Something I never understood about this forum

[Virtual ghost]

I don't want to mess up another thread so I will open another one. Also my first language is not English so it possible that I have simple problem with terminology.




Anyway, why are emotions on this forum considered rational ? In my opinion emotions can be good or they can be bad but emotions are by definition irrational. Therefore if you make really rational decisions that means that you are not really using emotion or you are using something else in combination with emotion.


Also why are Intution and Sensing considered irrational functions ? They are just ways of observing information and there is nothing trully rational or irrational about them.

 

[geedoenfj]

Given the fact that all you mentioned: feelings, intuition and sensing are all functions, then I don't see why some of them should be rational and others irrational..
And you said emotions can be good or bad not measured by rationality.. I don't even think that good and bad are rational at all, they all submit to your personal moral structure

 

[Yama]

I can't use facial features or the inflections of my voice to carry what I mean by my words all the time, so emoticons can help with that.

 

[Forever]

If you have lost the ability to have emotions, you have lost the ability to greatly make any sort of decision to making choices in your life. Morality is based on our emotions and it's all post hoc reasoning from that point on. So it is VERY rational.

It it only becomes irrational like poor logic if you fail to let the other person share his or her ideas.

 

[wolfnara]

Feeling is not rational, as it is not based on logic. That doesn't imply that Feeling types are incapable of using logic. The importance of it does not make it rational, nevertheless. The same goes to sensing and intuition.

 

[VagrantFarce]

We use "rational" & "irrational" this way because that's what Jung did.

"Thinking and feeling are "rational" because they evaluate (e.g., ethics are based mostly on the feeling function's diffferentiation); sensation (perception through conscious senses) and intuition (timeless perception via the unconscious, which can include paranormal phenomena) occur spontaneously and so are "irrational.""

A glossary of Jungian terms.

 

[Evo]

I don't want to mess up another thread so I will open another one. Also my first language is not English so it possible that I have simple problem with terminology.




Anyway, why are emotions on this forum considered rational ? In my opinion emotions can be good or they can be bad but emotions are by definition irrational. Therefore if you make really rational decisions that means that you are not really using emotion or you are using something else in combination with emotion.


Also why are Intution and Sensing considered irrational functions ? They are just ways of observing information and there is nothing trully rational or irrational about them.

Are you talking about rationality based on Jung's terms?

Or are you talking about reason in every day situations?

 

[Hawthorne]

In English, "rational" is casually used to mean "logical" but it's actual denotation is "based on reason(s)".

Thinking and Feeling are considered rational because they use perception-based premises to produce conclusions. These premises may not always be free from bias but the actual process of using them to produce conclusions is considered a "rational" process.

Intuition and Sensation are considered irrational because they are not reason-based, conclusion forming processes.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I don't want to mess up another thread so I will open another one. Also my first language is not English so it possible that I have simple problem with terminology.




Anyway, why are emotions on this forum considered rational ? In my opinion emotions can be good or they can be bad but emotions are by definition irrational. Therefore if you make really rational decisions that means that you are not really using emotion or you are using something else in combination with emotion.


Also why are Intution and Sensing considered irrational functions ? They are just ways of observing information and there is nothing trully rational or irrational about them.

Rational means you use it to make choices.
Irrational means you use it to perceive.

Nothing is really rational to be honest with you. Logic folds in itself. Time travel is possible, we know this for a fact, time is relative, and there are physical things that travel back and forward in time/space....but this violates causality...this is the border of logic...logic is as emotional as emotions and emotions are as logical as thoughts....you use them both to pick and chose...you chose coffee from starbucks because it is more potent...thought...and because that makes you feel better or get more done to satisfy your feeling....emotions...you see the two are really the same thing just different ends of the same stick...make sense kirbs?

 

[Virtual ghost]

We use "rational" & "irrational" this way because that's what Jung did.

"Thinking and feeling are "rational" because they evaluate (e.g., ethics are based mostly on the feeling function's diffferentiation); sensation (perception through conscious senses) and intuition (timeless perception via the unconscious, which can include paranormal phenomena) occur spontaneously and so are "irrational.""

A glossary of Jungian terms.

I will not go throught all of this in search for details. But I will take your word for it, epecially since I was thinking that this is coming from Jung or some similar source.

Are you talking about rationality based on Jung's terms?

Or are you talking about reason in every day situations?

Jung.

