• 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.

Do we need so much emotions in life?

Nat

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
66
MBTI Type
INFJ
One of my greatest personal strengths is my emotional stability which is linked with my strong T. What allows me to live without stress and depression while am still capable of humor and functioning normal. In many ways even better then other people.
(by their standards).

:huh:

I really don't think that emotional stability has anything to do with being a strong T. In fact, I think T's who dismiss emotions as being irrelevant or something to subdue are more likely to be depressed than someone more in touch with their emotions - be it positive emotions or negative.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
:huh:

I really don't think that emotional stability has anything to do with being a strong T. In fact, I think T's who dismiss emotions as being irrelevant or to something subdue are more likely to be depressed than someone more in touch with their emotions - be it positive emotions or negative.

+1
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I want to congratulate people they have just confirmed what I was saying.

Everybody took this as an anti emotions post even it says that it is not.

Lets do the math I have said that most emotional people need to be 20% T.
Because we have 200 % on a scale (from 100%F to 100%T) what means that entire scale has to be divided with 2 to get 100% and 50% will be the T/F border. In such a scale 20%T would be 60% T and 40% F what is 3:2.
I would hardly call that a jihad against emotions.

Not to mention that I never said where balance in those percentages would be. Maybe I have said 20%T but I could have said that majority could be between 20%-50%T and people above 50%T should be rare. For some reason nobody noticed this hole.

I have said that majority should not be exactly like me but people presumed that I think that everyone should be similar me. .




Also I have said that I think that people can't change that much as a group and jet I received a question that asks: How this would be created/enforced.?

Also NTs especially introverted ones are attacked that they are cold, aloof and too abstract then someone attacks that this would be harmful for individualism

Another thing is that high T would be uncreative and somewhat closed minded is not true at all.. Take a look at what I am posting, is it that truly that much uncreative? I ask this question seriously..

Also why someone did not attacked me in Africa?
I have ideas but I want to hear opinion of other people about why they didn't do it.


The argument that strong T does not have an effect one emotional stability is questionable. That is because T is not about good mood or bad mood. T is about thinking, analyzing and planning. You don’t get depressed just if you have this kind of a mind.


In a world that is much more T there would be much more stability what would mean that the ratio of good : bad emotions would be better for good emotions since people would be less stressed since organization would be better and more logical.
People commit suicide exactly because they get overwhelmed by social mechanisms that are based on emotion. Not rational analysis of our global situation.
That wants productivity and there is no base for that level productivity. The main reason why we are bombarded by advertisement is exactly because some people are not rational enough to resist it and by doing this they are just fueling collective sorrow.
I am not saying that Ts are immune to this but they have extra protection against this kind
I would dare to say abuse.
In a T world this would not be possible nearly as much as it is in this one and there would still be enough emotion to create a nice place to live.

Another thing is that people don't critical mathematical/scientific enough what can be seen in politics. The entire modern elections are based on the principle of manipulating feelings of people. The numbers, facts, projections and plans are something that is not so interesting.

But if you want argument that is clearly abot what F can do I will give you one.


The idea of armed society in the USA is one good example of emotional decision making. The main argument is it makes us happy.
And then they defend them self that they have regulation and laws about it but that is not an issue. The thing is that you can't control all those weapons.
Believe me you would sleep much easier if you know that people in your neighborhood are not armed since this is accident waiting to happen.


I will stop for now since this is getting too long.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Let the Fs live, they may cry in public and make me very uncomfortable by doing so if you decide otherwise ;)

You can't replace F with T anymore than you can replace T with F. I'm a nice ENTP, by general consensus of those who barely know me IRL, but there's a definite difference between me and the ENFPs I know. They're better at the whole NF, interpreting emotions and motives of others thing than I am... that and they are even better than me at reading people, which is creepy :thelook:

I can't adapt to be all the things that an ENFP is, and they can't quite adapt to be what I am... they must exist so that they can fill thier function dammit! :D

I do wish they'd stop crying in public though...
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
:cry:

That was so beautiful!
 

