Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[Little Linguist]

Well okay, maybe the guy was kidding or being sarcastic. It is always hard to tell online. I'll give this fellow the benefit of the doubt and say he was just kidding around. But seriously, folks, his comments were way below the belt.

So I took off the references to the National Socialists, okay. I do apologize, Bluey - it was probably inappropriate for me to make such an insinuation. And just because you were being a jerk does not give me the right to do so.

However, I really wish this guy would keep it objective. It's so much easier for me to be objective or at least a bit more rational then. Dang, I need to calm down....

<sigh>

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Well, Nolla, let's be fair - at least he called it what it was for once: namely, an extreme solution....

Okay, fine...I shouldn't have said that...but DANG...what a statement. All feelers should be taken out of office, denied jobs, and finally be allowed to starve!!!! That's worse than what the Nazis did.

You want to call his argument rational?!?!?! I hardly think so. And if he wants to change government policies, I will rationally argue day and night with no jibes whatsoever with regard to the feasibility of certain policies, but this guy just wants to attack us. And if we ever say a word to an NT, all of a sudden the panzers come out and there's talk of inappropriate conduct.

It's totally unfair, unrealistic, and uncalled for. <takes some deep breaths>

Dude! What are you talking about!? He never said any of these things! He was calling for an approach to policy which cut out as much value-based thinking as possible. He wasn't advocating starvation and punishment for Feelers. You're honestly not reading what he wrote but reading into what he wrote!

If you confer with the first post, he stipulates that certain activities, such as the discussion of policies, should be dominated by strict logical inference and cleansed of as much unnecessary emotional input as possible in order to reach the best-possible solution to various problems. You're completely out of line attributing Nazism to his ideas.

Frankly, Nazism was the height of Feeling function gone mad, when a little man was so inflamed by irrational jealousies and phobias that he concocted a completely baseless philosophical agenda and used it as verbal justification for his crimes against humanity.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Well okay, maybe the guy was kidding or being sarcastic. It is always hard to tell online. I'll give this fellow the benefit of the doubt and say he was just kidding around. But seriously, folks, his comments were way below the belt.

So I took off the references to the National Socialists, okay. I do apologize, Bluey - it was probably inappropriate for me to make such an insinuation. And just because you were being a jerk does not give me the right to do so.

However, I really wish this guy would keep it objective. It's so much easier for me to be objective or at least a bit more rational then. Dang, I need to calm down....

<sigh>

You've been the least objective this whole time. I've hardly seen you make one direct rebuttal of his argument. Instead, you fly off the hook and, basically, call him a Nazi.

 

[nolla]

Well, he DOES say that feelers should starve... that is enough for me to not take him seriously.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Well... if he did say that, my opinion will stand amended, but I can't find where he said Feelers should starve, and even if he did, I don't think your responses have been very mature.

____

I frankly don't agree with much of what Bluewing's saying, particularly when it comes to the manner of instruction in the arts and literary fields, but it seems like the longer a thread continues the more likely it is that name-calling and finger-pointing take center-stage and push aside reasoned debate. And this is where an important moral can be derived from Bluewing's OP rant.

But I generally do agree that controversially-value based judgments ought not be allowed in civic institutions and those that exist ought to be debated with a minimum of rhetoric and a maximum of carefully-laid out reasoning. I, however, am far more moderate in my view than Bluewing.

_________________

The WHOLE POINT is not whether I agree with Bluewing, which with careful consideration I do not when it comes to some of his policies, but his idea that a mass movement to reduce unnecessary emotional input in public policy is one I firmly believe in. The posts on and the name of this thread are testament to its correctness. I'm ready to give reasons why, and if someone disagrees, he/she ought to say why not instead of name-calling.

 

[Little Linguist]

Listen, Samuel, I did try to debate with him. I said what I did not like and what I DID like, which I totally would not have done if I just wanted to banter the guy for the heck of it.

What got me upset is when he just started taking pot shots for the hell of it. And dang it all anyhow, some of what he said went beyond elitist and it did remind me of it. But I should have just kept it to myself, I guess.

What I do not understand is the merit of having a domestic or foreign policy devoid of feeling. How can you even do it? We are talking about human beings, here, not machines.

Trust me, I am the farthest thing from a socialist hippie flower power junkie. I also think that the government should stop wasting our tax dollars and start analyzing whether or not our policy is correct. I think the American government should stop trying to "help" countries when all they do is hurt themselves and everyone else. And I agree that idealist policies are dangerous in government.

