SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Is it not a possibility that Jung could be wrong and MBTI right?.
Its not possible because they don't contradict each other. Jung is concerned with the laws of the human mind, MBTI with personalities.
Feeling is distinct from Thinking, agreed. However, I disagree with your definitions of Feeling and Thinking, as I've previously posted.?.
In that case we are not talking about the same thing. What I am talking about is the tendency to process emotion and the tendency to reason dispassionately. This is my, Neo-Jungian working definition of these cognitive faculties.
I'd like some elaboration on how Thinking analyzes emotion before I respond to this..?.
I get pinched. A stimulus is fed into my mind (Feeling), my mind recognizes the stimulus on some level (Thinking), and hence because I have become aware of the stimulus, I now process it.
Hence, Thinking analyzes emotion on a deeply unconscious level. Your mind is conditioned to associate certain stimuli with certain mindstates, if you get pinched, you immediately associate it with pain. Yet someone who's body is numb, does not respond to such a stimulus.
For the sake of another example, when somebody tells you a dramatic story, your mind processes these ideas on an unconscious level. For instance, suppose someone said your mother died in a car accident. In order for you to experience the emotion of angst associated with her death you need to understand the fact of her death. This requires dispassionate judgment, or the cognitive activity which simply recognizes ideas devoid of any emotional implications. This is an instance of Thinking analyzing emotion.
For the sake of the third example, consider the following. When somebody asks you how you feel, you need to reflect on how you mind-state to be able to tell them. That is where analysis comes in, or dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state. If you did not engage in the dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state and simply emote, you would just groan or giggle. But then again, in order to groan or giggle in response to such a question you must dispassionately identify the question, this presupposes the use of Thinking.
Hence, it is simply not possible to understand emotion without engaging in dispassionate contemplation of emotion to some degree at least.
Thinking is simply an unconscious disposition to engage in dispassionate contemplation. This in itself is not the use of logic, but only a tendency to use logic. Dispassionate contemplation is use of logic itself.Indeed. Thinking uses logic, but is not logic in itself. ..?.
Feeling also uses logic, but is not logic in itself. Feeling notes the data, notes the emotional reaction to it, and labels the data accordingly. For a very rudimentary example:..?.
Inevitably, Feeling is to some degree related to logic, but ipso facto does not lead to logic directly as Thinking does. Note, when you get pinched, your mind works in such a way that you cannot help but wonder what it is that pinched you. When you do this, you inevitably engage in dispassionate contemplation.
What this shows is not that Feeling uses logic, but that functions are intimately intertwined. Feeling in itself is merely a tendency to process emotion. Thinking is a tendency to contemplate dispassionately. Thinking has a distinct tendency to use logic, yet Feeling only a subtle one. Thinking directly leads one to use logic, Feeling only indirectly so and at the price of self-sacrifice. Feeling (note the getting pinched example) may inspire one to think about the causes of one's situation, however because Thinking is dispassionate, it causes for Feeling to diminish. As for example, it is quite natural for us to be led to have our emotions cool down when we sit down to seriously contemplate something.
Data A is received.
:..?.
- If sad move to sad column.
- If happy move to happy column.
Yes, but it is Thinking that is concerned with such organization because recognizing something as either happy or sad requires dispassionate contemplation. It is feeling however that allows for us to have the data that could be recognized as either happy or sad to begin with. Feeling only offers potential for such judgments, it is the Thinking that performs the judgment in itself.
Is this not logical?
It's known the effects, its unknown the cause. This is true of essentially everything. For example, how the universe came into existence.
You could argue that Feeling motivates us to do all things. For instance, even when I use thinking or work through an intellectual problem, I only have the ambition to do so because it feels positive to me. However, the feeling in itself does not get me the answer to my problem, only gives me the fuel to move further. It seems inconceivable to me that the mere tendency to process emotion is what grants one knowledge of a solution with regard to a difficult problem.
*Note how I have defined Feeling and Thinking above.*
Just because something is unknown doesn't mean it can't be. Why do we exist? It's unknown. If we don't know why we exist, going by your logic, then we cannot exist. Fi does exactly what you said was impossible. It's coming from a dominant. How can you deny it?
EDIT: This is a debate about MBTI, so if you don't write about MBTI then why are you debating this?
At the end of the day we study MBTI to better understand reality of human nature. MBTI is means to the end, not an end in itself. Hence, I have offered a method that is superior to MBTI which shall conduce to us arriving at our foremost objective.
Just because something is unknown doesn't mean it can't be. Why do we exist? It's unknown. If we don't know why we exist, going by your logic, then we cannot exist.?
What we are talking about here is one specific explanation for why something is, not the fact that something is. So I know that X exists, but I dont know the explanation for why X exists. Hence, I cannot assert that Y is the explanation for the existence of X.