Frank

New member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
689
As with most things, i think a healthy balance between the two is ideal. Obviously I am a little biased towards the T perspective but can also logically see the need for F based values in society. At least as society exists today. Sure if we were to grow to a completely logically based existence things may go ok for awhile for some. I don't know that it would be too pleasant of an existence though. So much of what is enjoyable in life could be described as deriving from an f-based ideal.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
Mama Caveman to Daddy Caveman:

You know that thing that turned up out my bottom one day? It makes noise, smells bad and is eating up all the food. Logically, Dear, what do you think we should do with it?
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
The argument that strong T does not have an effect one emotional stability is questionable. That is because T is not about good mood or bad mood. T is about thinking, analyzing and planning. You don’t get depressed just if you have this kind of a mind.

This seems to be a nonsequitur. You can easily get depressed by always thinking, analyzing and planning. There is nothing inherently non-depressive about these activities. They're generally not unpleasant, but an excessive use of them can leave you with a feeling of something missing.

In a world that is much more T there would be much more stability what would mean that the ratio of good : bad emotions would be better for good emotions since people would be less stressed since organization would be better and more logical.

Well, you're using a linear approximation of the good and the bad emotions; I think that a baseline level of emotionality is, for many people, a pre-requisite for the presence of good emotions, so they may decrease nonlinearly (in this case, I think more than proportionally) with the general decrease in emotionality. What about bad emotions? Right now, I can't think about a different model for them. So, let's just suppose that they decrease nonlinearly too. At best, it seems that the ratio would remain approximately stable. Human psychology is a rather ancient mechanism, and its homeostatic properties should not be undervalued, imho.

That wants productivity and there is no base for that level productivity. The main reason why we are bombarded by advertisement is exactly because some people are not rational enough to resist it and by doing this they are just fueling collective sorrow.

How does collective sorrow follow from buying things that are advertised, sorry?

Another thing is that people don't critical mathematical/scientific enough what can be seen in politics. The entire modern elections are based on the principle of manipulating feelings of people. The numbers, facts, projections and plans are something that is not so interesting.

That's not exactly true. I don't know if you have studied election theory; I have, although not deeply, and the result of almost all the models is that what drives electors towards one choice or the other is rational interest, meaning what the given party will do for them. This is actually contrary to what feeling would suggest, since a more empathetic perspective would call for a consideration of other people's well-being too.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
This seems to be a nonsequitur. You can easily get depressed by always thinking, analyzing and planning. There is nothing inherently non-depressive about these activities. They're generally not unpleasant, but an excessive use of them can leave you with a feeling of something missing.

I am talking from experiance. My T is extreme and it appears that I am more emotinally stabile then people around me.
The fact that this works for me is plobably because I am extreme introvert and the reason why you have problem with this concept is because you are E.

Well, you're using a linear approximation of the good and the bad emotions; I think that a baseline level of emotionality is, for many people, a pre-requisite for the presence of good emotions, so they may decrease nonlinearly (in this case, I think more than proportionally) with the general decrease in emotionality. What about bad emotions? Right now, I can't think about a different model for them. So, let's just suppose that they decrease nonlinearly too. At best, it seems that the ratio would remain approximately stable. Human psychology is a rather ancient mechanism, and its homeostatic properties should not be undervalued, imho.

I see your point but I disagree.
What I am saying is that more T world probably be more organised and rational. What means that the social system would be like this as well.
Since goals would be more realistic in many cases there should be much less stress and that would change ratio of good and bad emotions.
Today there is so much stress and bad feelings exactly because goals are bases on wishes.

How does collective sorrow follow from buying things that are advertised, sorry?

Maybe it is cultural thing, but did you ever encounter people who desperately want something what they can have?
Since they want it so badly they are willing to take chances to get it even if offer is a bad one. Why do you think someone is willing to become a drug lord?
To get things he could not afford when he was a kid.


