"Feeling" & "Thinking"

[Nocapszy]

i guess we got caught up in semantics

They matter.

 

[Orangey]

yes, T and F directly affect the internal standard. i guess we got caught up in semantics

Yep

I was just confused about your use of the term "direct".

 

[alcea rosea]

The term values has been connected to emotions in this thread.
The definition of value from Dictionary.com

value
1. relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess.
2. monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in value.
3. the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.
4. equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.: to give value for value received.
5. estimated or assigned worth; valuation: a painting with a current value of $500,000.
6. denomination, as of a monetary issue or a postage stamp.
7. Mathematics. a. magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like: the value of an angle; the value of x; the value of a sum.
b. a point in the range of a function; a point in the range corresponding to a given point in the domain of a function: The value of x 2 at 2 is 4.
8. import or meaning; force; significance: the value of a word.
9. liking or affection; favorable regard.
10. values, Sociology. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.
11. Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.
12. Fine Arts. a. degree of lightness or darkness in a color.
b. the relation of light and shade in a painting, drawing, or the like.
13. Music. the relative length or duration of a tone signified by a note.
14. values, Mining. the marketable portions of an orebody.
15. Phonetics. a. quality.
b. the phonetic equivalent of a letter, as the sound of a in hat, sang, etc.
–verb (used with object) 16. to calculate or reckon the monetary value of; give a specified material or financial value to; assess; appraise: to value their assets.
17. to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance.
18. to regard or esteem highly: He values her friendship.

 

[alcea rosea]

Another quoatation

Another book quoatation about Thinking and Feeling

Building Blocks of Personality Type by L.Haas & M.Hunziker
p.21

"Thinking (T)

The Thinking approach to decision making is essentially that of analytic logic. To support this analysis, it uses criteria that it either pulls from the environment or synthesizes internally in order to define everything.
…..
Thinking processes simply need to attach a lable or category to everything in order to understan its position relative to the rest of the universe, to maintain a sense of order, and to fit it into some kind or logical framework for the analysis that leads to decisions.

Thinking is impersonal. It intentionallye xcluldes values-based considerations. Most people with a Thinking preference would rather be truthful than tactfula dn are more interested in being fair than in being kind.”

"Feeling (F)

Feelingis a values-based appraach to Judgement. It determines what somethin is worth. Feelin is aware of teh imparct of its choices. It is aware of the individuals involved and affecteed, their circumstances, and their relatiosnships. Creating and maintaininexternal or internal harmony is, therefore, the primary priority of the decision making. In the personality type mode, the term ”feeling” simply refers to decision-making process that are guided by system of values. A preference for feeling does not have anything to do with emotions. Feeling types are netiher more nor less inclined to be emotional than Thinkin types.

While no less rational than Thinking, Feeling is certainly not constrained by logic, ogren caring more about tact than truth and about the effect of a decision than about being right.”

 

[Nocapszy]

The term values has been connected to emotions in this thread.
The definition of value from Dictionary.com

All introverted functions yield values. Some people call them internal standard, others say internal values.

Feeling does not quantify.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The always ongoing discussion about MBTI F being feeling related and T being logical.

From the booklet Dynamics of Personality type (L.V.Barens)

"Judgement

Thinking as a cognitive process is not the same as thought, analysis or intelligence. Here, it specifically means coming to decisions using objective criteria. Likewise, the Feeling process is not about emotion or feeling but evaluating events and circumstances according to importance and values."

So
T = coming to decisions using objective criteria
F = evaluating events and circumstances according to importance and values

This means that people that use F functions more are not necessarily any more emotional than people who use T functions more. Thinking preference does not mean supreme intelligence or Feeling preference supreme emotions.

Objective means, outside of the person, as the word objective is used in relation to the person obviously because cognitive functions are meant to depict the inner processes of thought of the individual. The term object itself denotes it. To be within the person obviously means personal, and outside to be impersonal. How is it possible to make objective decisions in a non-logical fashion, granted that we have excluded the human element? If one is to be objective, one ought to use impersonal means of reasoning or laws of reasoning which we refer to as logic. Thus, objective and impersonal are to be equated.


Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.

T people are not 100% logical because there is no such thing as a pure Thinking type, and F people aren't 100% emotional because there is no such thing as a pure Feeling type.

 

[phoenix13]

Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.

Why do you think this?
Better yet, would you elaborate on your definition of pure emotion?

 

[Orangey]

Objective means, outside of the person, as the word objective is used in relation to the person obviously because cognitive functions are meant to depict the inner processes of thought of the individual. The term object itself denotes it. To be within the person obviously means personal, and outside to be impersonal. How is it possible to make objective decisions in a non-logical fashion, granted that we have excluded the human element? If one is to be objective, one ought to use impersonal means of reasoning or laws of reasoning which we refer to as logic. Thus, objective and impersonal are to be equated.


Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.

T people are not 100% logical because there is no such thing as a pure Thinking type, and F people aren't 100% emotional because there is no such thing as a pure Feeling type.

I think there may be a confusion of definitions.

In the first sense, the term "objective" means:

- Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

- Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

- Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

In the second sense:

- Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

The same is true of the term "subjective", which is the opposite of objective (for those of you who didn't know that ). In the first sense:

- Relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

- Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

And in the second sense:

- Placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

- Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Personal:

- Of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion.

Impersonal:

- Not personal; without reference or connection to a particular person: an impersonal remark.

- Lacking human emotion or warmth: an impersonal manner.

If we use the first definitions of "objective" and "subjective" that I have listed, then we needn't necessarily link them with "impersonal" or "personal". I say this because logical reasoning is a process that exists within the mind, which would cause it to fall under the first definition of "subjective". However, reasoning isn't personal because it belongs to a certain faculty of the mind that is present in all individuals, and the laws that we derive from this faculty are immutable, so it is therefore not "personal".

As it pertains to the thinking and feeling functions- since they are both internal processes of the mind, I think that they can both be characterized as "subjective" and not "objective" in the first senses of the words. Now what we have to decide is whether or not we want to say that logic exists in the thinking function itself. Are the thinking processes entirely logical? If yes, then thinking is always "objective" in the second sense of the word, or "impersonal", and feeling, being excluded by definition from thinking, must therefore be "personal" or "subjective" in the second sense. If no, then it is possible that thinking may also be "subjective" or "personal" in the second sense of those words. If this is so, and we say that anything "personal" is emotional, then all feeling and some thinking must also be emotional.

In summary:

If the thinking processes are always logical, then they are always "impersonal" or "objective" in the second sense of the word. Since the feeling processes are "personal" and "subjective" in the second sense of the word, then they are by definition excluded from the thinking processes. If, as Bluewing states, anything "personal" is by definition "pure emotion", then the feeling processes are emotional and the thinking processes do not include emotion. This would be the basis of the belief that feelers are more emotional than thinkers.

If we say that logic exists outside of the thinking processes, then the thinking processes need not always be logical. If the thinking processes are not always logical, then they are not by definition "impersonal" or "objective" in the second sense of the word. Since anything that is not "impersonal" must be "personal", and the thinking processes are not always "impersonal", then they are sometimes "personal". If they are sometimes "personal", and anything "personal" is (according to Bluewing) by definition "pure emotion", then the thinking processes are sometimes emotional. This would be the basis of the belief that "feeling is no more emotional than thinking", because thinking may be as emotional as feeling, not because feeling is as emotionless as thinking.

This is, of course, if we depend on Bluewing's definition of "personal" as emotion. However, the dictionary definition of emotion is as follows:

- An affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.

- Any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.

This would suggest that the experience of emotion is outside of any cognitive process that we have control of (namely, the judging functions of thinking and feeling). As such, it is correct to say that the feeling processes are, in essence, no more emotional than the thinking processes. However, now we run into the problem of figuring out why feelers are characterized as more emotional than thinkers, both in our own experiences and in the type descriptions. Could it be because the feeling processes are less able (or simply don't desire to) than the thinking processes to repress and control emotions, even as these emotions emanate from outside of the feeling functions themselves?

Okay, I think I've sufficiently confused myself for today...

 

[proteanmix]

Merged threads

 

[Oberon]

If thinking and feeling are different modes of perceiving, can I "cop a think"?

 

[alcea rosea]

Another book quoatation about Thinking and Feeling

Building Blocks of Personality Type by L.Haas & M.Hunziker
p.21

A preference for feeling does not have anything to do with emotions. Feeling types are netiher more nor less inclined to be emotional than Thinking types.

Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.
.

So you disagree with what L.Haas & M.Hunziker write in their book about Feeling not being any more emotional than thinking types?

 

[Nocapszy]

I disagree with him.

Maybe they're not necessarily outwardly emotional (as in the case of an I_F_, especially a P) but they're more emotional.

 

[Orangey]

I disagree with him.

Maybe they're not necessarily outwardly emotional (as in the case of an I_F_, especially a P) but they're more emotional.

What reason do you have for this? Why are they more emotional (even if not outwardly) where thinking types are not?

 

[edcoaching]

Objective means, outside of the person, as the word objective is used in relation to the person obviously because cognitive functions are meant to depict the inner processes of thought of the individual. The term object itself denotes it. To be within the person obviously means personal, and outside to be impersonal. How is it possible to make objective decisions in a non-logical fashion, granted that we have excluded the human element? If one is to be objective, one ought to use impersonal means of reasoning or laws of reasoning which we refer to as logic. Thus, objective and impersonal are to be equated.


Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.

T people are not 100% logical because there is no such thing as a pure Thinking type, and F people aren't 100% emotional because there is no such thing as a pure Feeling type.

I don't see it as objective vs. personal. I see the Feeling function as accounting for the fact that people aren't logical, so using logic in decisions doesn't necessarily lead to optimal results. It is rational to consider the relative worth of different ideas, viewpoints, and how others might react. Feeling types can do that without emotions being involved.

And there are pure T's and F's--we call them immature idiots. Mature people figure out that if/then and cause/effect reasoning AND considering what it takes to create buy-in is the best way to reason...

 

[Gabe]

Objective means, outside of the person, as the word objective is used in relation to the person obviously because cognitive functions are meant to depict the inner processes of thought of the individual. The term object itself denotes it. To be within the person obviously means personal, and outside to be impersonal. How is it possible to make objective decisions in a non-logical fashion, granted that we have excluded the human element? If one is to be objective, one ought to use impersonal means of reasoning or laws of reasoning which we refer to as logic. Thus, objective and impersonal are to be equated.


Personal, on the other hand means involved within the person itself, which is pure emotion by definition. Thus, personal and emotional are to be equated.

T people are not 100% logical because there is no such thing as a pure Thinking type, and F people aren't 100% emotional because there is no such thing as a pure Feeling type.

Here we go again. By the definition of objective you've mentioned, all extraverted functions are objective, including objective feeling.

 

[heart]

If thinking and feeling are different modes of perceiving, can I "cop a think"?

Yes, quite easily. It is done all the time. It got me through organic chemistry lab.

 

[Orangey]

Here we go again. By the definition of objective you've mentioned, all extraverted functions are objective, including objective feeling.

No, by his definition, no mental process is objective at all.

 

[Orangey]

I don't see it as objective vs. personal. I see the Feeling function as accounting for the fact that people aren't logical, so using logic in decisions doesn't necessarily lead to optimal results. It is rational to consider the relative worth of different ideas, viewpoints, and how others might react. Feeling types can do that without emotions being involved.

No, they can't. Even if we say that emotion doesn't necessarily emanate from the feeling functions, meaning that Fi and Fe don't directly cause a person to feel or experience emotion, then we have to at least say that emotion is used as part of the judging criteria. Where Ti and Te will use logic as the standard while processing decisions (sans emotion), feeling must then use emotional criteria in a similar fashion. If feeling doesn't use logic to produce decisions, then what is it that it uses? Both processes take in "objective" and emotional "subjective" data, but both processes do not handle the data in the same way. Of course, it is simple to say that feelers use a system of values, but where are these values derived from? If the values are used to determine the "worth" of something (good, bad, like, don't like), and logic is not used as the standard of determining whether or not something is good (since that's not its purpose), then the basis for the values has to be emotional. Where all of this seems to get fuzzy is finding an explanation for why a person would behave (and not necessarily display this behavior) more emotionally, or allow emotion more readily, just because their feeling function uses a value standard that is based on emotion. I imagine that once this standard is determined, the feeling function would be more like a good/bad sorting machine. There would be no need to actually "feel" after that.

 

[edcoaching]

If the values are used to determine the "worth" of something (good, bad, like, don't like), and logic is not used as the standard of determining whether or not something is good (since that's not its purpose), then the basis for the values has to be emotional. Where all of this seems to get fuzzy is finding an explanation for why a person would behave (and not necessarily display this behavior) more emotionally, or allow emotion more readily, just because their feeling function uses a value standard that is based on emotion. I imagine that once this standard is determined, the feeling function would be more like a good/bad sorting machine. There would be no need to actually "feel" after that.

If people who prefer Feeling contend that reason, based on something other than logic, is the basis for their choosing values (yes it's subjective to think about how others will react but it's still not emotional) then can Thinking types declare that it's emotion?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This would suggest that the experience of emotion is outside of any cognitive process that we have control of (namely, the judging functions of thinking and feeling). As such, it is correct to say that the feeling processes are, in essence, no more emotional than the thinking processes. However, now we run into the problem of figuring out why feelers are characterized as more emotional than thinkers, both in our own experiences and in the type descriptions. Could it be because the feeling processes are less able (or simply don't desire to) than the thinking processes to repress and control emotions, even as these emotions emanate from outside of the feeling functions themselves?

Okay, I think I've sufficiently confused myself for today...

The answer to this question is as follows; Feeling is a conscious assessment of emotion. Because it is focused on emotion, it attracts the passions to the psyche and therefore renders all of it higher on emotional content.