Please prove the number of Mersenne primes with your emotions alone.
In that context I think the idea is if you remove the emotions you no longer have a proof.
So, if you take the human away from the equation, it's no longer a proof, as proofs are a system of human understanding. You take the emotions away from a human and it's no longer a human, as it appears (according to the thread) that emotions are at the root of all high-end cognitive activities.
It ultimately comes down to the idea that rationality without emotions is not a coherent one. Like the idea of shape without volume. It can be talked about, but doesn't really apply to reality.
Old Related Thread:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ics/20311-do-emotions-impair-rationality.html
I agree with the concept that is provided within the context of this topic.
An F, being totally emotional, would be in their own perspective, acting rationally. Thus, emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive, from a single perspective.
That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.
The seperation of rationals and non-rationals, has nothing to do with being emotional or not emotional. Rather, it has to do with how we reach our conclusions and descisions.
Rationals see problems in everything, non rationals take many things for granted. Both may take the same course of action, but only the rational would be aware of it.
So what defines rationality in NT's, is not the fact that we are more rational than others per se. But that we define ourselves by using rational factors to the best of our ability while making descisions, consciously.
So, whilest everyone can be considered rational from their perspective. NT Rationals are the ones that do so proactively.
Rational
e I can see as a reference to the style NT's supposedly think and communicate with. Rational I'd see as either conscious thought, or intelligent thought, which is most similar to how you are using the word.
Rationality is even vaguer than MBTI types, I don't know how one would come to your conclusion in the first place. But there's problems outside of that.
Notably that rationality is a much more nurtured than natural behaviour, which goes against some foundations of MBTI. Outside of that, it's hard to see rationality as a preference, which is what cognitive functions supposedly are, as being or becoming rational usually involves going strongly against one's own natural preferences. Even further outside of that, it's hard to see a dichotomy between non-NT functions and rationality.
All decision involve moral/ethics if it interacts with another human, regardless if it's wise.
I'd make two points here.
1: You always interact with the human that is yourself. Making a significant distinction between oneself and another human is actually very difficult to do.
2: That's only one of the common definitions of morality. Another one is simply "how to live life" or "what decisions to make". Leading all decisions to be ethical/moral ones.