• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTs: stop saying emotions are irrational

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think Fear as in Flight or fight response is pretty rational. I think Love as in mother/child bond is logical too.
I think emotions in our cave dwelling days were perhaps simpilar, and more based in rational response, than they are today, now survival of the fittest doesn't apply.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
I think Fear as in Flight or fight response is pretty rational. I think Love as in mother/child bond is logical too.
You confuse rational with having a positive effect on relative reproductive rates.

:huh:
You're basically telling us that any life form exhibiting a behavior of any sort is rational and can self program it's computations patterns through metacognition.
wow
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You confuse rational with having a positive effect on relative reproductive rates.

:huh:
You're basically telling us that any life form exhibiting a behavior of any sort is rational and can self program it's computations patterns through metacognition.
wow

Well, in cave dwelling days I would have thought that larger numbers of surviving offspring ensure the survival of our species. Any mechanism that promotes this is surely a logical move (of course when veiwed in those circumstances).

So yes, Eck, a behaviour that has positive benefits for it's population in some shape or form is logical in context to the situation.

You are of course taking the piss:doh: out of me, so I'm gonna shutup now.

P.S. When you put it like that, it sounds simplistic, but if was that simple how come basic computer programmes can't do it? If I had a computer programme that did just that at work I'd be out of job.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
Well, in cave dwelling days I would have thought that larger numbers of surviving offspring ensure the survival of our species. Any mechanism that promotes this is surely a logical move (of course when veiwed in those circumstances).

So yes, Eck, a behaviour that has positive benefits for it's population in some shape or form is logical in context to the situation.

You are of course taking the piss:doh: out of me, so I'm gonna shutup now.

P.S. When you put it like that, it sounds simplistic, but if was that simple how come basic computer programmes can't do it? If I had a computer programme that did just that at work I'd be out of job.

?
I'm not sure that you understand how evolution of biological systems actually works : \. You'd never say that otherwise.
Computers are not self replicating, computers don't mutate, computers don't have to share limited ressources, computers are not able to collect ressources and even if they could, computers weren't left alone for billions of years.
This has nothing to do with reason.

It's like calling the grand canyon rational because of the sheer relative scale of it in both space and time compared to human life span and size. Doesn't make any sense.

If by chance, one among many individual is, thanks to his genetic code and the resulting phenotype, is statistically more likely to reproduce and transmit his\her own relative advantage to his\her kids, then, after xx generations the advantageous mutation will have replaced the 'old version' of the code. Simple maths, large numbers of individuals and generations in a biosphere with limited ressources.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
NT's like myself only think emotions are bad when they conflict with rational decisions. I believe better results can usually be obtained when we let the brain rule the heart.


Cooperation with others is what allowed us to dominate our world. Nature equipped us with compassion in order to promote cooperation. When we look at the big picture, it is rational to help the victim as long as the risks are reasonable. It increases the likelihood that I will receive help should I become the victim.


From the perspective of self interest, leniency here is not necessarily irrational. If I ended up on trial, allowing the courts to exercise compassion would increase the likelihood that I will get a second chance. It's all based on the cost/benefit analysis.

In this example, suppose you let the rapist off easy simple because he's a handsome hunk. This would be a clear example where emotions caused a bad decision since it increases the danger to yourself.

Feelings are much more fallible than logic.

Ahh but that 'logic' you use to get that groupsupport, is in fact backed up by emotions, as they will feel an overwhelming need to actually help you. You won't find this in solitary animals, even those that are forced to live in a group (for instance cats, while dogs will help and protect one another).

The same is true for your second example. It's idd the fact that they can empathize with you that gets you a second chance.

However, the feelings for a hansome stud would never outweigh the feelings for self preservation in your third example. Even without logic, you would not feel safe around this person, especially if he openly admitted to wanting to hurt people and not feel remorse about what he's done. Fight/Flight is one of the only responses that can override the urge to mate.


