• 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.

Thinking types and their emotions.

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I was reading Jung's work recently, and I noticed that it said that in types with dominant thinking, feeling would be the most repressed function.

Now obviously thinking types have emotion to some degree (if only on the level of instinct), because they value efficiency and correctness, and want to achieve their goals/understanding and survive. If they they were completely objective and detached, no particular outcome or action would be perferred over any other, and they would probably allow themselves to stagnate and die.

However, I've noticed that most thinking types seem to have far more emotional development than this. I suppose it's possible that thinking types respond to humor because it helps them comprehend humor in general, and don't enjoy it for its own sake. Also, perhaps they only value interpersonal relationships because they see people as another system for them to explore, and they master the intricacies of communication simply to study them, showing false compassion and interest only to gain deeper access and further data?

But from my perspective, it doesn't look that way. It seems when I look at them that they actually experience emotion on a deeper level, not just a primative, instinctive one. Perhaps it's simply an elaborate ruse for the reasons mentioned above, but if it is, it's a very accurate and well-conceived one.

So, which is it? Wouldn't it be difficult to tell the difference?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Now obviously thinking types have emotion to some degree (if only on the level of instinct), because they value efficiency and correctness, and want to achieve their goals/understanding and survive. If they they were completely objective and detached, no particular outcome or action would be preferred over any other, and they would probably allow themselves to stagnate and die.

I don't think that's true. Objectively, some choices are always better than others, and especially survival instinct. Thinkers (and Feelers too) don't need to use much "Thinking" to decide, "Hmmm, if I do this, I won't die; and if I don't do this, I probably will die. Logically, I'd rather not die (!)"

I don't think the level of detachment you are describing is possible for any organism. The Thinking detachment is simply the ability to evaluate things without letting arbitrary/personal (dis)likes and/or values interfere. If the value is a universal one (like the survival instinct), well, that one is "true" objectively and thus is acceptable.

But from my perspective, it doesn't look that way. It seems when I look at them that they actually experience emotion on a deeper level, not just a primitive, instinctive one. Perhaps it's simply an elaborate ruse for the reasons mentioned above, but if it is, it's a very accurate and well-conceived one.

Of course T's do experience emotion, just as much as F's do think rationally. We are all human beings, and human beings do all these things. It's more merely a matter of priority and (generally) "which one is in charge" when both are operating simultaneously. And still, people are all inconsistent, so T's will sometimes just emote and F's will sometimes detach unconsciously, in the right situation.

Doing the inverse of your earlier example, would it make sense to say that, "it's possible that feeling types try to understand humor in general so that they can respond to it and enjoy it for its own sake. And perhaps they explore people as a system simply because they value interpersonal relationships and study the intricacies of communication simply to master them and connect better, showing false interest in the data so that they can experience compassion and interest in others...?"

(Or something similar, I know the analogy has not been worked enough yet to be totally equivalent but it should still give you an idea of what I am saying...)

Some of my analogy actually is accurate... but not 100%.

That is the thing:

T's DO generally use emotions as tools to achieve a goal rather than as ends in themselves, and otherwise suppress them -- especially the negative and unpleasurable ones, depending on the type. The Feeling is usually subordinated to the Thinking.

(Some T's actually don't mind anger, because it makes them even harder and more resolute and powerful. But sad depressing emotions or explosive insane emotions, ones that prevent the T from being out of control and thus unable to organize events in their preferred detached Thinking way, are the emotions that T's want to avoid.)

And F's DO generally use facts and details and structured logic in order to benefit the relational Feeling aspects of their lives. The Thinking is subordinated to the Feeling a majority of the time.

So Thinkers can often exude "real" emotions... but ultimately the emotions are still harnessed as they come out in service of a detached logic, if there is such a need. And Feelers can express "real" detached logic... but the logic is still harnessed in order to support the Feeler's values.

So, which is it? Wouldn't it be difficult to tell the difference?

Yes, for some people who are more nuanced and practiced, it can be hard to tell the difference unless you actually know the person, have seen them respond in various environments, and have also seen what they were like in the past (i.e., you have seen them "grow" as people and thus can interpolate back and imagine where they started from).

