Do feeling functions have anything to do with emotion or are the two seperate?

[OrangeAppled]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], since you said an F dom would not hold conflicting values but a P dom would, how does Fi manifest in ENFP's if Feeling is harmonizing values?

It's rather simple.... the further from the dominant, the less differentiated ("developed") a function is, so Feeling (and Thinking also!) would become less reasoned in the aux, mainly serving the P irrational ego. (I think the bias against Feeling being rational is rooted in misogyny - as more F-dom are women than men & more T-dom men than women), but that's a tangent.) This is why people who are not F-dom find feeling to be emotional, much as intuitives find sensing to be childishly simple & sensing types find intution to be paranoia or delusions. They don't see it as "thinking" because thinking is defined by their preferred style.

I have heard ENFPs say that they know how they feel clearly (they know their values), but they admit it's less "organized" than with INFPs. It's more tangled up - less reasoned out. You could probably say their emotion is more tied to their feeling, but I'd also guess it's that their perception is running the show & feelings tend to be formed from what they perceived with less need to ruthlessly harmonize it all for consistency like a Fi-dom would. P-dom tend to "see" conclusions as opposed to reasoning them out, which is why they are called "irrational" by Jung. Anyhow, because of this, ENFPs may miss inconsistencies & may hold contradicting values without realizing it. Ji-dom are just more thorough, IMO. Je-dom tend to be thorough with an eye to how it holds up in practice (more viable than Ji). So Fe -dom seek a kind of consistency with values, actions & results more than the kind of theoretical, value-concepts a Fi-dom forms.

 

[Lady_X]

that's an interesting take...may even be more true than not

but i have had the experience of wondering how my infp bfs values seemed so flexible...and he said that he often uses ne to see things differently or whatever..

i feel like once i've made up my mind about something it rarely changes beyond possibly understanding how something could feel right to someone else based on who they are.

 

[OrangeAppled]

i don't know what she meant by that but it wouldn't. it may appear that way if we're just ne'ing out ideas because we can switch back and forth proving opposing ideas in a ne way that has nothing to with us. i don't think infps always understand that because they start from their feeling core and explore it through ne...we're the opposite...so we can stay in ne land for conversations sake...and not check with fi unless that's the direction we want to speak from...

if that makes sense...and it may be different for others...idk

Yes it does make sense.... I don't mean to be insulting to ENFPs, but I just meant to explain that with perception in the lead, the harmonizing judging does is less a focus.

Ji is seeking a kind of perfection which does not really exist. The level of consistency an INFP may seek is not always - even frequently not - realistic. That's partly why we're so idealistic. The ENFP is not necessarily deluded to hold values which don't harmonize perfectly - there may be an awareness of the broader context that shows how in reality such things are true without problem, because reality is not so neat & tidy. Or it may not harmonize just yet, but that's because we do not know everything. There's a comfort with the unknown & suspension of evaluation.

This is the kind of awareness that lets INFPs "let go" a bit as they develop Ne. The random absurdity of Ne is reflective of reality in many ways, and it can definitely be aware that truths can at least appear to conflict.

 

[Lady_X]

Yes it does make sense.... I don't mean to be insulting to ENFPs, but I just meant to explain that with perception in the leas, the harmonizing judging does is less a focus.

Ji is seeking a kind of perfection which does not really exist. The level of consistency an INFP may seek is not always - even frequently not - realistic. That's partly why we're so idealistic. The ENFP is not necessarily deluded to hold values which don't harmonize perfectly - there may be an awareness of the broader context that shows how in reality such things are true without problem, because reality is not so neat & tidy. Or it may not harmonize just yet, but that's because we do not know everything. There's a comfort with the unknown & suspension of evaluation.

This is the kind of awareness that lets INFPs "let go" a bit as they develop Ne. The random absurdity of Ne is reflective of reality in many ways, and it can definitely be aware that truths can at least appear to conflict.

yeah for sure i agree with that.

 

[Eric B]

No, Feeling is not emotion, but the function does pay more attention to them, in addition to everything else it means to be human.

Here are the definitions I've recently developed:

Feeling (F): the judgment (decision-making) function that covers personal or interpersonal elements of life. According to Jung, it tells us “what [something] is worth”. This is possible from our state as emotional creatures affected by objects and events, which is the focus of the function.

A person’s “Feeling” function is their perspective of the human side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by emotions and values, and identification with other living beings.

A Feeling type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, such as emotions and values; usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from that perspective.

