[MBTI General] The Importance of Feeling

[Liesl]

Ok, I think I understand now. I guess I wasn't getting the fact that "choosing to not dissociate from emotions" was a way of life. I'll admit that I might have approached this from a somewhat narrow-minded perspective.

And I also want you to know that not only is choosing not to dissociate from emotions a way of life, it may be crucial to that person's psychological wellbeing to NOT dissociate from their emotions in certain circumstances. For some reason this seems 'unfathomable' to people who do not experience life in this way.

 

[Rebe]

I...do rather crazy shit in opposition to my feelings.

I hate being disappointed so I hate to have expectations but my mind just wanders off on Fi/Ne tangents and comes up with these idealistic, perfect expectations.

When I am overwhelmed by negative feelings, I tend to lash out in some way and forget about my more vulnerable feelings.

I struggle with this a lot. When you say the importance of feelings, you mean all feelings? It's very hard for me to give sway to all my feelings. I have to sort of organize them like a coin collection.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

When I say "objectivity" I meant using impersonal criteria to assess a situation.
When I say "subjectivity" I meant using personal criteria to assess a situation.
I mean it strictly in terms of the thinking/feeling dichotomy of MBTI.

In my struggles to understand the many NTs that have been in my life, I have come to the conclusion that using "objective" criteria seems more "real" to them. On the flip side of the coin, I want NTs to know that using "subjective" criteria seems more "real" to myself and other NFs.

The bias I'm trying to get at exists within groups of thinkers and within groups of feelers too. Although 'thinking types' may be more likely to use the same criteria to come to judgments, they often use different criteria from each other. And same with 'feeling types.' I'm talking about the different ways we use to assess situations, particularly when they involve ourselves. Only we can know which method is truly beneficial for ourselves or "valid" to ourselves. And two people in the same situation may benefit from different methods of 'judging'.

Hmmmmm... then I wonder: What makes subjectivity seem more real to you?

 

[Coriolis]

I talked with someone about this today. Subjectivity doesn't change the object, it changes how we view the object. This being said, that means that if you see a certain something and you consider that too be the wrong something it doesn't make it the wrong one, it means your subjectivity is getting in the way. I think this is what Coriolis may be getting towards.

I grasp the fact that using emotions when making a decisions is a useful approach. Sometimes this is the only way to get through to someone, but as every other thinker would agree it's not our first approach.

Yes, this is part of it. I still do not agree that every problem or situation can be addressed equally well by subjective or objective means. I find it hard to imagine how subjective criteria would, say, help an electrician add light switches to my office. Though I am an inveterate thinker, I find it equally hard to imagine a support group operating primarily on objective criteria. My thinking (or feeling) that something is the right tool for the job does not make it so, nor does it make me wrong if I resort to doing my best with an "inferior" tool if that is all I have.

Taking individual differences into account, this is why certain people won't enjoy being electricians, while others won't enjoy being counselors. The fact that we gravitate toward what we are predisposed to and good at does not render us unable to fill other roles as needed, nor does it nullify the real distinctions among the many forms of human creativity and contribution.

 

[mochajava]

. I worked in a hospital kitchen (and yes- the food was awful.. we employees got higher-quality cafeteria food instead) for a while- it was in a sense like "assembly line" work. Your emotions didn't matter at the kitchen. You just had to get your work done. There are many jobs which are like that. Efficiency is the most important thing and nothing else. Not every organization is about expressing your individuality.

Sure - every job isn't about expressing your individuality, but the functioning of that kitchen is absolutely about emotions. Everyone brings in their good days and bad, and by connecting to each other, you can make that an incredible or horrible work environment. More emotions: who gets promoted, who doesn't, how you take that. Who gets which jobs? Who gets the perks? Who doesn't? Is someone taking on too much? Too little? What kind of management structure is there? How do you get paid/raises? How do you keep the employees around (give them better food)? See - there are tons of emotions in this situation.

 

[mochajava]

Yes, this is part of it. I still do not agree that every problem or situation can be addressed equally well by subjective or objective means. I find it hard to imagine how subjective criteria would, say, help an electrician add light switches to my office. Though I am an inveterate thinker, I find it equally hard to imagine a support group operating primarily on objective criteria. My thinking (or feeling) that something is the right tool for the job does not make it so, nor does it make me wrong if I resort to doing my best with an "inferior" tool if that is all I have.

Taking individual differences into account, this is why certain people won't enjoy being electricians, while others won't enjoy being counselors. The fact that we gravitate toward what we are predisposed to and good at does not render us unable to fill other roles as needed, nor does it nullify the real distinctions among the many forms of human creativity and contribution.

