I agree with you that such deep feeling should lead to action, and in my case, I generally do try to help as much as is in my power. This is precisely why I'm asking what is the ultimate usefulness of deep feeling.
Ok, so I have a little more time here!
I'm not sure there's much usefulness in feeling things
deeply - but I'll elaborate here. I do think there's incredible value in reflecting, processing, and understanding the emotions that you're experiencing at a given moment. They provide an indicator/roadmap/gauge to how you're doing, whether you need to reassess your priorities or relationships, or reassess your own perceptions or beliefs. Sometimes 'reassessment' isn't necessary...you instead know you have to do something, an are propelled directly towards action. And sometimes there is value in just working through the feelings - say, grief - because it can be a process to get to the other side. But that's all individual growth/awareness. They provide more direct usefulness, again, with being better able to reach out and connect with others. So emotional awareness creates better self-understanding, which in turn means you're better able to reach out and help others....when your own self is nourished/healthy, you're in a much better position to interact with others in a positive, mutually beneficial way.
But..I think there's a difference between emotional awareness and the act of 'feeling deeply'. Simply the act of feeling - pure feeling - doesn't accomplish anything, so in that sense I don't think it's 'useful' per se. I mean, after all, it's a wholly reflective process, feeling/emotion in and of itself. It's what you end up
doing with what you've learned from it -- not the feelings themselves. Are you feeling the feelings just for the feeling themselves, or are you exploring the feelings with the goal of learning/analyzing/taking action?
I'm reminded of a quote from a book I was reading the other night (it's a cultural history book and the author (Jacques Barzun) was discussing the concept of sentimentalism); it's not directly related to this thread, nor am I directing this towards anyone specifically, I just thought it was a fun little tangent:
But what is sentimentality? If one asks somebody who ought to know, one is told: an excess of emotion; or again, misplaced emotion. Both answers miss the point. Who can judge when emotion is too much? People vary not only in the power to feel and express feeling, but also in their imagination, so that a stolid nature will deem it excessive as soon as love or grief is expressed vividly and strongly. Shakespeare is full of "exaggerated" emotion, but never sentimental. The same remark applies to the other answer. When is feeling misplaced? at the sufferings of the tragic hero? at the death of a pet? at the destruction of a masterpiece? One may argue that any emotion out of the common should be restrained in public, but that is another question, one of social manners that has nothing to do with a feeling's fitness to its occasion. The diagnostic test must be found somewhere else.
Sentimentality is feeling that shuts out action, real or potential. It is self-centered and a species of make-believe. William James gives the example of the woman who sheds tears at the heroine's plight on the stage while her coachman is freezing outside the theater. So far is the sentimentalist from being one whose emotions exceed the legal limit that he may be charged with deficient energy in what he feels; it does not propel him. That is why he finds pleasure in grief and when he is in love never proposes.
-------------
For myself, the reason I posted a second time was simply because KLessard's comment,
But we can't HELP it! Makes me hate myself.
, seemed to me as if she was somehow dissatisfied with this aspect of herself, and felt it was 'inevitable' and unavoidable. That's what the rest of this post is directed towards - towards anyone who might not like being caught up in such emotional fluxes. But I recognize that many people not only process things differently, but also have no dissatisfaction/problem whatsoever with this aspect of themselves- which is a good thing (being happy with who you are, that is).
I just know from personal experience the self-bashing isn't a great place to be in. I went through a period where I was really upset about my emotional ups and downs, and consequently I fixated on them that much more and they played a much more powerful role in my life. I've never been one to verbalize any/most of this, so it wouldn't have been known to anyone really (which is why I've never been called dramatic or anything like that). But eventually I came to just accept them - accept it as a given. Not focus on any of it too much, just let them be, let them alone, accept the nature of things I might not like (stop fighting against reality), and you know what? They immediately began to have much less 'power' over me, and became less important. Just background noise, in some cases. That's in general.
Specifically, I guess over time I've chosen not to take things terribly personally, nor 'expect' certain behaviors out of other people, or out of my relationships. I also think I used to be quite a bit more sensitive (esp. as a teenager) than I am now. They are who they are, I am who I am. I am certain if I DID expect certain traits out of others, I'd be disappointed WAAYYY more than I am, now, as well as offended more, and then I'd again be caught up in consistent negative feelings, many of which I don't think I'd truly be justified in having, because again, a lot of it would be due to my projecting my own desires/wishes/hopes/self onto others that isn't exactly fair for me to do.
With everything I've written, I don't mean to imply this is the way everyone should be or respond (because I don't believe that it is), nor that this is the 'right' way. This is just some of how I go about doing things/looking at things that I think makes it so that I'm less emotionally reactive/upset, in general.
But what seems overwrought to me is what seems to be people saying the consistently dwell in these emotional crevices. And then on top of that there seems to be a learned helplessness, like you couldn't take control even if you tried.
I think this makes you a slave to your own emotions. You're at their whim and mercy. That's not emotional processing. Is this empathy or is this empathy without discernment, without context, or without proportion? So yes this a contribution to the question of why NFs supposedly "need to feel upset so easily." I say they don't! It's not a prerequisite to being an NF as people are trying to pass it off as.
I understand this is not exactly what the OP was talking about, but thread derails are abundant here so...
I do think this is something it took a bit of time for me to learn. The time I was speaking of, I really felt at the mercy of my emotions, which I hated.... but it IS controllable, to a pretty significant extent (at least it was for myself).
And I agree [Which is why I agree] all of this isn't a prerequisite for being NF.