[MBTI General] NFs and rationality

[kiddykat]

That is exactly why NTs have problems with Fs in so many cases.
You say that they rationalize and then you say that heart plays a big role here. In my "vocabulary" that is not rational approach.

You rationalize but you "never" cut the value of personal component.

I totally get what you mean Antisocialone..

Sometimes, what we do in our hearts aren't always the best decisions, at least for me, when it comes to prioritization.. So I understand.

 

[Lady_X]

if there is a human element i'm incapable of discarding it to apply logic..to me that is irrational because all elements should be considered...every bit gets prioritized and i make a decision that to me seems the most logical.

 

[Lady_X]

No, I don't think we are.

And even though you used the word "fluffy" in this thread, I shall still reply as I see the distinction.

To the NT, rational implies decisions made free from the fetters of emotion. As a factor, emotional impact tends to ranks low in the decision making process, and in reality, NT's can be so out of touch with their emotions that they neglect or even forget to take them into account.

To the NF, rational means one must include emotional impact as a factor when making decisions. Because emotions play a larger role in daily experience, they are harder to ignore. Generally, most NF's will have examples in their lives from when they ignored their emotions and paid the price afterwards.

Out of balance, any decision making process is prone to error.

Classic NT error - allowing facts to govern without considering the human element.
Classic NF error - allowing feelings to govern when sometimes they should not.

One is not better than the other; neither are perfect all the time. And since people always possess a combination of T/F, we are all always thinking & feeling. No decisions are purely one or the other. And I challenge you to try to see it otherwise.

There's nothing inherent in the word rational that says you can't use emotions as part of the reasoning process, ya know.

yeah, exactly this.
just now reading the responses but this one answered it better.

 

[Wiley45]

In the case you can act like a typical NT, for how long you can maintain that state of mind before you feel the need to experiance/make/say somthing "fluffy" ? What kind of events can throw you out of this state of mind in a blink?

I think it's not too hard to use rational thinking to make most decisions. I can talk things over pretty rationally with others. I think the only time I have trouble with it is if I have very strong feelings about the person I'm talking to, or very strong "moral" feelings about the subject. In that case, it can be hard to keep my rational thought ahead of my emotions.

What parts of NT mindset you find disturbing and/or irrational ?
I find it disturbing when NT's refuse to acknowledge the value of feelings, or when they can rationalize things based on logic and leave feelings completely out of it -- sometimes this could be detrimental.

 

[OrangeAppled]

No, I don't think we are.

And even though you used the word "fluffy" in this thread, I shall still reply as I see the distinction.

To the NT, rational implies decisions made free from the fetters of emotion. As a factor, emotional impact tends to ranks low in the decision making process, and in reality, NT's can be so out of touch with their emotions that they neglect or even forget to take them into account.

To the NF, rational means one must include emotional impact as a factor when making decisions. Because emotions play a larger role in daily experience, they are harder to ignore. Generally, most NF's will have examples in their lives from when they ignored their emotions and paid the price afterwards.

Out of balance, any decision making process is prone to error.

Classic NT error - allowing facts to govern without considering the human element.
Classic NF error - allowing feelings to govern when sometimes they should not.

One is not better than the other; neither are perfect all the time. And since people always possess a combination of T/F, we are all always thinking & feeling. No decisions are purely one or the other. And I challenge you to try to see it otherwise.

There's nothing inherent in the word rational that says you can't use emotions as part of the reasoning process, ya know.

This emoticon creeps me out, but I'm using it anyway:

For me rationality is doing what makes the most sense, what would produce the best results, what would be the most efficient, and what would go toward the greater good. Basically NeTe.

I am not a slave to my feelings, with impersonal affairs I make decisions based off of Te.

------

I also make a distinction between my emotions and my feeling as a thought process. My emotions may say one thing, but my values from Fi can say something else. I don't understand "feeling" to necessarily mean emotions or heart, it's a thought process colored by it. I personally find myself in a lot of inner turmoil because of this.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Since when is rationality isolated to the analytical, concrete, linear?

Rationality is defined by the merriam-webster dictionary as the state of being rational:

ra·tio·nal
\ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English racional, from Anglo-French racionel, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
Date:
14th century

1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

In no way does that imply that NFs are irrational. We have a different mode of thinking, a different goal in mind, but we can be perfectly rational in achieving that goal.

Furthermore, integrating emotion into concrete thought, if done in a proper manner, is not detrimental to an argument; the best arguments take both the mechanical and the human aspects in mind.

In the case you can act like a typical NT, for how long you can maintain that state of mind before you feel the need to experiance/make/say somthing "fluffy" ? What kind of events can throw you out of this state of mind in a blink?

