Getting the feeling function wrong

[donut1975]

Does it seem as though we often times get the feeling function wrong? I believe Jung thought that the feeling function was not so much about emotions but about rational decision making. Thus, the feeling function would be every bit as "reasonable" as the thinking function, except that it is subjective thinking vs. objective thinking.

 

[Jaguar]

Jung stated it in no uncertain terms. So has pretty much every Jungian analyst on the planet. But in this forum, people would rather sling rotten typology tomatoes at each other, than read a book and learn for themselves. The Feeling function as a mental process is not to be confused with physiological emotions. The Feeling function evaluates worth. That means one who prefers Thinking as a judging process can be equal to, or even more emotional than, someone who prefers to make decisions with the Feeling function. This infomation is readily available in many books.

 

[Wonkavision]

Amen.

 

[donut1975]

Does this also imply that feelers are not necessarily more "people" oriented or humanitarian, but rather more "evaluative" (if that's a word)? In other words, feeling-dominant persons could be more prone to make decisions after evaluating situations subjectively (regardless of whether it involves superior people skills) while thinking-dominated persons could be more prone to make decisions that make sense objectively regardless of the situation at hand. For example, a "feeler" would be more inclined to decide that truth changes, while a "thinker" would be more inclined to decide that truth is timeless and absolute?

 

[William K]

Does this also imply that feelers are not necessarily more "people" oriented or humanitarian, but rather more "evaluative" (if that's a word)? In other words, feeling-dominant persons could be more prone to make decisions after evaluating situations subjectively (regardless of whether it involves superior people skills) while thinking-dominated persons could be more prone to make decisions that make sense objectively regardless of the situation at hand. For example, a "feeler" would be more inclined to decide that truth changes, while a "thinker" would be more inclined to decide that truth is timeless and absolute?

Yeah. External consistency is not a requirement for me. My personal 'feeling' logic is just that, mine. It's a personal truth instead of a universal one.

 

[skylights]

(ganked from amplify.com)

Time to Use your Jungian Feeling!

The Trolley Problem

It's a lovely day out, and you decide to go for a walk along the trolley tracks that crisscross your town. As you walk, you hear a trolley behind you, and you step away from the tracks. But as the trolley gets closer, you hear the sounds of panic -- the five people on board are shouting for help. The trolley's brakes have gone out, and it's gathering speed.

You find that you just happen to be standing next to a side track that veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the trolley's five passengers. All you have to do is pull a hand lever to switch the tracks, and you'll save the five people. Sounds easy, right? But there's a problem. Along this offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the action you're considering. There's no time to warn him. So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety, you'll save the five passengers. But you'll kill the man. What do you do?

and this is where jungian Feeling comes into play - what you decide to do is totally based off of your personal perceptions regarding the value of a life as well as your personal moral responsibility. it becomes even more complex if you know, or worse, love, one of the people involved in the situation. logic can't even give you a terribly clear answer here, because it's not clear whether the 5 people will survive regardless of what you do, while there is a clear consequence for the 1 man. how to weigh an unknown against a known?

About Feeling

Joshua Greene at Princeton University is leading the charge to explore morality through the use of technology. He's been using MRIs in conjunction with the trolley problem and other moral paradoxes. He's found that when a person in an MRI machine is asked questions like whether they should take a bus or a train to work, the parts of their brain that activate to form their answers are among the same areas that activate when the person is sorting through the first example in the trolley problem. The thought of pulling a switch that will dispatch one person to save five appears to be governed along the lines of reason and problem solving.

On the other hand (or region of the brain), Greene has found that distinctly different parts of the brain activate when people consider pushing a man onto the tracks. Regions that are responsible for determining what other people are feeling, as well as an area related to strong emotions, swing into action when a person is confronted with the decision of whether to push the man onto the tracks. It's possible this combination of brain functions constitutes our moral judgment.

Greene's not alone in his quest to update human morality. John Mikhail, a philosopher at Georgetown University, is investigating his belief that the brain handles morality in a similar way to how it handles grammar. In Mikhail's opinion, we decide if an act is moral or immoral based on a series of clues within the context. We recognize an act as immoral in the same way we recognize a grammatical error in a sentence -- it just stands out. cough cough Ti - Fi connection

===

but yeah, people screw them up a lot. it's kind of understandable because Feeling and emotion are related, they're simply not mutually inclusive. jungian Feeling does interpret emotion, so those who have a better awareness of and more experience in evaluating emotions in general are more likely to be aware of and/or express their own.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I thought Feeling had to do with what you gave priority to when evaluating solutions. Thinkingers give priority to consistency and efficiency whereas Feelingers give priority to how the solution affects social relationships and cohesion. It's not that Feelers aren't focused on the problem, but that they have a broader interpretation of what the problem is, i.e., it extends beyond the thing to the people who are implementing the solution.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong because I wanna be clear about why I think MBTI is stupid.