But as I said before, the solution is not as easy as: Make rational thinkers leaders. Get rid of all emotional-based leadership. Take down leaders who make intuitively-based decisions. Base your decisions only on logical facts. Hell what happens when you do not have logical facts. Under that premise, I would like to see what he would have done in Cuba during the crisis, for instance. I would like to see what he would have done during the Great depression. I would like to see what he would have done during the Civil war.

Sure, I agree that idealist-based leadership is ineffective at best and dangerous and detrimental at worst. Take a look at FDR. Take a look at GWB. Take a look at Vietnam. At Korea. At WWI, WWII - conflicts which were not ours!!!!!!!!! Take a look at the Cold War - Feeling at its worst.

BUT the solution is not to ATTACK feeling. The solution is to achieve a balance where neither F nor T dominates domestic and foreign policy. Both are deadly and dangerous when taken too far.

 

[Leysing]

Not everyone is rational? Too bad. We are going to set up a society in a way that they will have to be rational, or starve!

Here.

(Who "we?")

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Listen, Samuel, I did try to debate with him. I said what I did not like and what I DID like, which I totally would not have done if I just wanted to banter the guy for the heck of it.

Alright... as I said, I also disagree with much of what Bluewing posted, but I felt emotions went a little far. Indeed, I may have gone a little far in defending Bluewing.

Maybe I'm just upset at how this whole discussion went, and looking back at some of Bluewing's later postings, I can see why people were upset.

<sigh>

 

[Little Linguist]

Furthermore, how can you possibly ameliorate the school system to the extent where feeling is taken out of art and literature??? Without feeling, there is no art or literature. Is he saying we should only read literature as if it were a mathematical equation, or did I read him incorrectly? How can you understand art, literature, or any subject without feeling?

I agree that socialization to the extent which our schools have implemented is incorrect. I do not believe it is a good idea to force students to accept an ideology or suffer the consequences in grades. I hated the fact that I had to throw up what my teachers taught me and did not get the chance to express my own ideas.

However, one cannot take such a radical approach and irradicate feeling, especially in subjects that are based on the human condition. What, what oh what is driving such an irrational argument?????

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Here.

(Who "we?")

I submit.

<natam natam anyatram gamishyaami> <drooping I shall go elsewhere>

 

[Little Linguist]

Alright... as I said, I also disagree with much of what Bluewing posted, but I felt emotions went a little far. Indeed, I may have gone a little far in defending Bluewing.

Maybe I'm just upset at how this whole discussion went, and looking back at some of Bluewing's later postings, I can see why people were upset.

<sigh>

I admit that I took things too far and acted like a hormonally-engorged teenage dumbass. However, I just wish we could have a fair debate, and then my emotions tend not to get as charged.

So let's go back to my above statements and maybe he can clarify and/or comment in a way that does not advocate starving us all.

 

[Little Linguist]

I submit.

<natam natam anyatram gamishyaami> <drooping I shall go elsewhere>

Noooo, I really admire your opinion, and to be honest I admire your ability to stand firm and resolute and rational through the whole thing. I wish I could.


So now, tell me what you think because I would be very interested in knowing - if you are not too awfully offended by what I said to discuss with me.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I admit that I took things too far and acted like a hormonally-engorged teenage dumbass. However, I just wish we could have a fair debate, and then my emotions tend not to get as charged.

So let's go back to my above statements and maybe he can clarify and/or comment in a way that does not advocate starving us all.

I say a new thread ought to be started (I will, but on another day...) which discusses the role of Feeling in rational decision-making. There have been others, but in light of new information and recent experiences, a fresh start may be in order.

 

[Ivy]

Well... if he did say that, my opinion will stand amended, but I can't find where he said Feelers should starve, and even if he did, I don't think your responses have been very mature.

____

I frankly don't agree with much of what Bluewing's saying, particularly when it comes to the manner of instruction in the arts and literary fields, but it seems like the longer a thread continues the more likely it is that name-calling and finger-pointing take center-stage and push aside reasoned debate. And this is where an important moral can be derived from Bluewing's OP rant.

But I generally do agree that controversially-value based judgments ought not be allowed in civic institutions and those that exist ought to be debated with a minimum of rhetoric and a maximum of carefully-laid out reasoning. I, however, am far more moderate in my view than Bluewing.

_________________

The WHOLE POINT is not whether I agree with Bluewing, which with careful consideration I do not when it comes to some of his policies, but his idea that a mass movement to reduce unnecessary emotional input in public policy is one I firmly believe in. The posts on and the name of this thread are testament to its correctness. I'm ready to give reasons why, and if someone disagrees, he/she ought to say why not instead of name-calling.

Here are the two posts I think LL et. al. are referring to:

Agreed.