What parts of NT mindset you find disturbing and/or irrational ?


Be prepaired to explain your calims in more datail. (just a note )
There is no need that all replys contain answers to all questions.

I can act like an NT for a decent amount of time. However, I get turned off of it when it gets to the point that I'm no longer able to take into account the humanitarian side as well; I find pure, robotic logic to be more of a weakness than a strength. Almost everything that happens involves someone and affects someone, and it's good foresight to take that into account. That portion is the basis for NF rationality -- naturally, it's also not the best to be without taking the logical into account as well. That's why we have both judging functions; they work best in conjecture.

What I find disturbing is when an NT is too stuck in this mechanical, fact-based logic and is no longer connected to the human side. It's not really disturbing, though; more kind of irritating than anything, just as a strong F would be irritating to a T. There's not really a "right" or "wrong," but more of a lack of a bridge of communication.


Okay, I'm done. Hope that made sense.

 

[Wiley45]

In no way does that imply that NFs are irrational. We have a different mode of thinking, a different goal in mind, but we can be perfectly rational in achieving that goal.

I'm confused. If we make a decision primarily based on feeling, I don't understand how that could be considered a rational decision. Often, our feelings might line up with rational thought, but don't we have to think the rational thoughts before we know that the feelings are justified?

We NF's can surely be rational, but isn't it typically something we work at and develop?

 

[Southern Kross]

No, I don't think we are.

And even though you used the word "fluffy" in this thread, I shall still reply as I see the distinction.

To the NT, rational implies decisions made free from the fetters of emotion. As a factor, emotional impact tends to ranks low in the decision making process, and in reality, NT's can be so out of touch with their emotions that they neglect or even forget to take them into account.

To the NF, rational means one must include emotional impact as a factor when making decisions. Because emotions play a larger role in daily experience, they are harder to ignore. Generally, most NF's will have examples in their lives from when they ignored their emotions and paid the price afterwards.

Out of balance, any decision making process is prone to error.

Classic NT error - allowing facts to govern without considering the human element.
Classic NF error - allowing feelings to govern when sometimes they should not.

One is not better than the other; neither are perfect all the time. And since people always possess a combination of T/F, we are all always thinking & feeling. No decisions are purely one or the other. And I challenge you to try to see it otherwise.

There's nothing inherent in the word rational that says you can't use emotions as part of the reasoning process, ya know.

I agree with what is said here. I think what we have here are differing perceptions/definitions of 'rationality'. Yet I feel we both make decisions from inherently the same methodology.

Rationality is defined as 'the capacity for logic, reason and analytical thinking'. And if you consider logic to be drawing conclusions and making deductions from observed/understood causes and effects - are we really on different paths here? What we are looking at here is discernment, sound decision-making and the ability to use common sense. Can you say that on the whole NTs make better decisions than NFs? Hardly. Good decision-making is not defined by type.

An example of a common moral dilemma to illustrate. Imagine a situation of two doctors (a NT and a NF) working in a busy emergency ward that is short on staff. Two people are brought in after a car accident. They are informed that one is a drunk driver, the other, a small child he hit with his car. While the child's injuries are bad, the driver's injuries are more serious. The doctors are also horrified to discover that the child is that of a mutual friend. Both doctors are disgusted with the driver's actions and concerned for their friend but both come to the same conclusion, to treat the driver first. The NT doctor decides this because he knows he should not let his emotions sway his medical decisions - the man needs more immediate attention so clearly he should receive it. The NF doctor thinks the driver should be treated first because he feels that he may not know all the details of the accident and may have been misinformed (ie. the child may have run out on the road, the driver had had only one drink), that people are innocent until proven guilty, but even regardless of this, that all people are deserving of equal, humane treatment.

This is the same conclusion, which both reached through reasoning yet based on differing premises. Also, both were based on value judgements, possibly even coming from similar ethical beliefs. Sure, there are NFs that would say treat the child first, just as there are NTs that would do the same. The point is, being an F doesn't necessarily mean you will be unable to control your emotions in making a decision. I have T relations that would say, "String the bastard up! He doesn't deserve life!" - surely an irrational emotional response.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that its a matter of what you funnel your decision-making process through - the old 'head vs heart'. And relying your heart to choose a course of action can be just as valuable (or rational for that matter ) as going by your head.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I'm confused. If we make a decision primarily based on feeling, I don't understand how that could be considered a rational decision. Often, our feelings might line up with rational thought, but don't we have to think the rational thoughts before we know that the feelings are justified?

We NF's can surely be rational, but isn't it typically something we work at and develop?

