User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 234

  1. #121
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    no, in that aspect i would say emotions and thinking aren't even comparable. emotions are the ingredients of life as we experience it, logic is a structure that we analyze when we think. so to say emotions are better than logic or visca versa is comparing apples and oranges.

    when making a conclusion, however, it is possible to simply ignore logic, leaving only the inprecise feeling towards what the query consists of.

    what i am saying is that if someone wants to enact something with any degree of certainty, then they need to ahere to empiricism, not emotion, although emotions can be a component, and in those cases should definately be considered.


    an emotionally controlled decision would be to eat that eclair in your fridge because it's delicious and you're hungry, while a more logical approach would be to acknowledge that eating said eclair will not nourish you and may even make you feel remorseful, so eating a salad would actually be a more emotionally mindful decision despite being logic-based.

    i say: live a life that cultivates positive emotions, acknowledge and control them for the greater good when necessary.
    I can agree with this .
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #122
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I can agree with this .
    oh, and to answer your question (which admittedly i halfway ignored in my response) im not making any correlations between MBTI type and behavior, for the sake of explanation i made a reference to "feelers", by which I mean people who at least appear to be controlled by rather than in control of their emotions

    although MBTI type supposedly correlates to order of functions rather than the effectiveness of them (meaning an F-dominant type could easily have a more effective Tx than a T-dominant type despite not being a primary function) i can still think of advantages of "feelers" as well as disadvantages of "thinkers" in the grand scheme of things.

    speaking from personal experience, Im fairly out of touch with my emotions, making them difficult to take into account when making decisions. sometimes there are two choices that are equally rational where personal value could tip the scale.

  3. #123
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    I assumed as much, which is why I could agree with you. Otherwise I would have had to argue that feeling by the MBTI definition is not to be simply equated with experiencing transient emotions .
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #124
    Senior Member Sunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ABCD
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    now, many of you have responded, pointing out that there is emotion in his frustration or possibly his motives, but that doesnt debunk the argument. i could go so far as to suggest that your counter-argument is, in itself, an emotional response to bluewing's writing mannerisms, but it's equally irrelevant
    No, what debunks his argument is all his logical fallacies, his untrue statements and false generalizations.

    i may be, of course, mistaken, but i think what bluewing was saying is that "feelers" (ostensibly) do not hold the same respect for logic as he does... the frustration lies in the insistence that emotions are equally valid as logic when conclusions need to be made, as well as in the widespread misconception that what someone feels "makes sense" simply because they feel it.

    When making conclusions, emotions and logic are certainly not on the same plain. True. But it doesn't matter because F is not pure emotion or using pure emotion to make a conclusion.

    No one said that feelings make sense just because they're real. No one in this thread said that. However, some did say that they are a part of reality. Not a way to view reality, but a part of it.

    In some instances pure logic is the best tool to use to make the best decision in other instances the opposite is true. He's saying nothing new and his hinting that F is inferior in decision making is flat out false. Others have simply responded by stating this. And human beings are emotional creatures; that's a fact that you and him will need to accept. You can't make a thread like he did about Fs and expect no emotional responses.


    it would seem to me that emotions, such as fear, are an inferior, watered-down form of logic.

    example: if you were walking down the street late at night and a large, dangerous looking person was following you turn for turn, you would feel afraid, regardless of the fact that the person has done nothing wrong. it's fairly obvious why you feel afraid... whether it be instincts or something from your past, your brain is releasing chemicals that make you think you are in danger, but statistically, there's a good chance nothing will happen to you.

    here we can see how the connection between objective reality and feelings are shaky at best. pure logic, on the other hand, provides consistent results. in order to achieve this, logic requires self-imposed standards and limitations where information is inadequate. feelings says "this man wants to hurt me", logic says "this person is most likely just out for a walk, but may be inclined to hurt me as much as any other person i see, the fact that it's late at night doesnt necessarily make them any more or less a danger to me". feelings, based on logic past--either yours or your ancestors--are much more simplistic, so saying something for sure is easier.
    This has no relevance to F. It's an example of pure logic being very useful but nothing more. F does not rely on emotions to get it's idea of reality. To do what you said in the example would be too look to emotions to try to get facts about the world. F doesn't do that though, and nobody I have ever met in my life does that. I mean not facts like that, not facts other then, "Oh I notice the fact that I am feeling happy." or "I was really sad when he left, I must care about him". F is not a way of viewing reality it's a way of responding to it.