In contrast:

Thinking (T): the judgment (decision making) function that covers technical or “impersonal” elements of objects, such as “if-then” evaluations, regardless of affect on people. According to Jung, it is the function that gives it a name [i.e logically categorizes "what is"]. This is the function that captures our [personal] detachment from things evaluated.

A person’s “Thinking” function is their perspective of the technical side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by impersonal logic. It’s where we detach from things as simply other objects.

A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of objects and how they work (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency.


Also, just came up with the term panpersonal, as the hypothetical opposite of “impersonal”, to represent the products of the Feeling function, since “personal” is ambiguous (also refers to an introverted perspective).
I before tried to use the term "humane", but that seemed to carry a particular positive connotation to people.

“im-” means “not”, and its opposite is generally no prefix at all. So the closest thing to an opposite of that prefix would be the root “essen-”, meaning “to be”. Or, “pan-” meaning “all”, which is less an established (and less awkward) prefix.
It would serve as a collective for “personal/impersonal”, which I also use (with “personal” generally as introverted Feeling, and “interpersonal” as extraverted Feeling), but as two words is more clunky.

 

[greenfairy]

So Ji makes a blueprint of the reality they want to create, and Je creates reality from the collective blueprint.

 

[Chiharu]

I think the Feeling functions act like a filter for emotions. Both Fe and Fi "catch" emotions. Fe allows some part of them to pass through and be utilized/expressed. Fi allows part of them to pass through for analyzation, and then part of that to be expressed. This is why Fe users are more demonstrative. Those who have Fe or Fi as their dom/aux function will factor emotions into their decision making more because more of the emotion pass through since their "filter" is more efficient.

 

[INTP]

I like the two dimensional model on emotions

, where you have dimensions of good/bad and activation/deactivation. When it comes to F judgment, the judgment of positive/negative dimension is directly related, as F judges whether something is good or bad and emotion needs this strong F judgment to be produced. I think the activating/deactivating system is separate from F, but has the same roots than F judgment does; personal complexes. And after the separated processing of activation/deactivation and positive/negative they come to brain regions near where the consciousness is formed and combined into one emotion which the person is conscious of.

Oh and i think this is pretty much related:

Affect

By the term affect we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other [5]. I use emotion as synonymous with affect I distinguish—in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity)—feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that no definite demarcation exists, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. On practical grounds, however, it is advisable to discriminate affect from feeling, since feeling can be a disposable function, whereas affect is usually not so. Similarly, affect is clearly distinguished from feeling by quite perceptible physical innervations, while feeling for the most part lacks them, or their intensity is so slight that they can only be demonstrated by the finest instruments, as for example the psycho-galvanic phenomenon [6]. Affect becomes cumulative through the sensation of the physical innervations released by it. This perception gave rise to the James-Lang theory of affect, which would make bodily innervations wholly responsible for affects. As opposed to this extreme view, I regard affect as a psychic feeling-state on the one hand, and as a physiological innervation-state on the other; each of which has a cumulative, reciprocal effect upon the other, i.e. a component of sensation is joined to the reinforced feeling, through which the affect is approximated more to sensation (v. Sensation), and differentiated essentially from the state of feeling. Pronounced affects, i.e. affects accompanied by violent physical innervation, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to the realm of the sensation function (v. Function).

 

[OrangeAppled]

^ You could highlight other parts also...context is important, including that outside of this block of text.

Affect

By the term affect we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other [5]. I use emotion as synonymous with affect I distinguish—in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity)—feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that no definite demarcation exists, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. On practical grounds, however, it is advisable to discriminate affect from feeling, since feeling can be a disposable function, whereas affect is usually not so. Similarly, affect is clearly distinguished from feeling by quite perceptible physical innervations, while feeling for the most part lacks them, or their intensity is so slight that they can only be demonstrated by the finest instruments, as for example the psycho-galvanic phenomenon [6]. Affect becomes cumulative through the sensation of the physical innervations released by it. This perception gave rise to the James-Lang theory of affect, which would make bodily innervations wholly responsible for affects. As opposed to this extreme view, I regard affect as a psychic feeling-state on the one hand, and as a physiological innervation-state on the other; each of which has a cumulative, reciprocal effect upon the other, i.e. a component of sensation is joined to the reinforced feeling, through which the affect is approximated more to sensation (v. Sensation), and differentiated essentially from the state of feeling. Pronounced affects, i.e. affects accompanied by violent physical innervation, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to the realm of the sensation function (v. Function).

