[NT] NTs: stop saying emotions are irrational

[Kangirl]

OK, Greed, misunderstood ya. And yeah, neuroticism isn't correlated with F-ness. If it were, I would be a big, fat F.

*worries about random shit*

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

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.

Interesting observation. It also seems to be a driving force in humanity to compartmentalize and then create these hierarchies that subjugate certain categories. It is especially interesting seeing this applied to thought patterns. Western European civilization seems especially bent on compartmentalization. This way of isolating emotion from thought is a strongly Western ideal and has been expressed in philosophies and even in media characters like Mr. Spock. I took a class on multiculturalism and was especially struck that the assumption that different types of thought processes can be isolated is an alien concept in some other cultures. Systems based on holistic models of thought and behavior would find this dichotomy of emotion and reason to be an artificial construct. It is rather interesting.

 

[lunalum]

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.

QFT

I've been trying to find a way to say something along the lines of this for the past two days.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

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.

This argument could well be an extension of the "battle of the sexes" since in our culture emotion is associated with women and rationality with men. MBTI gives the distinction a different format.

On the point that women are physically weaker than men, I can see that using the exception to prove a rule doesn't make sense. A different error is seen when female physicality is assumed to be a subset of men. This requires the dismissal of important information from the whole picture in which women's bodies play a different role than men in perpetuating the species. There are also ways of measuring strength besides muscle mass and ability to exert force. Men's bodies can accomplish things women's bodies cannot and vice versa.

To dismiss chunks of data that are relevant to a situation is not reasonable. In instances where emotions can impact a result, it makes sense to include these in the reasoning process. Emotions are based on a system. That system is complex and can produce confusing results when it is not understood, but to assume they are random requires a bit more proving. If there are conflicting results it is because of the nature of the input. Fix the input and fix the result.

I'll give an illustration. I recently was confronted with a disgruntled student who demanded her money back from my class and accused me of false advertising. I analyzed the situation and determined that the student was feeling humiliated for not being able to keep up in the class. [edit] Her aggressive style and wording gave me an initial feeling that I had been inept. That emotional response helped me to understand better what she was feeling and trying to communicate [/edit] That output was likely the result of this person experiencing negative consequences for not performing well in other circumstances. Her former input made this output the course of action that made her the safest. There isn't a reason to make a judgment on her because her output of anger is nothing more or less than the input that produced it. Realizing the nature of the conflict was emotionally based and was the result of a larger context of input, I responded to the student in a positive way that alleviated any sense of embarrassment or that she was inadequate. She is now planning to contact me for individual lessons, and I will maintain my desired outcome of continuing financial income. If I had dismissed the emotional context of the situation and insisted that my product matched my advertisement, the problem would not have been solved in a way that matched my intended outcome.

 

[substitute]

hmm... I'm not sure it's all down to input though, because you can give the same input to two different people and they can respond wildly differently. Obviously I agree that it's not wise to dismiss emotional content of either others or the self, what works to address one person's emotions can be disastrous for another - how you alleviate embarrassment or feelings of inadequacy for one person can increase them for another.

So, whilst input is a large part of it, that input is meeting with a unique and, to all intents and purposes, unpredictable system which can and often does do unpredictable things with it, producing output that can bear little relation to true external circumstances.

 

[substitute]

here's a thought - perhaps what separates reason from emotion is that those decisions made by reason can be simply and straightforwardly demonstrated and explained to an external subject, and thereby understood. Whereas many emotional decisions can't be explained to the same level of mutual understanding to another person without that person having to put considerable effort into understanding and getting to know the individual that made the decision. Kinda...?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

here's a thought - perhaps what separates reason from emotion is that those decisions made by reason can be simply and straightforwardly demonstrated and explained to an external subject, and thereby understood. Whereas many emotional decisions can't be explained to the same level of mutual understanding to another person without that person having to put considerable effort into understanding and getting to know the individual that made the decision. Kinda...?

That makes sense. The systems involved in personal perspective are complex to a point that it is probably not humanly possible to be aware of all the parameters that influence it. [edit] The input that affects an emotional reaction consists of the present input and past experiences and even physiological influences which cannot all be accounted for in a present interaction [/edit] This is likely true even for an understanding of ourselves. What can help compensate for this is to extract underlying principles and then to deal with the application of the system as approximations. It's a kind of fuzzy logic.