I think it is an interesting question and am curious to see what other people have to say. :)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
[/me goes on a general rant about using emotion and F interchangably]

There is an important distinction between feeling and emotions - both within MBTI and in a practical sense. One reason that the comment "T's have more emotional control than is suggested" is simply because it is not suggested that T's have any less or more emotional control. What is suggested is that they are not as compassionate, empathetic and all that. What is typically measured in emotions is the degree of stability - how much pressure needs to be applied to get a reaction... and the depth of the reaction.

The other important distinction is that F is a cognitive decision making process... emotions require a physiological change. This is also important because there is very little correlation between T/F and the amount of reactiveness or the depth of the reaction in emotions. T's get seriously pissed off about as much as Fs... just about different things.

[/rant]
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
So, what you're saying is, thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? But how can you know that they haven't merely become so engrossed in such a goal, that they've actually convinced themselves that they feel emotions deeper than curiosity, a desire for efficiency, a drive towards their goals, and survival, when in reality they don't? In more extreme cases of this, perhaps the person would even appear to be a feeling type, because they will have convinced themselves so fully that they genuinely care and want to be cared about. How can we really know that we or anyone else genuinely feel anything, and don't just believe that we do? That's the question.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, what you're saying is, thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? But how can you know that they haven't merely become so engrossed in such a goal, that they've actually convinced themselves that they feel emotions deeper than curiosity, a desire for efficiency, a drive towards their goals, and survival, when in reality they don't?

How do we know Feelers feel anything real? What is "feeling" anyway? It's a very complex category, isn't it?

How can we really know that we or anyone else genuinely feel anything, and don't just believe that we do? That's the question.

This question is meaningless, from a rational point of view.

(That's not a criticism, I simply mean there is no way to answer it. It's like asking, "How do I know that you and everyone else in the world is not just a figment of my imagination, and I'm imagining this conversation and the rest of reality around me as we speak?" It can't be answered through any rational process.)
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I've actually asked myself the other question as well. It probably can't be answered.

Okay, let's try this. Have you ever felt sad or happy about something, even though it had nothing to do with understanding or acheiving something? Would you feel any emotions unrelated to logic in any of the following situations:

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

My answers:

1. Both. I'm very sad that they died, but I'm also contemplating receiving the money. Additionally, I feel guilty for being glad that I'll receive money.

2. No, because it wasn't beautiful. If had been, I would have been a little sad, but not much.

3. Yes, because I wouldn't have missed the money being a millionaire, and it would have haunted me for the rest of my life that I just left them there in that state when I could have done something.
 
Last edited:

Opivy1980

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
138
MBTI Type
INTJ
1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

I might be sad for like a day or two but I would already be planning what I can do with the money to better myself the day I found out it was mine.

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

No

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

I would find out why they were in such a situation and only offer them my help out of it, not a hand out.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Without reading your answers first...

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

Both.

Although I can become consciously appalled at myself (because I know it's considered shallow) for how easy the first part is for me... the logical opportunism of a moment is not lost on me, I simply force myself to interact better with others than that.

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

How can a work of art not be beautiful to SOMEONE? Isn't that what art is?

If it's something that is not beautiful (is not evocative), and is not worth anything, and isn't even useful, I don't really care if it's destroyed. It's like a basket of plain crepe paper.

If I tweak the parameters of your question a little, though: If something is beautiful to someone OR I can see that considerable skill was necessary to create it (regardless of my personal feelings), then I do feel a bit of loss because something unique is gone forever. I try to preserve things that are unique.

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

There's a possibility I would give them something, regardless of their attitudes.

However, it would probably depend on how they plead. If I feel like they are demanding money from me just because I have it, or that they are in the mess they're in because they continuously squandered past monies and I can't perceive that they will do any better THIS time around, I probably would not give them money.

Because they are in dire straits and/or because I knew them in the past, thought, I would be inclined to help them in whatever way I thought was going to benefit them most... but this might not involve money.

The fact that no one knows whether I would help or not has no real bearing on my reaction.
 

Natrushka

Pareo cattus
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,213
MBTI Type
INTJ
1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

1. Both.

2. Did it belong to me? If yes, yes. If not, no.

3. Yes.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

I have yet to really be sad over death. The money wouldn't affect how I felt however, either way. I would still be planning over the change it offered in my life, yes, and I would be as sad (or not) if he didn't leave anything for me.