Notice he says feeling incurs emotional affect after attaining a certain strength. The emotion is then a signal used to communicate weight to others or a signal to the self of a value being met/violated. That does not make the emotional response & feeling judging process the same, as the formation of the feeling judgments is the judging process, whereas the value that may stir an emotional affect is a product of it. A feeling-value cannot attain a strength before it is formed, only after.

 

[INTP]

Emotions may be relevant data considered in evaluating. But the evaluating is its own process separate from the emotional affect. Emotion is not the only data nor always deemed relevant at all. It can be dismissed.
The two are not inseparable.

Jung says both thinking and feeling are logical but I believe he is speaking of consistency in their reasoning. The more narrow kind of logic that is dry, technical, impersonal - that is associated with thinking which also generally doesn't consider emotion relevant. This because they are organizing with a different focus. Thinking is classifying what things are, unrelated to being human, and feeling is determining worth in relation to being human.

Actually not all feeling judgments are rational(i assume you meant this word instead of logical), as there are two types of feeling, passive(which is irrational) and active(which is rational). When you get a feeling about the worth of something without really contemplating on it, its an unconscious feeling judgment which comes through intuition and is irrational because it lacks the conscious evaluation and thus is passive. Only when the feeling judgment comes from active conscious evaluation, it is rational because, well thats the definition of rational

The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Actually not all feeling judgments are rational(i assume you meant this word instead of logical), as there are two types of feeling, passive(which is irrational) and active(which is rational). When you get a feeling about the worth of something without really contemplating on it, its an unconscious feeling judgment which comes through intuition and is irrational because it lacks the conscious evaluation and thus is passive. Only when the feeling judgment comes from active conscious evaluation, it is rational because, well thats the definition of rational

Active, directed feeling is basically Dominant Feeling. The dominant function is the most active, conscious thinking in a person, which is why you experience it as "yourself" or your ego.

The passive feeing described is feeling undifferentiated from emotion & perceptions, IMO. That's how someone with inferior Feeling tends to experience it, hence their common insistence on feeling not being rational thought.

And no, I meant logical. I specifically choose certain words for a reason. I used "logical" because I was referring to a specific quote from Jung, which I included in my post.

 

[INTP]

^ You could highlight other parts also...context is important, including that outside of this block of text.



Notice he says feeling incurs emotional affect after attaining a certain strength. The emotion is then a signal used to communicate weight to others or a signal to the self of a value being met/violated. That does not make the emotional response & feeling judging process the same, as the formation of the feeling judgments is the judging process, whereas the value that may stir an emotional affect is a product of it. A feeling-value cannot attain a strength before it is formed, only after.

I think that these physical innervations that jung is talking about is what gives rise to the activating/deactivation dimension in that theory of emotion that i posted.

I dont really agree completely with what you said about the strength which the feeling evaluation gets comes only after the judgment, not before it. I think that the process might get strong signal to begin with and thus often produce a strong judgment, or it might get a smaller signal and get stronger in the process. Other regions might amplify or repress the signal based on personal complexes, F might do that aswell or it might go through F then be amplified by other regions and get back to F.

 

[INTP]

Active, directed feeling is basically Dominant Feeling. The dominant function is the most active, conscious thinking in a person, which is why you experience it as "yourself" or your ego.

The passive feeing described is feeling undifferentiated from emotion & perceptions, IMO. That's how someone with inferior Feeling tends to experience it, hence their common insistence on feeling not being rational thought.

And no, I meant logical. I specifically choose certain words for a reason. I used "logical" because I was referring to a specific quote from Jung, which I included in my post.

I dont agree that active feeling is dom F. I mean dom F types use active feeling more often and naturally than those with inferior F for example, but dom F types are also REALLY heavily influenced by their passive feelings, maybe not as much as F aux types often are, but definitely more than T types usually are. I think that when undeveloped F is used in T types, its most often passive F, not active as active F requires some differentiation, but T types with developed F are capable of doing active F, but it requires more effort and the whole process doesent start so easily.

 

[Eric B]

Actually not all feeling judgments are rational(i assume you meant this word instead of logical), as there are two types of feeling, passive(which is irrational) and active(which is rational). When you get a feeling about the worth of something without really contemplating on it, its an unconscious feeling judgment which comes through intuition and is irrational because it lacks the conscious evaluation and thus is passive. Only when the feeling judgment comes from active conscious evaluation, it is rational because, well thats the definition of rational

OK, this is what I've been looking for and trying to articulate recently. The way I put it was:

Unconscious F: just reacting to emotions or impulsively going for what’s “liked”
conscious F: looking at the emotion, or what is liked, and making a rational decision based on it.
(Everyone will do the former at times, but the difference is that the Feelers will be more likely to do the latter in normal circumstances).