As aforementioned. We can expect a havoc as a result of this operation. But when it is all said we will be in a much better shape to change the world for the better.

Those who seem unwilling to think objectively no matter what will just have to adjust or die out.

I have not yet figured out how to make this happen. Its not primarily a diatribe, because there is rationale for why such a view is sound in theory.

Its all very consistent.

Not everyone is rational? Too bad. We are going to set up a society in a way that they will have to be rational, or starve!

To me it IS slightly ironic that BW's idealistic society rests upon his own value judgments. And I think some of these statements do seem slightly unhinged. BUT- I agree that there is a seed of reason in there, that misjudging subjectivity for objectivity is a source of some of the world's problems. I don't think we need to adopt BW's values which rate objectivity higher than subjectivity. I do think we need to be very aware of when our ideas are subjective, and acknowledge that our subjective values are not intrinsically worth more than anyone else's.

Even when we are being truly objective I think we need to allow for the possibility that we are mistaken. As was discussed in reason's "boredom" thread a few days ago, we've got to be able to go forward with whatever is the best theory at the time, without being married to it.

 

[Little Linguist]

I say a new thread ought to be started (I will, but on another day...) which discusses the role of Feeling in rational decision-making. There have been others, but in light of new information and recent experiences, a fresh start may be in order.

Fair enough. If you start a new one and start the debate anew, I promise to behave. Really!!!

 

[reason]

The best thing to do with Bluewing when he starts threads like this one is to ignore him. He thinks that people ought to be more rational, and with that much most would agree. There is no abundance of rationality in the world, and too much irrationality, whether it manifests itself as dogmatism or relativism. However, Bluewing has, rather crudely, latched onto the thinking-feeling distinction from MBTI as a way to distinguish between rationality and irrationalty (there is, perhaps, a noteworthy correlation). In any case, emotions are not the enemy of rationality, and there is no intrinsic competition between feelings and reason. Indeed, even the most calm logician can make errors of reasoning, while an emotive student reasons with impeccable clarity.

I am profoundly passionate about rationality and knowledge, and that is not something which I want to lose. Emotions are not the enemy, they are the motivation.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Noooo, I really admire your opinion, and to be honest I admire your ability to stand firm and resolute and rational through the whole thing. I wish I could.


So now, tell me what you think because I would be very interested in knowing - if you are not too awfully offended by what I said to discuss with me.

That's sweet of you. Well... honestly... I would like to begin by hammering out a definition of the Feeling function that everyone agrees on. Then Thinking... and then use real-life examples of how Rational decision-making does or ought to incorporate one, the other, or both.

Frankly, I'm largely in agreement with you, though I do feel Thinking ought to play a more substantial role in hammering out details and the larger arcs of the structures. I understand Feeling as crucial to setting up basic understandings from which one can move forward.

I actually need to go off for dinner (it's 9 PM here!) but I promise I'll be back.

All's well that ends well, eh L-square?

 

[Little Linguist]

Here are the two posts I think LL et. al. are referring to:





To me it IS slightly ironic that BW's idealistic society rests upon his own value judgments. And I think some of these statements do seem slightly unhinged. BUT- I agree that there is a seed of reason in there, that misjudging subjectivity for objectivity is a source of some of the world's problems. I don't think we need to adopt BW's values which rate objectivity higher than subjectivity. I do think we need to be very aware of when our ideas are subjective, and acknowledge that our subjective values are worth no more than anyone else's.

Yes, I believe it is the cause for a lot of America's misjudgements regarding foreign policy, Ivy. When the government started to think that its ideology was the be-all, end-all, so to speak - yeahhhh, that did not bode well for its future dealings.

What do you think?

 

[Ivy]

Yes, LL, I agree. Subjectivity is not going away. We need to know when to put it aside as best we can, though, and see from a third person perspective. This is not 100% possible but we can still strive for it.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

He thinks that people ought to be more rational, and with that much most people agree There is no abundance of rationality in the world, and too much irrationality, whether it manifests itself as dogmatism or relativism. However, Bluewing has, rather crudely, latched onto the thinking-feeling distinction from MBTI as a way to distinguish between rationality and irrationalty. In any case, emotions are not the enemy of rationality, and there is no intrinsic competition between feelings and reason. Indeed, even the most calm logician can make errors of reasoning, while an emotive student reasons with impeccable clarity.

I am profoundly passionate about rationality and knowledge, and that is not something which I want to lose.

This is one point (the bolded part) on which I wholly agree with you.

Having re-read most of the thread, I see that Bluewing's approach to the Feeling-Thinking functions is actually quite emotional... so there needs to be a better way of discussing the whole thing....