As for your last statement, this is dependent on the individual. So yes, I believe it to be true...for you ;)


Finally, what you and kant have just in essence proved, I feel is that logic and feelings should never be seperated. It should be an equal marriage, and one should appreciate the other for what it is, and vice versa, without one being considered superior or inferior. Then, and only then do you get the best results. In conflict situations though, where both are saying the opposite, listen to the one you're most adept at and look at which one is in fact important for the situation you're in. That's my experience anycase.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Feelings are much more fallible than logic.

You've obviously never listened to an episode of The Goon Show. An old radio show where Spike Milligan and friends led the audience on the most surreal and bizarre adventures by simply taking one 'logical' step after another. :)
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
I just looked up the word 'rational' and lots of dictionaries seem to concur that it's about things being consistent, logical and based on reason. So, by that definition, emotions are irrational, because they're often conflicting, inconsistent and based not on logical deduction but subjective reactions which are themselves often extremely nebulous.

That said, simply saying they're not rational doesn't necessarily equal saying they're stupid or useless. This argument reminds me of the whole battle of the sexes, where you'll get people trying to argue that men and women are or should be the same, taking an inappropriate meaning from the word 'equal'. Men and women are not the same at all - in general, there are many things that one sex does better than the other. But to say for example that men are physically stronger than women, doesn't necessitate a defensive response from women, trying to bring up absurd examples of female body builders who outperform males in arm wrestles. It's just a simple fact, it's something that makes them different, yet difference doesn't exclude equality.

Emotions and reason are not the same thing. But by saying that the one can do something the other can't, or vice versa, doesn't automatically take away value from either one in its place. To try to argue that "emotions can be just as rational as reason" is like saying "women can be just as physically strong as men" - yes, perhaps in some bizarre and exceptional cases, this can be so, but it doesn't stop it from being generally untrue. It's just building strawmen.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
?
I'm not sure that you understand how evolution of biological systems actually works : \. You'd never say that otherwise.
Computers are not self replicating, computers don't mutate, computers don't have to share limited ressources, computers are not able to collect ressources and even if they could, computers weren't left alone for billions of years.
This has nothing to do with reason.

It's like calling the grand canyon rational because of the sheer relative scale of it in both space and time compared to human life span and size. Doesn't make any sense.

If by chance, one among many individual is, thanks to his genetic code and the resulting phenotype, is statistically more likely to reproduce and transmit his\her own relative advantage to his\her kids, then, after xx generations the advantageous mutation will have replaced the 'old version' of the code. Simple maths, large numbers of individuals and generations in a biosphere with limited ressources.
settle petal, I took it more in the context of adaption and learning, which is also a part of the evolution of biological systems, as in behaviour. You saw one thing, I saw another (admittly I took a mighty big intuitive leap too.) Seriously a computer program that learned and adapted within context of it's peremeters would make mint in my industry. That's all....different angles.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Actually, so are you, my little carebear. This might be true for you, but doesn't mean it's necessarily true for others, or for that matter on each subject.
nope. this is true all the time.

there is such a thing as a universal truism.
eque has stumbled across one.

and anyway, the very definition of irrational is choosing emotions over logic.

what this is, is an attempt by kangirl to remedy the cognitive dissonance she's experiencing, which is inevitable when an F wants to be/thinks they are an NT.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ahh but, sweety, that wasn't what I was referring to. Call it irrational all you want, what I was referring to is the 'higher degree of efficiency'. This is not true for everyone. Others are more efficient using the 'irrational' road. Depends on what you're more skilled at. And then there's the context to be considered. If you're trying to figure out math, then emotions are rather useless. Try to figure out love though...and you might as well toss logic out the window ;)
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Although offered in jest, your critique has teeth.

Quartering the MBTI into continental subgroups (SJ; SP; NF; NT) makes sense until oppositional/subjective language was introduced (ironically) probably as a means to add clarifying depth to the temperament summaries.

Instead of providing process-enhancing detail, the descriptions introduce artificial terms of implied value (Mastermind v. Mechanic). It's only natural that, from here, folks unfamiliar with the non-hierarchical nature of the MBTI would necessarily presume quality of mind/behavior against type.