The electrician needs to think about making his client happy right? (whoever is in charge of the office). He needs his next job. Also, what about the considerations like if people are around who are in wheelchairs and need the lights to be at certain levels? Safety lighting? I'm not saying that the electrician doesn't need to have their technical skills down, but just saying that the feeling part can be useful for them (presumably they are running a business, not installing light switches in a vacuum - tee hee).

 

[mochajava]

And I also want you to know that not only is choosing not to dissociate from emotions a way of life, it may be crucial to that person's psychological wellbeing to NOT dissociate from their emotions in certain circumstances. For some reason this seems 'unfathomable' to people who do not experience life in this way.

I'd love to dissociate from my emotions while, say, I'm taking an exam. But my emotions are like the most spoiled demanding children and throw tantrums until I pay attention! What can I say? Some of us are just wired like that. My ISTJ husband doesn't have the same sense of urgency when it comes to feelings, so can shelve them and deal with it when it's more convenient for him.

It might not be type -- I think, to some extent, I'm always holding back a ton of feelings (due to past abuse) so it's like a dam holding water in place... it's a crucial, extraordinarily strong structure. And it's sort of full from the past, so when day-to-day things come up, I need to deal with them (there are MANY full journals in my life, some blogs, long letters to friends, reading novels).

It's not convenient. I might change it if I were hypothetically given the option. I believe it will hinder success (or help it, depending on what I do).

I want to be more :workout: and less , but it's not always what I want with the emotions. I can't really have an agenda. I sort of have to allow them. Does that make sense?

 

[Liesl]

Hmmmmm... then I wonder: What makes subjectivity seem more real to you?

Well, let's look at a different dichotomy for a second. Take the sensing and intuition dichotomy. I worked with someone who was investigating this and essentially the difference is caused by different neural circuitry in the frontal lobe. Sensors process information in series that intuitives would process in parallel. I'm not going to go farther into it unless someone wants me to. But this is why sensors and intuitives fundamentally disagree on what they see as "relevant" or "real."

We're neurologically informed of only a certain portion of reality and/or are predisposed toward processing that information in a certain way. Everyone is biased toward answering the question "what is legitimate" by answering the question "what is legitimate to ME" or "what am I neurophysiologically predisposed or even LIMITED to concluding"? Until you realize that what is "real" or "correct" to you is not "real" or "correct" to everyone because your experience of the world is intrinsically biased, you won't be able to understand what I'm saying.

Feeling is not looking at the world and seeing it differently than it is. It's looking at the world and prioritizing different criteria than thinking. It's the connotations of the words "thinking" and "feeling" that have created this huge storm of misunderstanding. Really, the words should be "impersonal" and "personal." Thinkers decide subjectively on what impersonal (or 'objective') criteria they are going to employ in a situation. The only reason why you believe that thinking is a more "valid" or "real" way of approaching any given situation is because you're predisposed to perceiving that those criteria lead you closer to the "reality."

All criteria, whether they fall under the thinking dichotomy or the feeling dichotomy are equally valid. So, asking me what makes "subjectivity" real to me is exactly equivalent to asking you what makes objectivity real to you.

Yes, this is part of it. I still do not agree that every problem or situation can be addressed equally well by subjective or objective means. I find it hard to imagine how subjective criteria would, say, help an electrician add light switches to my office. Though I am an inveterate thinker, I find it equally hard to imagine a support group operating primarily on objective criteria. My thinking (or feeling) that something is the right tool for the job does not make it so, nor does it make me wrong if I resort to doing my best with an "inferior" tool if that is all I have.

Taking individual differences into account, this is why certain people won't enjoy being electricians, while others won't enjoy being counselors. The fact that we gravitate toward what we are predisposed to and good at does not render us unable to fill other roles as needed, nor does it nullify the real distinctions among the many forms of human creativity and contribution.

Ok, you're arguing something entirely different from what I was talking about. I'm essentially saying that two different people can be in the same situation and see what is "real" differently and both are equally valid because it's really neurobiological differences that inform our reality. Specifically in terms of the thinking/feeling dichotomy, everyone is predisposed to thinking that a certain range of criteria are more valid or make "more sense" than others. And I also believe that because we all have fundamentally different tasks and motivations in the world, we have a tendency to see what is relevant to our task. All of these judgments are valid because we're each programmed to think in a way that is most adapted to our survival and fulfillment of our tasks (which is crucial to our wellbeing).