Similarly, other functions:
Unconscious: just routinely experiencing sensations, dealing with a concepts or using logic as the situations come.
Conscious: a stronger focus on the sensations, concepts or logic.

I had deduced this myself from trying to separate the "feelings", "likes", "values", etc. everyone has from the true function, and didn't know Jung had pretty articulated the same thing.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I think that these physical innervations that jung is talking about is what gives rise to the activating/deactivation dimension in that theory of emotion that i posted.

I dont really agree completely with what you said about the strength which the feeling evaluation gets comes only after the judgment, not before it. I think that the process might get strong signal to begin with and thus often produce a strong judgment, or it might get a smaller signal and get stronger in the process. Other regions might amplify or repress the signal based on personal complexes, F might do that aswell or it might go through F then be amplified by other regions and get back to F.

Well, as an F-dom I will tell you that these passive feelings (often called "feeling tones" also by people, whether or not Jung meant that) are generally considered like an emotion, as far as a recognition they are not rational. They are dealt with similarly - as signals to be reasoned on. It's not unusual for them to be signaling a feeling-concept already created - that's why perception is a part of it. It's recognition of a manifestation of a value.

I experience a contrast between this & active feeling, which is what I consider my "thinking".

Frequently, F-dom do speak of "reasoning in reverse", or starting with a "whole feeling" and then considering what it means, if it can be made sense of, how it relates to existing feelings, etc. The final feeling is then one formed with reason, with the initial feeling dealt with similarly as a pure emotion.

What F-dom tend to recognize is that short of wacky hormones & emotional illness, most emotional responses have a reason. Whether or not it's a good reason or in proportion to the strength of the emotion is to be determined by analyzing it.

Once you have built up a base of what all these things mean, how they connect & relate, then you more quickly process passive feelings by simply "plugging" them into a mental model of sorts. This is the "value system" spoken of, which in itself is not Feeling but a product of it. This allows for faster processing of what is consistent with existing & finely tuned concepts of what is necessary/significant/good/etc.

Do not Ti types quickly note when something is illogical or logical? Do you always have to break it down, or do you sometimes just KNOW immediately and then proceed to break it down? I'm going to presume the latter because it's said you have a sort of inner "framework" you compare things to to keep logical consistency.

Jung says Fi does the same thing, but it "feels" instead of "thinks", aka - it defines & assigns value instead of impersonal classification.

I dont agree that active feeling is dom F. I mean dom F types use active feeling more often and naturally than those with inferior F for example, but dom F types are also REALLY heavily influenced by their passive feelings, maybe not as much as F aux types often are, but definitely more than T types usually are. I think that when undeveloped F is used in T types, its most often passive F, not active as active F requires some differentiation, but T types with developed F are capable of doing active F, but it requires more effort and the whole process doesent start so easily.

I would agree about the T types (or any type) using active F at times, but not to the degree a F-dom does.

In day to day life, people use passive feeling all the time for non-crucial decisions, such as "What do I feel like eating?". Sometimes they'll use active feeling to consider why or how an option is more beneficial than another, but many don't bother to or only sometimes. When they bother to, it is often because they have linked it to a larger value - something reasoned on already & decided as crucial.

This is kind of feeling is not a good representation of how Feeling as a mindset in Jungian theory operates. This is the kind of thing that makes people misunderstand what Feeling is, how it works, and how a dominant Feeling type experiences it. That misunderstanding leads to invalidation of Feeling & Feeling types' opinions.

 

[skylights]

I think emotions exist without relation to type, and that type determines how you use emotion. Feelers are more likely to include emotion in their decision-making process, in particular because emotion is naturally a part of establishing/identifying things that have value, as valuable things induce positive emotions (consider how you feel upon seeing your significant other). Thinkers are more likely to make a decision sans emotional input, though they may express emotion. Though to differentiate between Fe and Fi, Fe tends to use emotion more in communication, whereas Fi tends to use emotion more as a decision-making function.

As for F and T - I see them as necessary to one another, just as N and S rely on one another. Te pragmatism accompanies a Fi framework and Fe pragmatism accompanies a Ti framework.