 

[William K]

but yeah, people screw them up a lot. it's kind of understandable because Feeling and emotion are related, they're simply not mutually inclusive. jungian Feeling does interpret emotion, so those who have a better awareness of and more experience in evaluating emotions in general are more likely to be aware of and/or express their own.

The problem is the word 'feel' is ambiguous. We can feel emotions of course, but we can also feel a lot of other things. Feeling cold is related more to sensing, for example. Even something like 'feeling excited' can be attributed to a number of the cognitive functions.

 

[donut1975]

(ganked from amplify.com)

Time to Use your Jungian Feeling!

The Trolley Problem

It's a lovely day out, and you decide to go for a walk along the trolley tracks that crisscross your town. As you walk, you hear a trolley behind you, and you step away from the tracks. But as the trolley gets closer, you hear the sounds of panic -- the five people on board are shouting for help. The trolley's brakes have gone out, and it's gathering speed.

You find that you just happen to be standing next to a side track that veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the trolley's five passengers. All you have to do is pull a hand lever to switch the tracks, and you'll save the five people. Sounds easy, right? But there's a problem. Along this offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the action you're considering. There's no time to warn him. So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety, you'll save the five passengers. But you'll kill the man. What do you do?

and this is where jungian Feeling comes into play - what you decide to do is totally based off of your personal perceptions regarding the value of a life as well as your personal moral responsibility. it becomes even more complex if you know, or worse, love, one of the people involved in the situation. logic can't even give you a terribly clear answer here, because it's not clear whether the 5 people will survive regardless of what you do, while there is a clear consequence for the 1 man. how to weigh an unknown against a known?

What function would shy away from the anxiety that thinking about this sort of scenario would cause?

 

[Jaguar]

What function would shy away from the anxiety that thinking about this sort of scenario would cause?

Anxiety is a physiological emotion, usually accompanied by activation of the sympathetic nervous system. (Hence the symptoms of sweaty palms, increased heart rate and blood pressure variations.) None of that has to do with Jungian functions. This was the point Jung was making when he a gave a lecture to 200 doctors, so they understood how his theory worked.

Does this also imply that feelers are not necessarily more "people" oriented or humanitarian, but rather more "evaluative" (if that's a word)? In other words, feeling-dominant persons could be more prone to make decisions after evaluating situations subjectively (regardless of whether it involves superior people skills) while thinking-dominated persons could be more prone to make decisions that make sense objectively regardless of the situation at hand.

That's the exact word I use when I describe the Feeling function - evaluative.
Can you imagine a world where we could not evaluate what something, or someone, is worth to us? As you already know, those who prefer Feeling are frequently called people-oriented, but that doesn't necessarily hold true in practice. There are quite a lot of people claiming to be Feeling types who have no problem admitting they dislike people, or that they prefer animals to people. And the preference for Feeling in no way equates to having people skills. So I would, indeed, rather refer to Feeling as evaluative in nature.

I could use an example such as a terrorist, who evaluates whether his beliefs warrant taking action to destroy human life in a particular city.
Does that sound like a "people-oriented" person to you? Probably not. But that terrorist can indeed be employing Feeling to make a decision. Frankly, a Feeling type could have ice running through their veins, so to speak. Warmth is not assured. It's about evaluating worth and taking into account what kind of impact a decision will have for oneself, and/or for others. Well, that could be a terrorist, or perhaps a school teacher who considers what is in the best interest of his, or her, students. It's all based on a value system. And depending upon how you look at it, that value system can be really ugly, or really beautiful.

Keep in mind we are all capable of making both types of decisions whether it's logic-based or value-based. If you want to use some of the really hardcore descriptions of Thinking types out there, some do describe them as leaving out a value system when making decisions. Having said that, I have never met a human being like that, nor would I want to. People use both logic and values. We're not inflexible beings.

By the way, I see you recently joined. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Lily Bart]

I hate things like the Trolley Problem. To me they seem overly manipulative and unrealistic. I'm not saying the research isn't interesting and legitimate, I'm just indicating how I, as a Feeling type, react to such things. They're just games. On the other hand, I find peoples' real emotions and motivations and behavior endlessly compelling -- some people might call this "gossip," but definitely not me! All the petty details of the recent breakup of a friend's marriage -- I can talk about them over and over again, long past the point my Thinking comrades lose interest. If there's no one to "gossip" with, I am endlessly entertained working these issues out in my own mind. This is not mere titillation for me, or even being judgmental, this is just how my mind works. I am weighing all the (human) evidence and trying to better understand how the world (of people) works.