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

All destruction affects me. The effect might be minor, but at some level I would be wondering about the failed work of art. Something that was created that is then destroyed is part of the process... but something unwanted, a failed creation... that does evoke some reaction.

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

Yes, I most likely would. But this is a rather complex calculation between my view on charity, my own means, the required amount to have a significant influence, the past relationship, the character of the people involved, the history between us...

I wouldn't do it to someone I don't know; I wouldn't do it to someone I did know but had issues with; I wouldn't do it if the influence of my actions didn't cause a lasting change in their fortunes. The gap between my means and theirs would have very little to know influence, except from the viewpoint of it's impact on me (ie: the difference between $5 now and $5 as a millionaire isn't significant... but $1000 now to $1000 as a millionaire is significant).
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
A general principle, which was seen at work in my commission's meeting earlier this evening, is that use of Feeling will lead one to judge rules and standards according to circumstance and value; Thinking, in terms of consistency and coherence.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
MBTI does not measure emotion at all, so implying that feeling types have better development than thinking types is a myth and just plain inaccurate. Feeling types may benefit from showing their emotions in a more acceptable way in public and dealing with social niceties, however, these are not based on emotions just social values. The comparison is an apple/orange.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"?" (you mind if I call you The Riddler? :p ), I do agree with you on that. However, Feelers make judgments based on emotion and personal values.

Still, either Thinkers or Feelers can be perceived as cold-hearted. With Thinking, it is more obvious with emotional (not Feeling) types. However, Feelers can be cold-hearted, manipulative backstabbers, as well, if they so choose -- they are more skillful at emotional manipulation toward other people to achieve their own ends.

It is also said how Feelers don't like conflict. But Thinkers may be inclined to do what's best for the group to avoid conflict -- thereby doing what they perceive as the right thing. What's right and wrong is a point of view.

I think conflict is more rooted in the P and J dichotomy. Ps, particularly ExxPs, are more tolerant of chaos and tend to be better at debating either with ideas (N) or by physical means (S). So you could say that ExxPs are more tolerant of conflict, while ExxJs try to resist conflict by controlling the outside world, either by changing (N) or stabilizing (S) the external world.

With Introverts, things become more complicated. IxxPs tend to tolerate conflict. ISxPs may enjoy observing the conflict in a more detached way because they enjoy being entertained. INxPs will also enjoy observing conflict because observations of the outer world fuel their minds with new ideas.

With IxxJs, they will tend to withdraw from the outer world and likely enjoy doing their own hobby. ISxJs will probably withdraw by doing something physical, such as going to the gym to release their anger or perhaps doing work around the house. INxJs, on the other hand, will withdraw into a personal idealized world and vent their anger out through internal desires -- constructing a vivid concept of what they wish to happen with the situation. This is probably why Ni types are the most inclined to meditate and be perceived as inactive.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
"?" (you mind if I call you The Riddler? :p ), I do agree with you on that. However, Feelers make judgments based on emotion and personal values.
Ummm... Enigma would be better:) I agree with the personal values, however we all can make decisions using our emotions. I think that Thinking types make attempts to preclude emotions, whereas Feeling types are more comfortable with it, however in the end it comes down to personal values and logic.
Still, either Thinkers or Feelers can be perceived as cold-hearted. With Thinking, it is more obvious with emotional (not Feeling) types. However, Feelers can be cold-hearted, manipulative backstabbers, as well, if they so choose -- they are more skillful at emotional manipulation toward other people to achieve their own ends.
Agreed. It reminds me of the fuzzy type saying, whereas INTPs are cold inside, but appear warm and fuzzy on the outside and INFJs are warm and fuzzy on the inside, but can appear cold on the outside.
It is also said how Feelers don't like conflict. But Thinkers may be inclined to do what's best for the group to avoid conflict -- thereby doing what they perceive as the right thing. What's right and wrong is a point of view.
Actually, I have read that INTPs avoid conflict at all cost.
I think conflict is more rooted in the P and J dichotomy. Ps, particularly ExxPs, are more tolerant of chaos and tend to be better at debating either with ideas (N) or by physical means (S). So you could say that ExxPs are more tolerant of conflict, while ExxJs try to resist conflict by controlling the outside world, either by changing (N) or stabilizing (S) the external world.
I will have to think about that. Conflict is relative. I personal look at conflicts as something to resolve, however I hate conflicts where there is too much emotion and becomes loud and boisterous. I will just walk away if I cannot reason with the other person. On the otherhand, when I snap I scare myself.
With Introverts, things become more complicated. IxxPs tend to tolerate conflict. ISxPs may enjoy observing the conflict in a more detached way because they enjoy being entertained. INxPs will also enjoy observing conflict because observations of the outer world fuel their minds with new ideas.
I don't enjoy conflicts. If I can contribute to resolve it, I will get right in the middle. Otherwise, again it's relative to what the conflict entails and how it's being presented. Loud and boisterous people make me nervous. When they are angry and showing a lot of emotion, I walk away.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, what you're saying is, thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? But how can you know that they haven't merely become so engrossed in such a goal, that they've actually convinced themselves that they feel emotions deeper than curiosity, a desire for efficiency, a drive towards their goals, and survival, when in reality they don't? In more extreme cases of this, perhaps the person would even appear to be a feeling type, because they will have convinced themselves so fully that they genuinely care and want to be cared about. How can we really know that we or anyone else genuinely feel anything, and don't just believe that we do? That's the question.