In English, "rational" is casually used to mean "logical" but it's actual denotation is "based on reason(s)".

Thinking and Feeling are considered rational because they use perception-based premises to produce conclusions. These premises may not always be free from bias but the actual process of using them to produce conclusions is considered a "rational" process.

Intuition and Sensation are considered irrational because they are not reason-based, conclusion forming processes.

Makes sense.

However to say that Intuation and Sensing are irrational is just missing the point. This is like saying that "Horse is not a doctor", of course it is not and no one ever expected that some horses are doctors. For me this is missing the whole "playground". They are not here made to make conclusions and therefore they can't be rational or irrational. (but that is just in my book)

 

[Coriolis]

IHowever to say that Intuation and Sensing are irrational is just missing the point. This is like saying that "Horse is not a doctor", of course it is not and no one ever expected that some horses are doctors. For me this is missing the whole "playground". They are not here made to make conclusions and therefore they can't be rational or irrational. (but that is just in my book)

It is more like the distinction between management and support functions in a workplace. Management make decisions and judgments. Support staff provide them with the information they need to do so. Jung just uses the terms rational and irrational to denote the two analogous kinds of functions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It is more like the distinction between management and support functions in a workplace. Management make decisions and judgments. Support staff provide them with the information they need to do so. Jung just uses the terms rational and irrational to denote the two analogous kinds of functions.

I am well aware of what every function in fact does. It is just that using rational/irrational for perceving and judging functions seem as a strange choice of words. (at least this is the case in my book)


I mean ok, this is probably a subtle language barrier and I can leave it at this.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Anyway, why are emotions on this forum considered rational ? In my opinion emotions can be good or they can be bad but emotions are by definition irrational. Therefore if you make really rational decisions that means that you are not really using emotion or you are using something else in combination with emotion.

Why do you think emotions exist?

 

[entropie]

Feeling and emotions are two different things. A Feeler type sees the world based on whether it is "nice" or "not nice". A thinker type sees the world on whether it is "true" or "false". So is the bare theory. An irrational function can perceive the world in a lot of ways and is not subdued to making a decision at all. Therefore its not only black or white.

 

[Poki]

Feeling and emotions are two different things. A Feeler type sees the world based on whether it is "nice" or "not nice". A thinker type sees the world on whether it is "true" or "false". So is the bare theory. An irrational function can perceive the world in a lot of ways and is not subdued to making a decision at all. Therefore its not only black or white.

What if judgement is sound, but perception is irrational? Or vice versa? Always hated rational vs irrational.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why do you think emotions exist?

I am glad you find your way here because your post inspired the whole thread.


They exist because they are a consequence of our biology and an upgrade of our natural instincts. However this thread is more about classification than what is what in real life. I have seen plenty of times that people on this forum regard feelings/emotions as rational. What I find problematic for a number of reasons and the main is that if emotions are rational then there is no decision making process left that will be irrational ... and I have yet to see a person that will defend the position that all humans are completely rational. (since it is obvious that they are not)



Therefore I insist that emotions are irrational decision making in both feelers and thinkers. They can provide good results and that is why they are part of human mind, since is questionable if we would survive if there were none of them. However there is a complication and that is called "technological development" that has a very strict rules in what is possible and what is needed, therefore once you become dependant on technology you simply don't have the luxury of following impulses as you like since the consequences will be devastating. However technology provides great increase in efficiency and it is therefore accepted. I have spent decades studing the Earth/environment science and some of it was on official university level, plus geopolitics is my side hobby for quite some time as well. Therfore when you take a look at objective data, formulas and situation in the field it becomes very quckly obvious that humanty as a whole does not know what they are doing. Even if we throw climate change out of the equation the whole system is still pretty much unsustanable for fast growing population.



The reason why I am saying this is because I am trying to show that what looks good on paper such as more people or less poverty can cause much larger problems. However if satisfaction of your own emotions blinds you or prevents you from seeking deeper truth they become observably irrational (what they have been all the time). This may not be so visable in completely down to Earth situations for which emotions are actually made for, therefore other functions and people need to jump in to balance this out. The trick is that just if it feels good and right that does not mean that it is the right choice. (ask fat people for confirmation). From what I have seen most people have never detached enought to see the humanty from a more of a outside point of view and therefore it is easy to mix rational and irrational. Because of this I think that it is important that one decision making process should be irrational because that will result in a model that will much better describe actual human bahavior. While if you have both sides as rational then the whole system is basically loosing it's point.