That's not exactly true. I don't know if you have studied election theory; I have, although not deeply, and the result of almost all the models is that what drives electors towards one choice or the other is rational interest, meaning what the given party will do for them. This is actually contrary to what feeling would suggest, since a more empathetic perspective would call for a consideration of other people's well-being too.

I stand by my post since it is highly questionable what is rational and what is emotional in this case. Why all those people have to place so much imperative on their interests? Because someone made them believe that this are their interests.

What I am tring to say it that the rules of a T world would be quite different in the core. Since huge part of things that are promoted on political scene (mainstream and alternative) are quite irrational and it would be harder to sell them.
 

Pancreas

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ISTP
One of the main base points of your arguments seems to be that a world that was less emotional would have fewer problems. This would be true if most problems were caused by emotions running rampant. IF that were the case, then yes, what you’re purporting would have some merit. However, I don’t think that’s the case.

I’m not saying that problems must therefore must be caused by logic/thinking. It’s just that in the real world, things are usually quite complicated. I believe most problems would be caused by a roughly equal combination of both thinking and feeling.

Then there’s this:

I am talking from experiance. My T is extreme and it appears that I am more emotinally stabile then people around me.

Not to mention that I never said where balance in those percentages would be. Maybe I have said 20%T but I could have said that majority could be between 20%-50%T and people above 50%T should be rare. For some reason nobody noticed this hole.

I have said that majority should not be exactly like me but people presumed that I think that everyone should be similar me. .

The argument that strong T does not have an effect one emotional stability is questionable. That is because T is not about good mood or bad mood. T is about thinking, analyzing and planning. You don’t get depressed just if you have this kind of a mind.

If everyone was highly T, like you as you have said, then maybe people would be more emotionally stable. But a preference for thinking causes just as many problems as an equally strong preference for feeling does. It just causes different problems. So you have emotional stability. But other issues instead.

If most had a slight preference for thinking, then you would have maybe a marginal improvement, if any, in emotional stability overall.

Also:

Also NTs especially introverted ones are attacked that they are cold, aloof and too abstract then someone attacks that this would be harmful for individualism

I didn’t attack you. I merely pointed out that eliminating emotion may have repercussions.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
One of the main base points of your arguments seems to be that a world that was less emotional would have fewer problems. This would be true if most problems were caused by emotions running rampant. IF that were the case, then yes, what you’re purporting would have some merit. However, I don’t think that’s the case.

I’m not saying that problems must therefore must be caused by logic/thinking. It’s just that in the real world, things are usually quite complicated. I believe most problems would be caused by a roughly equal combination of both thinking and feeling.

Then there’s this:

If everyone was highly T, like you as you have said, then maybe people would be more emotionally stable. But a preference for thinking causes just as many problems as an equally strong preference for feeling does. It just causes different problems. So you have emotional stability. But other issues instead.

If most had a slight preference for thinking, then you would have maybe a marginal improvement, if any, in emotional stability overall.

Also:



I didn’t attack you. I merely pointed out that eliminating emotion may have repercussions.



Did you read the thread?

I said that I am not against the feeling it is just that it sems that there is to much basesd on them. What I was saying was that world where majority of the population is in lower thinking area would probably be a better place to live.

I used myself to explain that hight T can be very hard to destabilize exactly because of emotional deficit.

Can you pinpoint where I said that everybody should be like me?
Since I don't think I said that. Even in quoted part there is a part that says the opposite. I think you are stereotyping or you did not think this through.
 

Pancreas

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ISTP
You didn’t say that everyone should be like you. You initially said that people would have a low preference for T, but then used yourself as an example of emotional stability. I tried to use that to show what I believe to be the difference between high T and low T. Which is high T is more likely to be emotionally stable, and low T, not so much. Which means that a society where people mostly have a low preference for thinking may have slightly more emotional stability, but not a remarkable amount.

