How to designate the border between N and F/T ?

[Virtual ghost]

I was asked to explain my claim how the insight often comes from emotion. So I thoufght that this could be thread worthy.


On paper it is clear what is what. But in the real life the borders between the two are not that much obvious. Since the two letters are mixing.
If I recall correctly there was a thread in which NFJ said that they could not undersatnd how Ni/Te works. (while Ni/Fe doesn't make that much sense to me)

Now NF often claim that emotion gives them insights.
But to be honest with everybody I am not sure this is the case. I think that intuition gives them insights . (since that is what intuition does)
While emotion looks more like a material and conclusion making process to me. I mean I am quite strong T an I get alot of insights about various things (even people)


So, NFs and NTs where you draw the line between N and T/F ?
Other comments about this are welcome.

 

[Yloh]

Well, I think it isn't the fact that we let our feelings or thoughts give us insight, but it is what we are more interested in in the first place.

What I mean by that is NFs are interested in peace and harmony, so they are going to focus on goals that work in these aspects. With these goals in mind, NFs will use their insight to work towards those kind of goals. It just happens emotion is a major part of working towards peace and harmony, so it can seem like emotion gives insight.

NTs are interested in what is right and fair, so they are going to focus their insight on goals that work in these aspects. That is why NTs can seem so cold and cruel sometimes because their goals can interfere with the whole peace and harmony fluffy stuff.

I'm sure both NFs and NTs are capable of crossing the F/T line, but it is their goals, or better said values, that make them choose between being a F/T.

 

[Two Point Two]

I think that intuition itself is emotionally charged. I once read that emotions lie in the perceiving functions, rather than in the judging functions, and I think that might be right.

I'm not sure that my insights come from emotion, but they certainly come with emotion.

I don't think a strict line can be drawn between N and T or F (or between any of the functions, for that matter). I think N describes a propensity toward the abstract, a preference for working with theory. I think T and F flavour the abstraction, toward personal, human abstraction (abstraction primarily about people, meaning in human lives, etc.), or toward impersonal, non-human abstraction (primarily about the world, the universe, reality, systems and structures, et.).

 

[Virtual ghost]

No more other opinions ?

 

[Totenkindly]

I think the Perceiving functions are naturally what 'collects information' for Judging functions to process, if you want to go by textbook theory.

In that case, I'd be inclined to agree -- it's the N that is actually picking up the info like a vacuum picks up dust.

However, I think there is also interplay between the Judging and Perceiving functions.

Ne fetches info (with a focus on the potential implications/ramifications of info), which gets dumped into the Ti hopper, which in turn not only stamps some of it with various levels of rejection (and other parts with various levels of acceptance) but in the process creates a refined data set that Ne then can reference in terms of seeing what new implications can be perceived.

IOW, N and T do this "round-robin" thing where both contribute to the other. Thinking helps direct Intuition, and Intuition keeps dragging back more information based on honed datasets (plus other things).

I don't see emotion as a primarily the dominion of F types. It's just that T's tend to discount it more because the only truth of the emotion that can be validated is the existence of the emotion. Any data coming through an emotion channel is just like data coming via a sensory channel (and sensation can trigger emotion and vice versa), and has to be processed by T. I find FP people in particular seem to have an interplay between values and emotion -- the values (I think) are experienced as gut instincts, sense of "rightness," and bad/contrary values are unsettling/stir up bad vibes. Emotions are more inherently part of how values get judged... and by that I don't mean surface fleeting emotions but the more deep-seated gut feelings and larger broader more pervasive feelings.

(Or maybe I'm wrong. Someone else should clarify.)

 

[Seymour]

I think emotions often represent a whole series of unconscious judgments, and therefore make good material for deeper understanding of a situation (even when those unconscious judgments are wildly off base). In some sense, all perception has gone through a unconscious weighting process to select what's important enough to make it to consciousness. For sensors that weighting process favors more direct sensory data, and for intuitives that weighting process favors abstract associations.

So, both emotions and perception are partially the result of underlying unconscious decision making. Both impinge on consciousness without conscious direction. They both provide grist for our conscious decision making process, although generally Thinkers put less weight on emotions as valuable data for the conscious decision making process.

I think this whole topic is complicated by the fact that the results of judgment can be fed back through intuition (for example) to attempt to trigger new insights in an attempt to further validate the results of decision making. Likewise, what we consciously decide about something often evokes an emotional response. Additionally, we do use conscious judgment to decide where to focus our perceptions, and can sometimes consciously ignore the input of perception, although it still tends to have some emotional impact.


Whilst I was writing the above, Jennifer wrote:

I find FP people in particular seem to have an interplay between values and emotion -- the values (I think) are experienced as gut instincts, sense of "rightness," and bad/contrary values are unsettling/stir up bad vibes. Emotions are more inherently part of how values get judged... and by that I don't mean surface fleeting emotions but the more deep-seated gut feelings and larger broader more pervasive feelings.

(Or maybe I'm wrong. Someone else should clarify.)

I'd agree with all of that. I think I have more fleeting surface emotions in the moment that are still valuable input, but there's a much deeper sense of resonating rightness that eventually accompanies acting in accordance with one's principles. At its best, it's kind of like an huge chord played by an orchestra in which everything is in tune and each element amplifies, expands and deepens the next.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd agree with all of that. I think I have more fleeting surface emotions in the moment that are still valuable input, but there's a much deeper sense of resonating rightness that eventually accompanies acting in accordance with one's principles. At its best, it's kind of like an huge chord played by an orchestra in which everything is in tune and each element amplifies, expands and deepens the next.

Yeah. I have a holistic sense like that too, but it feels a bit more detached -- it's like the sense of balance... of NOT feeling like you're about to fall off the bike so to speak, everything is functioning the way that it best functions, coherently. Or the feeling one might get when one connects with the "sweet spot" on a pitch.