that I regard as "moral, but really stupid and unworkable" and "amoral or immoral, but effective and logical," I will tend to choose the latter. That said, if "moral but stupid" becomes the law of the land, I would argue for "moral and effective", and if "amoral but effective" becomes the law of the land, I would argue for "moral and effective". Just because I'm "T" doesn't mean I don't take morality into account, but rather that it is a secondary concern, not a primary one.

Note that all of the above isn't explicit about particular morals: some morality (e.g., do not kill) carries a lot of weight even for those with a strong T, and some logistical concerns (e.g., there isn't enough money to accomplish the moral task even on a limited scale) carry a lot of weight even for those with a strong F.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
^ yes, i know you have. balance is where it's at for me.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
i had to find this old thread just because i have noticed that i did instill emotional motivation to the communication of thinkers when it was not there. (so there i think i understand the frustration... ) :p

now where's the victory dance? :D
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As a newbie I was interested to peruse this resuscitated thread. I agree with those who made the distinction between emotion and values when speaking of feeling. In MBTI, feeling refers more to values than to emotion, and values enter every decision one makes. Someone gave the example of verifying facts as an entirely objective activity. Perhaps the verification process is entirely objective, but why was the person doing it to begin with, and why were those particular facts worth verifying? The answer to these questions rests upon what the person considers important, worthwhile, necessary, all of which is informed by his/her values.

Why do we have the values we have? One might argue that they have been chosen through some rational process. Perhaps (in fact I hope) they have, but this process will in turn have been motivated by even more deeply seated values.

Rationality thus applies mainly to the decision making process, and afterwards, to the implementation of our decision. Both values and emotions serve as inputs to this process, as do facts, opinions, and other data. Perhaps feelers are more likely to rely on emotional (subjective) data, while thinkers are more likely to rely on factual (objective) data.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
yes, i don't know. perhaps feelers are more likely to, for example, give someone a second... a third... chance, even if when thinking about it rationally, it would be unlikely to end well. we want to be positive, not realistic.
 

spin-1/2-nuclei

New member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
381
MBTI Type
INTJ
For me personally, emotion and rationality exist in parallel. I have them both but logic is the dominating factor for me. I am often accused of being robotic which isn't entirely accurate. I do have emotions like anybody else, I just typically don't react with them. Often in tragic or otherwise emotionally charged situations I have no emotional response and people often accuse me of being cold, when in reality I am really feeling things quite deeply as much as they are, but when it comes to my reaction to the situation I will analyze and then react accordingly. If I can change the course of the situation towards something more positive I will, but if I can't then I will resign myself to that fact and do nothing. Not because I don't care, but because my actions will not produce a different outcome.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
yes, i don't know. perhaps feelers are more likely to, for example, give someone a second... a third... chance, even if when thinking about it rationally, it would be unlikely to end well. we want to be positive, not realistic.
In your example, the feeler gives priority to the subjective evidence: the person seems like he is trying, he didn't mean it, he deserves a break. The thinker will give priority to objective evidence: the specific harm caused by whatever the person did, past track record with the same or similar people, etc. Both are in fact utilizing a rational decision making process, they are simply weighing the evidence based upon their differing personal value systems.
 
Top