I’m not stereotyping. I did think this through. You’re either giving no consideration to a view that contradicts yours (and not even hugely at that), or we’re misunderstanding each other.

I’m wondering if it’s the latter. This is your main point, then?

What I was saying was that world where majority of the population is in lower thinking area would probably be a better place to live.

And I disagree. It might be slightly more stable emotionally. There might be a higher prevalence of logical decisions. But there would be, in my opinion, the same number of problems. There would just be slightly different problems. The sort of problems you get for being too logical.

So, unless you’re actually trying to say “a world where majority of the population has a slight preference for thinking would probably have less emotionally fuelled problems” I disagree.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I would say that in this case we are misundersatnding each other.

The thing is that my argument is counterintuitive to some degree.

My emotional stability is quite high but I don't think that everyone should be that much emotionaly stabile.

I don't agree that world of a low T would be different by such a small degree. I could explain this but I would need to write a book to explain what I am thinking in details.


Since my argument includes Politics, spirituality, economy, mining , water supply, food production , infrastructure , familiy dinamics , entertainment, history and...........


What I am saying is that many things you take as default would not be there.


We are talking about T/F but other letters play a part in this as well.
I am not saying that everyone should have same type.
 

Pancreas

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ISTP
I don't agree that world of a low T would be different by such a small degree.

I was probably a bit cloudy on that issue. I think it would have some difference, but I think that other problems would replace the ones that were fixed. T has as many problems as F. It follows that while a world that was more T might have less problems more commonly associated with a preference for F, it would have other problems. So there would be a difference, but in an overall comparison, taking into account the fact that human nature is human nature, I think there would still be just as many problems. So in an overall comparison, there would be a very small difference.

Since my argument includes Politics, spirituality, economy, mining , water supply, food production , infrastructure , familiy dinamics , entertainment, history and...........

What I am saying is that many things you take as default would not be there.

True, I just think that there would be other things that would act against it being a better world. It would be different, but not necessarily better.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I was probably a bit cloudy on that issue. I think it would have some difference, but I think that other problems would replace the ones that were fixed. T has as many problems as F. It follows that while a world that was more T might have less problems more commonly associated with a preference for F, it would have other problems. So there would be a difference, but in an overall comparison, taking into account the fact that human nature is human nature, I think there would still be just as many problems. So in an overall comparison, there would be a very small difference.



True, I just think that there would be other things that would act against it being a better world. It would be different, but not necessarily better.

Well I don't plan to start writting that huge argument right now.

You are talking about different kinds of problems so I am interested in hearing some of them.


Also I will not hide that I think that the world can't be in worse shape then it is. (I am not talking just about the economy).
 

Pancreas

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ISTP
Well I don't plan to start writting that huge argument right now.

No, fair enough.

You are talking about different kinds of problems so I am interested in hearing some of them.

Well, I clearly have given this as much thought as you, so my response is not going to be that detailed. That and while trying to put my thoughts into words I hit an immense roadblock.

As you’ve said, relying on emotion too heavily can lead to illogical decisions. And relying too much on logic, while disregarding emotion, can lead to a disregard for life. If you’re always thinking about what is better, logically, you miss out on what is better morally, etc.

You could have a world where political decisions are made on logical basis only. But logic can benefit the greedy as much as the good at heart. Taking human nature into account, you’d be more likely to end up with a dystopian society than you would a better place. I think this part is my main issue. Emotion can be used as a tool just as much as logic. How you use it depends entirely on the individual and humans, as a species, tend to be selfish. It's a trait, among others, that helps aid survival.

This could be two entirely different conversations if you were hypothesising about what could be in this world if the population were suddenly more inclined to thinking and what would the world be if humans had naturally, and originally, more of a preference towards thinking. And it becomes more and more complicated the more facets you introduce, such as religion, culture, etc, etc. I’m not sure where you want to draw the line.