You get it? So, obviously if you give a carpenter a hug and some personal advice, that's not going to help him accomplish his task of building some object. No one said that it would. The point is that we all have different psychological occupations, so to speak. Two people can use two different sets of criteria in the same situation and both be equally effective in furthering their end goals. Because their end goals are ultimately different. Which is why what they view as "relevant" is different. Which is why their realities are informed differently.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that "what is real," "what is important," and "what is relevant" are all subjective questions for thinkers and feelers alike. Reality is subjective because it's determined differently by each person.

 

[Liesl]

I...do rather crazy shit in opposition to my feelings.

I hate being disappointed so I hate to have expectations but my mind just wanders off on Fi/Ne tangents and comes up with these idealistic, perfect expectations.

When I am overwhelmed by negative feelings, I tend to lash out in some way and forget about my more vulnerable feelings.

I struggle with this a lot. When you say the importance of feelings, you mean all feelings? It's very hard for me to give sway to all my feelings. I have to sort of organize them like a coin collection.

I mean the importance of "feeling" as a process of evaluating situations and in parallel to "thinking" as another process of evaluating situations. Not necessarily any individual feeling.

 

[Liesl]

I'd love to dissociate from my emotions while, say, I'm taking an exam. But my emotions are like the most spoiled demanding children and throw tantrums until I pay attention! What can I say? Some of us are just wired like that. My ISTJ husband doesn't have the same sense of urgency when it comes to feelings, so can shelve them and deal with it when it's more convenient for him.

It might not be type -- I think, to some extent, I'm always holding back a ton of feelings (due to past abuse) so it's like a dam holding water in place... it's a crucial, extraordinarily strong structure. And it's sort of full from the past, so when day-to-day things come up, I need to deal with them (there are MANY full journals in my life, some blogs, long letters to friends, reading novels).

It's not convenient. I might change it if I were hypothetically given the option. I believe it will hinder success (or help it, depending on what I do).

I want to be more :workout: and less , but it's not always what I want with the emotions. I can't really have an agenda. I sort of have to allow them. Does that make sense?

YES. It does make sense. And giving importance to your feelings isn't any less of a valid or legitimate way of organizing your life than giving importance to your thoughts. It's no less informative of reality than thinking. It's simply giving importance to things based on different criteria.

It's not convenient within the structure of the world as it is now, but that's because of the bias against it. I would never part with my feeling. It's "real" to me. It's the "best" way of evaluating situations to me. It serves my ends quite faithfully.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

If this dichotomy is so extreme then what is to be said about those who end up at the same end, but took different paths to get there? I.e. one path dealt with F and the other with T.

 

[Tiltyred]

There are a lot of people out there that don't believe it's important to deal with their emotional states. I know I prioritize dealing with my emotions (not just because it's a statement of what I think is important, but also because it's necessary for my wellbeing) and want others to see that as an equally legitimate way of managing life. But I get belittled a lot for giving so much importance to my psychology, my identity, and my emotions. Have you NFs had similar experiences with this? And how do you deal with this?

I have read most of this thread; I may have missed something.

I am trying to imagine the circumstances where this comes up. Is this about work, mostly?

 

[Liesl]

I have read most of this thread; I may have missed something.

I am trying to imagine the circumstances where this comes up. Is this about work, mostly?

Hmm, I'm not sure that there's a particular setting for this.

 

[Vamp]

There's one problem here.
Dissociating oneself from feelings and denying them are two completely different things!
To dissociate is to separate, to deny is to refuse to acknowledge something.
I don't know exactly what people are telling you but typically when a person tells someone else to dissociate from his or her feelings- it is moreso a "plea" to a person to look at things more objectively. This doesn't require neglecting feelings.

In fact, the majority of people who can legitimately consider themselves happy with their lives don't deny their feelings at all. They use their feelings to help determine what they want out of life and their reason to
a.) Decide if the things they want or reasonable to want.
b.) Figure out how to get the things they want.

This might be my Fe talking but it's typically distressful to most organizations and most people to have a person who is always being emotional and unreasonable. I sympathize with those who tell such a person to dissociate from his or her emotions. It's selfish to let feelings control a person's life completely without anything else! It's primitive. It doesn't have anything to do with Thinking/Feeling, it's more so who is mature and who isn't mature.

There are plenty of Feeling types who can do this and I know of many NF/SF types who are able to do this quite well without having to deny the existence of their strong feelings about things.
No human being unless that human being is actually a Vulcan or John Galt should deny his or her feelings.

Most of the time, outside of the internet, being told to "be more objective" is basically being told to shut up. That might not be true but that's my experience. Totally invalidating but whatever, that's what happens when you "feel". It's not rational and it's not proper so empty them out.

 

[Tiltyred]

Could you give an example of a time when you were belittled for giving so much importance to your psychology, your identity, and your emotions?