 

[garbage]

(ganked from amplify.com)

Time to Use your Jungian Feeling!

The Trolley Problem

Totally getting off-subject here, but people tend toward a mindset of inaction in situations like this. They'd rather not act than have their actions cause harm.


As for the subject itself.. yeah, all of the terms are misunderstood at first because the terms are conflated with their colloquial meanings. Feeling is probably the primary culprit, though.

I guess the chosen words (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, Intuition, ...) represent the closest analogs to their intended meanings. It'd be nice if there were.. better words.

 

[Totenkindly]

Totally getting off-subject here, but people tend toward a mindset of inaction in situations like this. They'd rather not act than have their actions cause harm.

That's the issue with the trolley problem.

Also, people will tend to go by numbers if they have to do something as simple as flip a switch -- "Save one stranger or save five strangers? Okay, I'll save five."

But they have a lot harder time choosing to kill one if they have to kill him themselves, directly, to spare five. Chances are they just won't act if they would have to kill someone directly (rather than just diverting a train by flipping a switch), and the five would die by default.

 

[Robopop]

Jung stated it in no uncertain terms. So has pretty much every Jungian analyst on the planet. But in this forum, people would rather sling rotten typology tomatoes at each other, than read a book and learn for themselves. The Feeling function as a mental process is not to be confused with physiological emotions. The Feeling function evaluates worth. That means one who prefers Thinking as a judging process can be equal to, or even more emotional than, someone who prefers to make decisions with the Feeling function. This infomation is readily available in many books.

Someone with dom or aux thinking function CAN be more emotionally reactive than someone with dom or aux feeling, really this is more related to the emotional stability dimension than thinking or feeling cognitive functions.

 

[Redbone]

That's the exact word I use when I describe the Feeling function - evaluative.

This is something I have recently come to understand myself. After talking a long time to a friend (he is ESFJ), I realized that he is evaluating things in his mind. I can almost see him putting it on a scale (like Ma'at). It made me appreciate that his way of decision making is not flawed but different (yes--I was prejudiced) and it's all good.

 

[donut1975]

Totally getting off-subject here, but people tend toward a mindset of inaction in situations like this. They'd rather not act than have their actions cause harm.

Yeah, that's what I meant by the "anxiety" that thinking about this sort of thing causes... I don't think people could stand the pressure that well.

 

[donut1975]

It made me appreciate that his way of decision making is not flawed but different (yes--I was prejudiced) and it's all good.

I'm catching on...

Isn't this itself an evaluative statement?

 

[Jaguar]

This is something I have recently come to understand myself. After talking a long time to a friend (he is ESFJ), I realized that he is evaluating things in his mind. I can almost see him putting it on a scale (like Ma'at). It made me appreciate that his way of decision making is not flawed but different (yes--I was prejudiced) and it's all good.

I think that's one of the greatest posts I have ever seen in this forum.
Now, all we have to do is get a couple hundred more to realize what you have.

 

[Glycerine]

Yay!

 

[skylights]

Totally getting off-subject here, but people tend toward a mindset of inaction in situations like this. They'd rather not act than have their actions cause harm.

yes, absolutely - especially given that, in the problem, there is no actual guarantee that the 5 people will die if you do not act, whereas there is certainty that the 1 person will die of you do.

it's interesting to hear the ethics decisions rely upon, too. stuff like utilitarianism and kantian philosophy... stuff that sounds kind of logical on the outside but rests on conceptions that are irrational in nature.

I hate things like the Trolley Problem. To me they seem overly manipulative and unrealistic. I'm not saying the research isn't interesting and legitimate, I'm just indicating how I, as a Feeling type, react to such things. They're just games.

the point is to put you in a place where a purely logical decision is almost completely inaccessible, so it almost has to be contrived. its goal is to put you in a situation that almost never occurs in real life.

incidentally, i'm a Feeling type too, and am quite interested in people's answers to these hypothetical situations because, game or not, they have real-world implications. maybe people will get pissed at me for talking Fi/Fe but it would make sense for us, for our opinions on this. it matters more to me because it's personal values (Fi) and not as much interpersonal relations (Fe).

This is something I have recently come to understand myself. After talking a long time to a friend (he is ESFJ), I realized that he is evaluating things in his mind. I can almost see him putting it on a scale (like Ma'at). It made me appreciate that his way of decision making is not flawed but different (yes--I was prejudiced) and it's all good.

nice explanation, and sweet. i'm coming to appreciate both T and F decision making styles more, and to understand T decisions better.

I think that's one of the greatest posts I have ever seen in this forum.
Now, all we have to do is get a couple hundred more to realize what you have.

yup. and for a couple hundred Feelers to admit that being a T doesn't make someone an uncaring asshole, lol