In the example I gave about the disgruntled student, the principle is that people typically prefer to have a sense of competence over a sense of incompetence. The specific wordings that can encourage or discourage a person can vary drastically, so any attempt to resolve the conflict contains risk of an ineffective presentation that is misunderstood. Because of this the best a person can do is make the closest approximation to what will be interpreted in the desired manner. The failures in this process can teach a great deal. What I have tried to do is to learn how to observe patterns and information in the emotion as the person presents it. I certainly make mistakes in interpretation, but have gotten better at it over time.

 

[Not_Me]

They are? What if one is very good at identifying them?

Feelings come and go, sure, but in an irrational way?

I would say that feelings and logic arrive at the same conclusion most of the time. The natural selection process enforces this tendency.

 

[BlackCat]

The NTs that totally shut out emotion and think they're irrational and have no place within them have a lot to learn I'd say.

 

[King sns]

Hmm..
I don't think that emotions are entirely rational.
I mean, you can justify an emotion- and you can use them as an aide to make rational decisions....

But the emotion itself? rational? not really without using thinking to sort them out and guide them properly..

Not that they don't serve an important purpose-
just that I don't think rationality is one of them.

(I probably repeated someone- didn't read the whole thread but will later.)

 

[King sns]

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.

These are more instincts rather than emotions-..
Instincts mostly make sense in situations. Not really "rational" in the sense that there is reason and decision involved..

 

[Not_Me]

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).

Yes. Emotions and logic usually come to the same conclusion.

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.

Empathy speed things up, but is not a requirement. A cost/benefit analysis could lead to the same action.

However, the feelings for a hansome stud would never outweigh the feelings for self preservation in your third example.

Attractive people do get off easier. Notice how the scruffiest crook suddenly sports a suit and tie when they end up in court. They did not suddenly develop a fashion sense in prison.

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.

I think that's a very good common ground for thinkers and feelers. While I believe logic result in better outcomes, "better" is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Virtual ghost]

They're not. Nor is acting on them.

Discuss.

Will expand if this receives no replies.

Ok, emotions are racional. Logic is rational.


Then what is irrational ?

 

[garbage]

Then what is irrational ?

Acting solely out of emotion without regard to its root cause.

In fact, I think some of the confusion in this thread might be from mistaking "emotion" with "emotional actions."

 

[King sns]

Seeing that rationality involves some thought and decision- there is not much of a question about whether emotions are rational or not. They aren't. They are reactions whether it be "good" ones or "bad" ones. I think maybe a better title of this thread might be- "When is it better to make decisions by following emotions over rational thought?" or something like that. Since we all seem to agree that emotions can be used together with rationality- but why might it be better to use solely rationality over solely emotions?

And- as my personal shortsie's opinion side note:
I think that its really hard to argue emotions against rationality as more effective ways of making decisions. Because in making thoughtful and rational decisions- you can take emotions into account, and therefore make a more well-rounded choice using your logic and emotions, but- by making decisions without using rational thought- and only emotions- then you don't always take reasoning into account. And although you may be able to a make an excellent decision using emotions only, there is a lot more risk involved.

 

[ajblaise]

If emotions were rational, they'd be called thoughts.

Oddly enough, I've seen more examples of NTs being chastised for this than of NTs saying emotions are a useless weakness . . . unless you consider a statement of "that doesn't make any sense to me" to be "emotions are a useless weakness."

+1

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Ok, emotions are racional. Logic is rational.


Then what is irrational ?

Incorrect mapping of ideas to reality can occur in both misapplied emotions and misapplied logic. The irrational results from faulty underlying assumptions. At that point whatever process is working with the assumptions, the result will likely be false. Some might argue that it is the process that defines rationalism, but it is at least worth making the distinction.

There is the argument that considering the world flat was at one point the rational conclusion based on available data. A completely rational process would allow for the inclusion of newer, more accurate data. In this way it is the process and not the assumptions that defines rationality. If for some reason the system is closed and does not allow for new data, then the set of assumptions defines the system and even if the process is logical in its internal connections, the system can be irrational by nature.

My position on the relationship between reason and emotion is that sometimes emotion can be relevant data. If the rational system is open and can include the emotional data where it is applicable, then it is rational. If it is a closed system that excludes emotional data regardless, then it may be an irrational system even with logical internal connections.

 

[therationaledge]

They're not. Nor is acting on them.

Discuss.

Will expand if this receives no replies.

Stop saying the sky is blue. Its obviously a shade of teal.

 

[The Decline]

The emotional realm rarely can be translated into the rationale.

 

[redacted]

The emotional realm rarely can be translated into the rationale.

Emotions are premises, being rational takes you to an efficient conclusion based on those premises.