It has only happened to me at work, and it happened through ridicule, which is an extremely effective way to shut me down, so it shut me down good. Which actually has been an improvement, so it actually turned out to be doing me a favor.

I have continual reminders at work that emotionality is frowned upon. Not just mine, but for example, someone in personnel referred to a person who is somewhat in my keeping as being very emotional. I don't see her that way at all. I think she was very emotional for a certain reason, and that her level of emotionality was appropriate for the situation. And the comment came from someone who I viewed as sympathetic, so it took me even more by surprise.

I think emotionality makes people uncomfortable because it is unpredictable to them.

I also do think it's possible to impose on other people with excess emotionality. I'm just sometimes surprised at how low the threshold is.

 

[Vamp]

You're right -- this bias absolutely exists. I find this in the male, engineer-dominated environments I've mostly spent my time in. And it is draining! Facts and logic are not 100% of who I am, and I will not deny the rest. (FTR: I'm not saying ANYTHING against males or engineers, or even making generalizations about them -- just saying those logic is the one and only MO in the pieces of those environments that I've experienced).

Other biases against? Humanities. Social sciences. Females. Anything feminine. Anything "squishy". Anything emotional. Anything you can't freaking write an equation for!

Sorry -- I didn't realize I would start ranting in this text box, Leisl. But I just wanted to say that you're not alone at all. This thing you're picking up is abundantly real, and I think you just have to stand up for this way in which you function that happens to be different than that environment. There are some societies, however, taht are the opposite. Have you read/seen ethnographies?

YES! To feel is to be feminine is to be weak and inefficient. The world is all about eating shit and liking it.

Ooh. Strikes a chord. I'm the same way, but I think that's because of a past history of abuse / hostile family environment where there was no room for me to have feelings. You?

Same. That social system has translated into most of my 22 years alive being depressive years full of crippling depression. All because of a lack of emotional support, validation of emotions and the allowance of emotions. I basically have to try and become a non-thinking machine and shut it all off. Which would be fine because I totally don't understand feelings or feel one way or the other about life.

This is what bothers me about that "be more objective and disassociate your feelings bullshit"; feelings are part of the picture, too and for a few of us always will be. Denying us our emotions may make things run more smoothly for the majority but it's at our expense.

Put on a Poker face.. smile a lot, tell jokes.Don't let them see you worry. Act like you haven't a care in the world.
Go home and cry yourself to sleep , again.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Sometimes I write a poem

That's how I deal with my feelings.

Additional steps: Have lots of dirty sex and comfort yourself with money and/or material things. Also, thrillseeking.
That's the brightest hope I have for the future.

 

[Vamp]

I have read most of this thread; I may have missed something.

I am trying to imagine the circumstances where this comes up. Is this about work, mostly?

Have you ever met someone who ignores any and every concern you have?
In my case, it's mostly people rationalizing and invalidating the way I see things (from social issues to mundane things) by belittling the way I think. "that's so silly and you're silly for feeling that way." Basically, invalidation of your feelings.

Any time I make a decision based on how I feel I'm always hit with that "that's stupid. feelings aren't important. just do it" bomb. I can't lay out specifics but it's a feeling of being told that you're silly/weak all the time for having emotions that put your on one side or another or that every thing you do and say is silly/weak because you are a feeler.

To some extent, being told to major in certain fields because it makes more money or being told to grit your teeth and bear something you don't like because it's more socially acceptable is an example of this.

Telling someone who values their feelings that their feelings don't matter does a lot of damage.

And example of the majors thing is that I wanted to do English but was pressured by family into doing something with more money in it.

 

[mochajava]

Liesl:

Well, let's look at a different dichotomy for a second. Take the sensing and intuition dichotomy. I worked with someone who was investigating this and essentially the difference is caused by different neural circuitry in the frontal lobe. Sensors process information in series that intuitives would process in parallel. I'm not going to go farther into it unless someone wants me to. But this is why sensors and intuitives fundamentally disagree on what they see as "relevant" or "real."

I'm asking you to go more into it, either on the thread or otherwise, and to send some links! This is fascinating.

Liesl:

It's not convenient within the structure of the world as it is now, but that's because of the bias against it. I would never part with my feeling. It's "real" to me. It's the "best" way of evaluating situations to me. It serves my ends quite faithfully.

Haha, you're right. At one point, I thought and thought about what big decisions I was happy with (my graduate school, my marriage, my boarding high school) and which decisions I was unhappy with (my college, my major), and I realized... the decisions I was unhappy with were the decisions I'd made based on thinking, and the ones I was happy with I'd made based on (my lingo at the time) "no valid reason really". I.e., it was what felt right.