The feeling judging function doesn't mean you can't think :/ A better explanation would be that you have different priorities. An F thought process is still rational; it's not based totally on feeling, or else it would be closer to instinct. It's just more subjective rather than objective, but it's still rational.

Just to clarify, rationality ≠ logic. You don't have to be a T to make a good decision; in fact, there's a lot of situations where it'd be better to use an F function, namely social and dynamic situations. It's not an irrational function; it's just a different mode of thinking.

It's a big misunderstanding between Thinking and Feeling; they're not named that because one is based off of thought and the other off of emotions. You think with both of them. The main difference has to do with how you think and the priorities you have in your thought process, whether that be concrete systems or abstract systems.

 

[alcea rosea]

Antisocial:
I think no matter what we tell you or try to convice you that we are indeed rational, you won't believe anyway.

So what's the point?

 

[Laurie]

I find it irrational to assume that because you use "thinking" instead of "feeling" you will make more rational choices. The "T's" I know do not make any more rational decisions than anyone else, they just like to think they do.

I have a theoretical mind, I loved thermodynamics, numerical analysis, compressibly fluid flow and control systems design. I can make thinking choices when the need arises.

I've never seen any reason to believe that a thinker has made more rational life choices or is any happier with life because they can "disregard" feelings. In fact, I haven't met anyone who actually is rational.

 

[Moiety]

I've never seen any reason to believe that a thinker has made more rational life choices or is any happier with life because they can "disregard" feelings. In fact, I haven't met anyone who actually is rational.

Yeah, real important decisions in one's life aren't simply made by using logic. Otherwise there would be no room for doubt, only faulty logic.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Because I cannot count the times that I've snapped at someone or acted unkindly out of impatience or ... whatever the reason ... and then I find out their dog just died, or some such. The incident won't leave my mind, just keeps coming back to stab at me again and again, I hurt that person, I didn't know what they were going through, I was thoughtless, I added to their pain, I know better, why didn't I act better ... It keeps coming straight back to me that you never really know why someone acts the way they do and it's just better to be merciful than to try to be just. You can be just unless you're omniscient. So it's impossible for me to determine what someone "deserves." The only way to proceed is to assume that everyone deserves to be treated well at all times.

I mean, all that said, I'm still a bitch sometimes. But it's not what I'm trying for. It's not justified.

Maybe we are missunderstanding each other but your reply has nothing to do with with pushing peronal values into a second plan.

1. Your feelings are what made you snapped in the first place which is because your needs are not met. Also the other person was acting too emotional as well. They have no right to have a problem with your additude since it is obvious that you are in pain as well. Otherwise you would never have snapped.

The only thing you two had is an emotional exchange that has no real purpose if we overlook the fact that you were wenting.

In a way this kinds of sitautions can be discribed as situations where emotional intelligence of both sides failed.


I can't say how many times I have seem Fs destroying eachothers day/week/life like this. (without any real purpose of goal)
I am not saying that Ts are immune to this but they are less likely to behave this way. (unless they are really unhealthy)

I am not saying this because I want to offend you I just want to say how this looks to me.

Antisocial:
I think no matter what we tell you or try to convice you that we are indeed rational, you won't believe anyway.

So what's the point?

I am sorry but what I think is not really important here.
What is important is what NFs think about their own traits.
I am just gathering information.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I am just gathering information.

For what purpose?

 

[whimsical]

even though i am a big feeler and tend to make most of my quick in-the-moment decisions based on how i feel, i do have the much needed ability to take steps back and look at what is happening, and figure out the most "rational" (logical) thing to do

 

[Orangey]

I find it irrational to assume that because you use "thinking" instead of "feeling" you will make more rational choices. The "T's" I know do not make any more rational decisions than anyone else, they just like to think they do.

I have a theoretical mind, I loved thermodynamics, numerical analysis, compressibly fluid flow and control systems design. I can make thinking choices when the need arises.

I've never seen any reason to believe that a thinker has made more rational life choices or is any happier with life because they can "disregard" feelings. In fact, I haven't met anyone who actually is rational.

I will tell you right now that I have made some of the most terrible choices based on logic alone (without taking value or feelings into account). I'll give an example.

When I was registering for classes last semester, I noticed that there was a dearth of good classes to take within my own department. We are only allowed one out of department class, so I filled that one easily. That left two more classes to choose (and these from within the department). I chose the first one easily, since it was on a topic I was interested in. The next one was a toss up, since I liked none of the ones that were left.

So I chose the one that fit best with my schedule, and that had the shortest reading list (a logical choice, since I needed to time my week right in order to get things done, and because the less work I had to do for a class I didn't like, the better). I didn't even take into consideration (1) the fact that I really don't like the profs that were co-teaching it, and (2) the fact that I pretty much hate the topic. This led to the class actually being more work for me over the course of the semester because, in my absolute disgust with both the profs and the subject matter, I skipped assignments and ended up having to take an incomplete to finish up the stuff I didn't turn in (and they doubled the page length for punishment).

