Interesting observation. It also seems to be a driving force in humanity to compartmentalize and then create these hierarchies that subjugate certain categories. It is especially interesting seeing this applied to thought patterns. Western European civilization seems especially bent on compartmentalization. This way of isolating emotion from thought is a strongly Western ideal and has been expressed in philosophies and even in media characters like Mr. Spock. I took a class on multiculturalism and was especially struck that the assumption that different types of thought processes can be isolated is an alien concept in some other cultures. Systems based on holistic models of thought and behavior would find this dichotomy of emotion and reason to be an artificial construct. It is rather interesting.Although offered in jest, your critique has teeth.
Quartering the MBTI into continental subgroups (SJ; SP; NF; NT) makes sense until oppositional/subjective language was introduced (ironically) probably as a means to add clarifying depth to the temperament summaries.
Instead of providing process-enhancing detail, the descriptions introduce artificial terms of implied value (Mastermind v. Mechanic). It's only natural that, from here, folks unfamiliar with the non-hierarchical nature of the MBTI would necessarily presume quality of mind/behavior against type.
In the end, applying these labels (versus simply offering an itemized breakdown of observed trait preference) distorts the MBTI into a 'tiered' (semi-competitive) framework.
I just looked up the word 'rational' and lots of dictionaries seem to concur that it's about things being consistent, logical and based on reason. So, by that definition, emotions are irrational, because they're often conflicting, inconsistent and based not on logical deduction but subjective reactions which are themselves often extremely nebulous.
That said, simply saying they're not rational doesn't necessarily equal saying they're stupid or useless. This argument reminds me of the whole battle of the sexes, where you'll get people trying to argue that men and women are or should be the same, taking an inappropriate meaning from the word 'equal'. Men and women are not the same at all - in general, there are many things that one sex does better than the other. But to say for example that men are physically stronger than women, doesn't necessitate a defensive response from women, trying to bring up absurd examples of female body builders who outperform males in arm wrestles. It's just a simple fact, it's something that makes them different, yet difference doesn't exclude equality.
Emotions and reason are not the same thing. But by saying that the one can do something the other can't, or vice versa, doesn't automatically take away value from either one in its place. To try to argue that "emotions can be just as rational as reason" is like saying "women can be just as physically strong as men" - yes, perhaps in some bizarre and exceptional cases, this can be so, but it doesn't stop it from being generally untrue. It's just building strawmen.
This argument could well be an extension of the "battle of the sexes" since in our culture emotion is associated with women and rationality with men. MBTI gives the distinction a different format.I just looked up the word 'rational' and lots of dictionaries seem to concur that it's about things being consistent, logical and based on reason. So, by that definition, emotions are irrational, because they're often conflicting, inconsistent and based not on logical deduction but subjective reactions which are themselves often extremely nebulous.
That said, simply saying they're not rational doesn't necessarily equal saying they're stupid or useless. This argument reminds me of the whole battle of the sexes, where you'll get people trying to argue that men and women are or should be the same, taking an inappropriate meaning from the word 'equal'. Men and women are not the same at all - in general, there are many things that one sex does better than the other. But to say for example that men are physically stronger than women, doesn't necessitate a defensive response from women, trying to bring up absurd examples of female body builders who outperform males in arm wrestles. It's just a simple fact, it's something that makes them different, yet difference doesn't exclude equality.
Emotions and reason are not the same thing. But by saying that the one can do something the other can't, or vice versa, doesn't automatically take away value from either one in its place. To try to argue that "emotions can be just as rational as reason" is like saying "women can be just as physically strong as men" - yes, perhaps in some bizarre and exceptional cases, this can be so, but it doesn't stop it from being generally untrue. It's just building strawmen.
That makes sense. The systems involved in personal perspective are complex to a point that it is probably not humanly possible to be aware of all the parameters that influence it. [edit] The input that affects an emotional reaction consists of the present input and past experiences and even physiological influences which cannot all be accounted for in a present interaction [/edit] This is likely true even for an understanding of ourselves. What can help compensate for this is to extract underlying principles and then to deal with the application of the system as approximations. It's a kind of fuzzy logic.here's a thought - perhaps what separates reason from emotion is that those decisions made by reason can be simply and straightforwardly demonstrated and explained to an external subject, and thereby understood. Whereas many emotional decisions can't be explained to the same level of mutual understanding to another person without that person having to put considerable effort into understanding and getting to know the individual that made the decision. Kinda...?
They are? What if one is very good at identifying them?
Feelings come and go, sure, but in an irrational way?
I think Fear as in Flight or fight response is pretty rational. I think Love as in mother/child bond is logical too.
I think emotions in our cave dwelling days were perhaps simpilar, and more based in rational response, than they are today, now survival of the fittest doesn't apply.
Yes. Emotions and logic usually come to the same conclusion.Ahh but that 'logic' you use to get that groupsupport, is in fact backed up by emotions, as they will feel an overwhelming need to actually help you. You won't find this in solitary animals, even those that are forced to live in a group (for instance cats, while dogs will help and protect one another).
Empathy speed things up, but is not a requirement. A cost/benefit analysis could lead to the same action.The same is true for your second example. It's idd the fact that they can empathize with you that gets you a second chance.
Attractive people do get off easier. Notice how the scruffiest crook suddenly sports a suit and tie when they end up in court. They did not suddenly develop a fashion sense in prison.However, the feelings for a hansome stud would never outweigh the feelings for self preservation in your third example.
In conflict situations though, where both are saying the opposite, listen to the one you're most adept at and look at which one is in fact important for the situation you're in.
They're not. Nor is acting on them.
Discuss.
Will expand if this receives no replies.
Then what is irrational ?
Oddly enough, I've seen more examples of NTs being chastised for this than of NTs saying emotions are a useless weakness . . . unless you consider a statement of "that doesn't make any sense to me" to be "emotions are a useless weakness."
Incorrect mapping of ideas to reality can occur in both misapplied emotions and misapplied logic. The irrational results from faulty underlying assumptions. At that point whatever process is working with the assumptions, the result will likely be false. Some might argue that it is the process that defines rationalism, but it is at least worth making the distinction.Ok, emotions are racional. Logic is rational.
Then what is irrational ?
They're not. Nor is acting on them.
Discuss.
Will expand if this receives no replies.
The emotional realm rarely can be translated into the rationale.