Also I will not hide that I think that the world can't be in worse shape then it is. (I am not talking just about the economy).

I’d agree that it’s pretty bad. But I do believe it can, and will, get worse. How much worse remains to be seen.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The theory would work so long as everyone was on the same page. Seeing as people are rarely on the same page together (yes, even logical T's) I think it wouldn't be better, just different. Too many other factors involved. There are still motivations, and agendas involved.
And for a NF, I'm not so attached to the human race. Convince me on my terms, and I can be just as ruthless, and heartless as any other type (and efficient).
I think the real problem with the world today, is we don't learn from history, we don't focus on the future, and western civilization is far too disconnected from nature.
I don't think whether you are a T or F really comes into play.
 
Last edited:

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
No, fair enough.


Well, I clearly have given this as much thought as you, so my response is not going to be that detailed. That and while trying to put my thoughts into words I hit an immense roadblock.

As you’ve said, relying on emotion too heavily can lead to illogical decisions. And relying too much on logic, while disregarding emotion, can lead to a disregard for life. If you’re always thinking about what is better, logically, you miss out on what is better morally, etc.

You could have a world where political decisions are made on logical basis only. But logic can benefit the greedy as much as the good at heart. Taking human nature into account, you’d be more likely to end up with a dystopian society than you would a better place. I think this part is my main issue. Emotion can be used as a tool just as much as logic. How you use it depends entirely on the individual and humans, as a species, tend to be selfish. It's a trait, among others, that helps aid survival.

This could be two entirely different conversations if you were hypothesising about what could be in this world if the population were suddenly more inclined to thinking and what would the world be if humans had naturally, and originally, more of a preference towards thinking. And it becomes more and more complicated the more facets you introduce, such as religion, culture, etc, etc. I’m not sure where you want to draw the line.



I’d agree that it’s pretty bad. But I do believe it can, and will, get worse. How much worse remains to be seen.

To tell you the truth I was just waiting when this will come up and I disagree as usual.

You say greed, but greed is emotional need for sure. Also if you have much more thinking society it would be harder to sell nonsense which polititians are selling today.
Also having a disregard for life is ilogical since this is what keeps you alive in the first place.
Totalitarian regimes are totally based on emotion(s) and the need the to succsed. For example fear is one of those emotions.
Have you ever seen/heard Hitlers speeches?


The main reason why life today worths so little because there is so many of us and I think that current population trends are not sustainable.
Why we have a such a trends? I think it is because someone wasn't thinking straight when was the time fot it.

Exactly because of this this it will happen what you are saying about a T world. Actually we are living in that kind of a world already.


I am taking if we start to act more T since that scenario is maybe even possible. If you take that we are T form the start enite history would be totally different and there would be so many variables, that I don't see the point of talking about it right now.

As of status of the world I was thinking "It can't be much worse and that entire thing still works". Of course it can be much worse then this.
 

Pancreas

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ISTP
Just because someone has a preference for thinking doesn't mean they are logical. I come across people with flawed logic and thinking all the time, and not all of them have a preference for feeling.

You say greed, but greed is emotional need for sure.

If this is what you believe, there's no real reason for me to argue anymore. Because I disagree upon that.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Just because someone has a preference for thinking doesn't mean they are logical. I come across people with flawed logic and thinking all the time, and not all of them have a preference for feeling.

If this is what you believe, there's no real reason for me to argue anymore. Because I disagree upon that.

That is true but I think that things are not that simple.
I think that you need T ( in T and F people) to make a decision but there is a factor of education here as well.
But some people don't want to heve logical education since it is against what they believe. In my country there are problems with sexual education.
Just because 30% percent thinks something, that does not means that their logic is a correct one and I am sure that there are Ts in that 30%.


The thing is that people in T world not be flawless the point is that there would be less flawed logic.


What is greed for you ?
 
Top