We definitely feel real emotions...no doubt about it! I would go so far as to say because we ruminate on these feelings - when we express them there is a lot of power behind it! Because we've often analyzed it and decided how we feel and are committed to expressing it.

So we may not be as mercurial expressing emotions as F's do. We may inhibit the less important 'annoyances' that most F's have no trouble expressing. But it's mainly because, I think, that we realize a lot of feelings are flashes and fleeting moments and therefore, not worth investing energy into investigation or calling attention to.

Your last question is a philosophers wet dream! :wubbie: lol...I'm not going the way of the esoteric here. We can only speak for our own experiences. I know I'm feeling emotions because: I'm crying. I'm hurting. I'm smiling. I'm scared.
Simple as that.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Let this continue.
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
SLEs show emotions all the time. They're just extremely rough and reactionary.

ILEs who deny behaving parallel to this (but in an Si/Ne analog) are lying.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it's more fluid than is depicted. Thinking doms have feelings. They have more "concentrated" feeling. If we have it and express it, it is simplistic and therefore is expressed more "pure" and intensely than balanced with other elements (taking into account feelings of others as well as their own feelings, for instance) than an NF's would be expressed. It's not better or worse, just more raw. All or nothing. A bit more selfish than NF's feeling expression.

We are more built toward how we are affected.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think it's more fluid than is depicted. Thinking doms have feelings. They have more "concentrated" feeling. If we have it and express it, it is simplistic and therefore is expressed more "pure" and intensely than balanced with other elements (taking into account feelings of others as well as their own feelings, for instance) than an NF's would be expressed. It's not better or worse, just more raw. All or nothing. A bit more selfish than NF's feeling expression.

We are more built toward how we are affected.

That clears up a lot. Can the same be said of thinking in feeling types?
 

callmelazy

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
10
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
No offence, but some of this is really ignorant. "thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? " - really? Oh my god.. where do I even begin? Of course we feel real emotion. Since we aren't robots, but humans, we do feel real emotions. The difference between thinking and feeling is mostly about our decision-making process. And thinking dom will usually have quite big difficulties expressing those emotions that they DO actually really feel. I, for one, have very intense feelings about everything around me, whether it's a person, an object, a situation or whatever. I'm just not guided by them. I make my decisions based on logic and reason and not based on feelings. Moreover, whenever I do express my feelings, they will always be real and without any embelishment. I would never ever express false emotions.
I doubt any thinking dom would ever express false emotions, even if they wanted to learn more about someone. On the contrary, I would think that, since we tend to repress our feelings, the mere act of expressing them would give more value to whatever it is we're trying to express. I think you're confusing an obsessively manipulative individual with someone with a dominant thinking function. Let me break it to you: it's really, really not the same thing. I'd actually go as far as saying that feelers are more manipulative than thinkers.
 
Top