    The point him and you are making that logic is very useful and that you can't use your emotions to define reality is clear. And it's nothing new to probably all of us here. We know this. It's clear. But saying that, the opposite, saying that going off of pure emotion is what the F function does is false. There's a difference between acting out of emotion and ususing it as one thing to consider when making a decision. You and BlueWing seem to be getting the two confused.

    If you want the correct definition of how F works here it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.knowyourtype.com/feeling.html
    Feeling (F)

    People who have a preference for feeling judgment are concerned with whether decisions and actions are worthwhile. More personal in approach, feeling types believe they can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation.
    Feeling types are concerned with personal values and with making decisions based on a ranking of greater to lesser importance—what is the best for the people involved. The feeling function places high value on relatedness between people, and feeling types are often concerned with establishing or maintaining harmony in their relationships. As they use and develop their feeling function, feeling types often come to appear caring, warm, and tactful. Remember, in type language, feeling does not mean being "emotional;" rather, it is a way of reasoning.

    i will, however, say that we all have emotions, and ignoring them for the sake of being logical would probably make someone unhappy. the most important caveat here is that although i think emotions should be considered in making a decision, they should not themselves be in control of the decision making process
    This has no relevance because that’s not what F is. F does not use only “emotions themselves to be in control of the decision making process.” See above definition of F.

    Your point about using pure emotion to make decisions is clear. Yes. We know it. We’re aware of it. I don’t know of many people (other than kids) that don’t agree. However, to equate using pure emotion and nothing else to make decisions with the F function is false.

    EDIT: It does have relevance if you're simply pointing it out as a fact seperate from F.
    "To find beauty in loss, hope in darkness."

  5. #125
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    heh sunshine, i was just thinking that this thread could use a good definitions post. words that in normal, everyday speech we treat as interchangable seem to confuse mbti relatd issues such as this. with regards to this thread (and site), emotion is not synonymous with Feeling and logic is no synonymous with Thinking. i could go on but, sunshine said most of what i would say.

  6. #126
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunshine View Post
    No, what debunks his argument is all his logical fallacies, his untrue statements and false generalizations.




    When making conclusions, emotions and logic are certainly not on the same plain. True. But it doesn't matter because F is not pure emotion or using pure emotion to make a conclusion.

    No one said that feelings make sense just because they're real. No one in this thread said that. However, some did say that they are a part of reality. Not a way to view reality, but a part of it.

    In some instances pure logic is the best tool to use to make the best decision in other instances the opposite is true. He's saying nothing new and his hinting that F is inferior in decision making is flat out false. Others have simply responded by stating this. And human beings are emotional creatures; that's a fact that you and him will need to accept. You can't make a thread like he did about Fs and expect no emotional responses.




    This has no relevance to F. It's an example of pure logic being very useful but nothing more. F does not rely on emotions to get it's idea of reality. To do what you said in the example would be too look to emotions to try to get facts about the world. F doesn't do that though, and nobody I have ever met in my life does that. I mean not facts like that, not facts other then, "Oh I notice the fact that I am feeling happy." or "I was really sad when he left, I must care about him". F is not a way of viewing reality it's a way of responding to it.

    The point him and you are making that logic is very useful and that you can't use your emotions to define reality is clear. And it's nothing new to probably all of us here. We know this. It's clear. But saying that, the opposite, saying that going off of pure emotion is what the F function does is false. There's a difference between acting out of emotion and ususing it as one thing to consider when making a decision. You and BlueWing seem to be getting the two confused.

    If you want the correct definition of how F works here it is:



    This has no relevance because that's not what F is. F does not use only "emotions themselves to be in control of the decision making process." See above definition of F.