But to trully answer "What is the purpose of feelings" I would probably need to write a book and I am just not enought of a expert for that.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I see a lot of people here confused about the feeling function. As someone who in a perpetual state of reading Jung - The Portable Jung is my my second bible - I must clarify things for you.

It turns out that feeling means making decisions according to values. For example, if you make a decision on the value of productivity...because it is something that you FEEL strongly about...usually because you inherited that sentiment from your family...then that is a feeling dominant decision.

If you make a decision based on productivity because you want to make X amount more dollars, that is a thinking based decision.

Both revolve around productivity but one emphasizes the value in itself and the other emphasizes the causal relationship between productivity and money.

Do you see the difference?

That is feeling vs. thinking...really they are the same thing...but opposite ends of that thing...

You may have an entj who is super soft and emotional and you may have an infj who is hard as rocks...

Your temperament is not the same as your personality. Both are part of your character...do you see why so many confuse the issue?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I am glad you find your way here because your post inspired the whole thread.


They exist because they are a consequence of our biology and an upgrade of our natural instincts. However this thread is more about classification than what is what in real life. I have seen plenty of times that people on this forum regard feelings/emotions as rational. What I find problematic for a number of reasons and the main is that if emotions are rational then there is no decision making process left that will be irrational ... and I have yet to see a person that will defend the position that all humans are completely rational. (since it is obvious that they are not)



Therefore I insist that emotions are irrational decision making in both feelers and thinkers. They can provide good results and that is why they are part of human mind, since is questionable if we would survive if there were none of them. However there is a complication and that is called "technological development" that has a very strict rules in what is possible and what is needed, therefore once you become dependant on technology you simply don't have the luxury of following impulses as you like since the consequences will be devastating. However technology provides great increase in efficiency and it is therefore accepted. I have spent decades studing the Earth/environment science and some of it was on official university level, plus geopolitics is my side hobby for quite some time as well. Therfore when you take a look at objective data, formulas and situation in the field it becomes very quckly obvious that humanty as a whole does not know what they are doing. Even if we throw climate change out of the equation the whole system is still pretty much unsustanable for fast growing population.



The reason why I am saying this is because I am trying to show that what looks good on paper such as more people or less poverty can cause much larger problems. However if satisfaction of your own emotions blinds you or prevents you from seeking deeper truth they become observably irrational (what they have been all the time). This may not be so visable in completely down to Earth situations for which emotions are actually made for, therefore other functions and people need to jump in to balance this out. The trick is that just if it feels good and right that does not mean that it is the right choice. (ask fat people for confirmation). From what I have seen most people have never detached enought to see the humanty from a more of a outside point of view and therefore it is easy to mix rational and irrational. Because of this I think that it is important that one decision making process should be irrational because that will result in a model that will much better describe actual human bahavior. While if you have both sides as rational then the whole system is basically loosing it's point.



But to trully answer "What is the purpose of feelings" I would probably need to write a book and I am just not enought of a expert for that.

Emotions are seperate from the feeling function. Emotion is not what feeling function alludes to...read the above post...

The emotional nature of a person is entirely seperate from their personality type, albeit they interface with each other, one does not predict the other.

You can have an ENTJ who is a squishy nice person and you can have an infj who is hard and gritty...read the above.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference quite well and I know it since I have account here.

The problem is why are both sides rated as "rational" ? (what I find as illogical)
Problem is in the classification and language dimmension.

 

[Poki]

I see a lot of people here confused about the feeling function. As someone who in a perpetual state of reading Jung - The Portable Jung is my my second bible - I must clarify things for you.

It turns out that feeling means making decisions according to values. For example, if you make a decision on the value of productivity...because it is something that you FEEL strongly about...usually because you inherited that sentiment from your family...then that is a feeling dominant decision.

If you make a decision based on productivity because you want to make X amount more dollars, that is a thinking based decision.

Both revolve around productivity but one emphasizes the value in itself and the other emphasizes the causal relationship between productivity and money.

Do you see the difference?

That is feeling vs. thinking...really they are the same thing...but opposite ends of that thing...

You may have an entj who is super soft and emotional and you may have an infj who is hard as rocks...

Your temperament is not the same as your personality. Both are part of your character...do you see why so many confuse the issue?

Both Ti and Fi are based on internal values just as strongly. We just use thinking to process instead of feeling.