And it can be dramatic. Some close friends were advising me against the marriage (6 years in - amazing). My family / husband were advising me against the choice of graduate school... and still, these are the decisions I don't regret. The family and I are no longer on speaking terms, and the husband is a-ok with the graduate school (heh, they gave me full funding, so this benefits him too!)

Again - this all has to be filtered not just through the "F" in my personality type, but also my life experiences and perhaps owning these decisions, rather than having them made by someone else, and the empowerment that came with that was what made them work.

ReflecttcelfeR

If this dichotomy is so extreme then what is to be said about those who end up at the same end, but took different paths to get there? I.e. one path dealt with F and the other with T.

Can you elaborate for me, please? This is an interesting point, but I'm not getting it -- an example, maybe?

Vamp:

Same. That social system has translated into most of my 22 years alive being depressive years full of crippling depression. All because of a lack of emotional support, validation of emotions and the allowance of emotions. I basically have to try and become a non-thinking machine and shut it all off. Which would be fine because I totally don't understand feelings or feel one way or the other about life.

This is what bothers me about that "be more objective and disassociate your feelings bullshit"; feelings are part of the picture, too and for a few of us always will be. Denying us our emotions may make things run more smoothly for the majority but it's at our expense.

I'm glad you're in a different place now. For me, reading people who talked about and validated feelings really helped me hate myself, and my ways of functioning, a lot less. All I ever knew before that was that I wasn't "easygoing" enough, or that I was "too sensitive". Not constructive, particularly from your caretakers on whom you're dependent before age 18 (financial / other independence was the best thing to happen to me ever... I am a rock... I am an island) <=just kidding!

Vamp:

And example of the majors thing is that I wanted to do English but was pressured by family into doing something with more money in it.

I'm with you on this one (except that the pressure was internal... I wonder what kind of familial hell would have broken loose had I pursued my passions like anthropology and women's studies - I would have done statistics!!). How does this play into the thinking vs. feeling, do you think? I'd like to know as I'm processing this one as well.

 

[Glycerine]

I'd love to dissociate from my emotions while, say, I'm taking an exam. But my emotions are like the most spoiled demanding children and throw tantrums until I pay attention! What can I say? Some of us are just wired like that. My ISTJ husband doesn't have the same sense of urgency when it comes to feelings, so can shelve them and deal with it when it's more convenient for him.

It might not be type -- I think, to some extent, I'm always holding back a ton of feelings (due to past abuse) so it's like a dam holding water in place... it's a crucial, extraordinarily strong structure. And it's sort of full from the past, so when day-to-day things come up, I need to deal with them (there are MANY full journals in my life, some blogs, long letters to friends, reading novels).

It's not convenient. I might change it if I were hypothetically given the option. I believe it will hinder success (or help it, depending on what I do).

I want to be more :workout: and less , but it's not always what I want with the emotions. I can't really have an agenda. I sort of have to allow them. Does that make sense?

I can totally relate. Emotion disassociation is sometimes crucial for some sort of structure and sanity (IMO).

 

[Shmooooooooo]

Just to add a quick point, I think mutual understanding and communication is definitely important when NF and NT comes into contact.

These two temperaments have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world, and it is important that that fact is communicated openly. I have found that simply talking explicitly about such ideas as the need for emotional reinforcement, the acceptance of values and the adherence to the values of others among other things is a great help.

Of course I speak from a strictly Ti "vs" Fi point of view (an INFP and an INTP coming to terms with their differences), and Fe might have different needs (like the need to adhere to external social principles which was never a problem in my household, since my INFP mother is generally people-shy herself and despises big social events much as I do).

As an unrelated concluding point, I'd like to add that, while seemingly unfair, I think that in any NT - NF compromise the NT will generally have to bend more than the NF for the simple fact that the NT is usually less personally affected by such "bending". While a Fi-dom or a Fe-dom can be deeply personally upset by having to betray their values or having their emotions ignored, a thinker will most likely be able to shrug off a few unnecessary duties and various F-oriented lip service as an inconvenience and nothing more. I think it's an important part of maturing to recognize that this asymmetry exists, and that it's silly to expect tit-for-tat compromises when such fundamentally different systems, both in terms of outlook and potential for suffering, are in conflict. But that could be just the silly subjective Fi of my mother's that's rubbed off on me. That's not to say, of course, that the NT should serve and bend to the NF in every aspect. NF can be very unreasonable at times, and the NT should stand his own if it comes to something that would deeply affect or entangle him - after all he has a life to live as well.