    Your point about using pure emotion to make decisions is clear. Yes. We know it. We’re aware of it. I don’t know of many people (other than kids) that don’t agree. However, to equate using pure emotion and nothing else to make decisions with the F function is false.
    In the typical F spirit, you use the 'logical fallacy' in an emotional context, not in the linguistically precise. Point one of them out.

    Definitions.

    Thinking: a faculty of reasoning which gravitates towards making decisions based on impersonal criteria. Practicing this exercise leads one to supress emotions in favor of remaining as impersonal as possible.

    Feeling: a faculty of reasoning which is concerned with processing emotion.

    Now, 'Feeling' and a 'Feeler' are two different things. No person is a pure Feeling type. When a Feeler makes a decision, he gives structure to his emotions with Thinking. In order to make sense of his relationships to other people he must analyze them first. For instance when he says, I like X, or I value D or B, he is showing that he has analyzed his emotions towards things.
    Had he not done this, he would of had nothing but pure passion without aim.

    We tend to have little access to our lower faculties, in this case Thinking (for Feelers). However, the fact that even the most radical of Feelers are often able to explain their values shows they have some kind of reliable access to Thinking. Yet, very often we let the lower faculties go out of touch, and this leads to the aforementioned irrational and seemingly structureless thinking on behalf of feelers. Blind passions, what I may call them.

    MikeD, I never argued that all Feelers are like this. I was talking about 'Feeling', not 'Feeler'. My point was, when a Feeling type supresses Thinking to a great degree, the consequence of irrational and structureless thinking ensues. I have provided examples for how this manifests in reality of human behavior. Tangentially, the points I have made about 'Feeling' could be extended to Feelers, but to a limited degree indeed.

    No, it is not the case that a Thinking person must necessarily be tough-minded and consistent. This would be the case if every Thinking person was a pure Thinking type. Yet there is a good reason to believe that the element of Thinking leads one towards tough-mindedness and consistency. As understanding logic makes us confident in things we know about the world irrespectively of how others may feel about this. That is the case because when we solve a logic problem, just like a mathematics problem, (Bertrand Russell and Guissepe Piano persuasively argue in favor of the identity of logic and mathematics, I could go on to show that mathematics is but a sophistication of logic. The former is analogous to the latter as 'man to boy' as Russell says in the last chapter of Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy) we see that the answer stands in its own right. It is simply an outcome of factors which preceeded it.

    I guarantee you. If you learn to think logically, you will be well on your way to knowing what you think, and being able to explain to others in definite terms what you think. This is likely to make you a more consistent and tough-minded individual. This is what a good use of a Thinking function does for you. Not all Thinkers behave like this because being a Thinker only means having more natural aptitude for Thinking. It takes work to become a good logician, you're not born with those talents.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 07-14-2008 at 10:31 PM. Reason: attempted to clean up punctuation bug
    "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/

  7. #127
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Taken care of.

  8. #128
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Feeling: a faculty of reasoning which is concerned with processing emotion.

    Now, 'Feeling' and a 'Feeler' are two different things. No person is a pure Feeling type. When a Feeler makes a decision, he gives structure to his emotions with Thinking. In order to make sense of his relationships to other people he must analyze them first. For instance when he says, I like X, or I value D or B, he is showing that he has analyzed his emotions towards things.
    Had he not done this, he would of had nothing but pure passion without aim.
    This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #129
    Senior Member Sunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ABCD
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.
    Yeah.

    Both the Myers Briggs T and F fuctions require cognition. And the Myers Briggs T funtion is not synonymous with congnition.
    "To find beauty in loss, hope in darkness."

  10. #130
    Senior Member Sunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ABCD
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    Taken care of.
    What is?
    "To find beauty in loss, hope in darkness."

Similar Threads

  1. My bro, such a mystery... NT or NF?
    By Cality in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-27-2008, 04:17 AM
  2. Physicists have 'solved' mystery of levitation
    By Sparky in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 03:43 AM
  3. let the mystery be unravelled....
    By mystery in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 04:02 PM
  4. Geoff's pictures : Sunset amidst prehistory and mystery
    By Geoff in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 06:43 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