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

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I view it more as the reason why we speak is emotion (the opinion) and from there we use whatever knowledge we have to support that emotion. In essence the reason why we speak is emotion and the reason why we debate what we speak is logic. It seems like a process to me. Of course in logic emotion is weaved in, but that I think (as I'm sure we all do) is impossible to avoid. Common sense?

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

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.

I think that someone can be objective while still being willing to give a person multiple chances. The objective person might say to themselves - I don't have enough data to judge the situation so there isn't enough evidence for me to deny the person an additional chance. Whereas the subjective person might say to themselves - I don't have enough data to judge the situation but I feel like this person does not deserve another chance because of what they've done in the past so I will not give it to them. I agree that personal value systems define how people weigh situations and respond, but I think that a subjective person and an objective person can both have the same value systems, but end up with completely opposite reactions to the same situation.

The objective person might feel like it is a bad idea to give the person a second chance but being as they are approaching the situation objectively they will give them another chance despite their feelings. Whereas the subjective person will not give the person another chance as a result of their feelings even if they couldn't (argue beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law) that their feelings accurately portray the reality of the situation. However if asked what their personal value systems are both the objective person and the subjective person might state that they believe in fairness and equal opportunity.

 

[Coriolis]

I think I agree, for the most part. The distinction I was trying to make is that both the thinker and the feeler are using rational processes; even Jung describes them this way. Subjective is thus not synonymous with irrational, and you can use a rational process to make decisions based upon subjective data, especially when that is all you have.

Also, there are times when every one of us acts "out of character", for lack of a better description. The objective/T person might consciously decide to allow his feeling about a situation override the objective evidence; and vice versa. This is part of the flexibility of our human nature. If we learn to do it well and judiciously, it can be quite valuable.

 

[VitaB]

My boyfriend is a feeler, and I am a rationale (We get alone great by the way, since we are both mature enought listen to each other's differences).
This issue has come up- can objectivity ever be achieved in anything?
With time, I tought him that emotions can be distractions that skew most truths, and he tought me that the "human factor" should never be ignored.
Moderation...