In making the decision initially, I didn't anticipate how my feelings towards the prof and the topic would affect my behavior. It sucks, too, because people warned me. They said, "Orangey, why the hell are you taking this class when you know you hate the prof?" I told them over and over that silly personality differences aren't important and shouldn't be the basis of my decision. How wrong I was.

 

[Virtual ghost]

For what purpose?

1. Just for the sake of knowing.
2. This stuff could prove to be quite useful to me. Since when I am trying to understand others I relly mostly on logic since my feeling side sucks.
That is why I said that what I think is not important here. Because in this thread you have information which is nothing more then information.
It is something I can take into a account or I don't take it into an account.

I will tell you right now that I have made some of the most terrible choices based on logic alone (without taking value or feelings into account). I'll give an example.

When I was registering for classes last semester, I noticed that there was a dearth of good classes to take within my own department. We are only allowed one out of department class, so I filled that one easily. That left two more classes to choose (and these from within the department). I chose the first one easily, since it was on a topic I was interested in. The next one was a toss up, since I liked none of the ones that were left.

So I chose the one that fit best with my schedule, and that had the shortest reading list (a logical choice, since I needed to time my week right in order to get things done, and because the less work I had to do for a class I didn't like, the better). I didn't even take into consideration (1) the fact that I really don't like the profs that were co-teaching it, and (2) the fact that I pretty much hate the topic. This led to the class actually being more work for me over the course of the semester because, in my absolute disgust with both the profs and the subject matter, I skipped assignments and ended up having to take an incomplete to finish up the stuff I didn't turn in (and they doubled the page length for punishment).

In making the decision initially, I didn't anticipate how my feelings towards the prof and the topic would affect my behavior. It sucks, too, because people warned me. They said, "Orangey, why the hell are you taking this class when you know you hate the prof?" I told them over and over that silly personality differences aren't important and shouldn't be the basis of my decision. How wrong I was.

I am curious. What makes you think that you made a choice based purely on logic?
Since wanting things to be simple and plesant is quite emotional approach to things. Even if it is easy to mask it as rational.
(but I realise that thing are not that simple)


When I find myself in this kind of situations I just try to do my best in finnishing a task. I find this approach to be the one that has the best ratio of efficiency and getting out of there. But when it comes to college this highly depends on what you are studing in the first place.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

It's very difficult to separate oneself completely from emotion. People are subjective creatures Even logical decisions have some connection with emotion, even if it is slight.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I can make rational decisions just fine. What make me an NF is the MOTIVATION behind those descriptions. That is, Ti, being my tertiary, is subservient to Ni and Fe; that doesn't mean my Ti is weak, it means that it's just not "in control", it is not a source of motivation. As an INFJ my underlying motivation is to apply ideas towards person-centered, "humanitarian" ends. Ti is the tool that makes sure that the ideas make sense and are based on good facts and good theories.

To my way of thinking, it is rational to take into account feelings as well as logic when making assessments and judgements. The best decisions are made when both approaches are included.

if there is a human element i'm incapable of discarding it to apply logic..to me that is irrational because all elements should be considered...every bit gets prioritized and i make a decision that to me seems the most logical.

I understand if the human element is considered as irrelevant after analysis, but the idea of dismissing it without consideration first just strikes me as extremely irrational. It's like being in a court case, the Judge will be able to make an informed decision after knowing all the details. Nothing should be excluded from analysis.

On that note: It's my belief that humans are ultimately irrational beings, and all rationalization is based on these foundations. However some could argue that instincts/evolutionary habits are rational, but to me... it just doesn't make much sense. Can you really apply rationality/irrationality to biology? It's like asking whether the universes existance is rational or irrational. @.@;
I've lost my train of thought of what point I was trying to make now.

Which reminds me I had a huge debate with an ENTP friend about the existance of depression. He couldn't comprehend that someone could go against 'nature' and therefore these people were just seeking attention or lazy. I found that quite disturbing, it's difficult to tell whether he truly believed this because he's lived a life of ease and success (Clever individual) or whether he was just screwing around with me. Regardless the Ti he displayed was just twisty! :steam:

 

[Virtual ghost]

It's very difficult to separate oneself completely from emotion. People are subjective creatures Even logical decisions have some connection with emotion, even if it is slight.

That is why I said that things are not that simple.


On the other hand if you can make irrational or rational decisions that would imply that there is good and evil. What probably is not the cases in this reality.