In the end, applying these labels (versus simply offering an itemized breakdown of observed trait preference) distorts the MBTI into a 'tiered' (semi-competitive) framework.
and for those of you who can't make cohesive sense of night's verbose assessment, i'll translate.

keirsey fucked up.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
ama said:
Ahh but, sweety, that wasn't what I was referring to. Call it irrational all you want, what I was referring to is the 'higher degree of efficiency'. This is not true for everyone. Others are more efficient using the 'irrational' road.
maybe.
but maybe they just don't get found out.

and by my calculation, logic has actually done a fine job figuring out love.
 

mortabunt

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
963
MBTI Type
type
Enneagram
5
I see emotions as semilogical things, but sensor emotions are completely illogical. I can predict and use the emotions of another N, but ES types are completely unpredicatable. I don't act on emotions, because that overrides my reason and sets me up to be put into a bad situation.
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
It's like calling the grand canyon rational because of the sheer relative scale of it in both space and time compared to human life span and size. Doesn't make any sense.

But the grand canyon can't make choices...

Are you talking about consciousness? I.e. are you saying that in order for a decision (for example, a decision to mate with the hottest caveman) to be logical it has to be consciously made along the lines of "this man will provide me with the best genes and my offspring with the best chances of survival and reproduction" vs "damn, this guy's hot, I'm going to have sex with him"?

Btw, to everyone (including Nocap the Patronizing), I am not trying to *prove* anything with this thread - I deliberately started it out in a way I thought would garner responses, and yes, I have my belief (that emotions are not, by definition, ALWAYS illogical), but mostly I was just trying to spark a discussion. Even the MBTI stuff was sort of a convo sparker - this doesn't have to be 'about' T vs F or NT vs SF etc. etc. - it's mostly just about what one person thinks about this issue vs what another thinks. I'm sure there are some Fs out there who might disagree that emotions can be logical, just like there are some Ts, like myself, who think they can be.

Once again, this is not all or nothing. This is not 'emotions are ALWAYS logical' vs 'emotions are ALWAYS illogical'. Or, not to me. I'm interested in hearing from people who DO think it's all or nothing, and why.

Is there anyone claiming that emotions are 100% illogical all the time? I'd still like to hear a short, concise reason for this, especially if it could be given in plain English and not used as a way for x individual to bring up their pet areas (ECK!).

Emotions can lead us into bad (i.e. illogical) choices. They can lead us into good ones, too. How can we say emotions are always illogical? And, if they are, how should we deal with that fact? Should we simply try to suppress and/or ignore our emotions? Put them on a second tier 100% of the time when making decisions?

Tell me why reacting with anger, fear etc. to being punched in the face on the street is illogical, too...
 
G

garbage

Guest
It's easy to just throw out what you don't understand. If you don't understand something, and if you can't make sense of it, it has no place in your model of the world. Right? Right?

:doh:

Emotions can be considered rational responses for something that has triggered them; it's usually just a matter of identifying what that something is. Most people tend to either suppress their emotions or act upon them without thinking through what they mean. Both of these actions are illogical; in both modes of operation, you're ignoring clear and present facts in your overall analysis.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't think emotions are either rational or irrational; I think they're more arational. If that's a word.

If someone gets a nice present for their birthday, then they feel loved. That emotion logically follows.

If someone stays in an abusive relationship because they are convinced the other party really loves them, then their feelings of loyalty don't logically follow.

Emotions are purely biological and, in my opinion, only happen to coincide with rationality or irrationality. I don't think this means emotions aren't valuable, though. They motivate, they color life. I think they're just as valuable as thought, just in a very different way.
+1

This is well said. It clarifies the relationship between logic and emotion by separating the two as distinct processes rather than having the direct relationship of being opposites. I also came across a succinct statement on this same topic at the INTJ forum.
Emotions can interfere with logical thinking. However, on a basic biochemical level, they can be understood in a logical manner.
Go INTJs
 
G

garbage

Guest
What am I throwing out?

Whoops, sorry.. I was actually agreeing with you. Wholeheartedly.


Factoring your emotions into your analysis doesn't make you less rational; it makes you more so. It's a matter of exactly how and where they're factored in that matters.

Here's another tidbit: Neuroticism isn't correlated with MBTI's Feeling preference.
 
Top