Do we need so much emotions in life?

[Virtual ghost]

Classical story is that people always have emotions and they can't exist without them in psychological sense and standard policy is that we need them to be us.
This is something that is not disputable.
But the topic is not black and white as people who debate it say/argue sometime, there is actually a hole in this kind of debate(s) so I am asking?


My question is: Do we need so much emotions in life?

The problem is not that there are emotions the problem is how much emotions there are.


Here is something that is written by one other forum member and person will probably recognize its work. But this is aimed to all forum members not just that one.

a) It creates a bond between people which allows society to exist at all
b) It allows for empathy which makes people care about one another, hence again ensuring that society will take care of the people that are part of it
c) Ever seen the matrix? The robots have a 'society' without emotions and work together only for a common goal. And many are sacrificed in the process. Not to mention that they have no ethical filter on their cold logic.

I don't agree with this. Feeling is not nearly as important as people think it is for function of a society. Most of those feelings create a fluffiness and compassion between people but this does not mean that different society can't function.
The thing is that people don't understand that T is capable of replacing many things that are in F domain simply because it is logical and a person still has enough F to care about success of people around.
What in practical sense means that you don't need to be touched by problems of people, to do something about it.


Another thing is that empathy is appreciated so much that this same empathy is the one that is doing harm.

Here is one example of this is:
It is normal that you support aid to sub-Saharan countries but I can’t understand the mechanism how that can be right thing to do. .


You are providing some aid, but there is more and more people living there every day since birth rate is out of control and you can't raise them over the poverty line since that would require huge amount of material and energy.
That would be like you are trying to build an entire infrastructure of US and EU is a few years. Building such an infrastructure would be the biggest job in history. Not to mention that the biosphere can't even support civilization as it is.
So in the end this means that you will just feed them and aid them until you will not be able to do so any more since there is too many of them. Also the aid I am talking about must not be food in can be cloths and equipment.


On the other hand there are people that have problems with cruelly toward animals and what is interesting is that in many cases those are the same people that support aid to sub-Saharan Africa.


Since you are aiding there is more and more people who need more food then you are aiding since population is in expansion.
Tech-level, transportation system and climate provide environment that is not good to organize huge farming system.
So the only thing those people can do is to turn to their own ecosystems for food.
Because of this we are loosing huge number of species all the time since those people are consuming the entire system by consuming animals, destroying ecological balance what destroys organisms that survive.
Also they are chopping the forests for fire wood, house construction and local crop production.
What will happen when they spend their finite supplies? Guess.


By doing things like this they are permanently destroying the system that is piece of the puzzle of a greater system that keeps world as it is.


This region of the world has population of about 750 million.
What means that you need huge amount of vegetables and proteins to support so much people even in so poor state such as this.
In the last 50 years the population has tripled and is growing faster and faster since there are more potential mothers. What means that you must send a lot of aid or they will turn to their environment and destroy it. (Or both)
Someone could say “fu** environment” but that does not change anything since the process is still going in the direction of catastrophe.



Odds that you will stop the increase of population is even lower because even if everyone will have only one child, that is still 50% increase. Since parents are still alive and older generations are smaller in number. Right now three children per mother are minimums there,
(This is simplified example)

Not to mention that in this case you will be attacked by people that will accuse you that you want to kill/abort innocent children in third world countries as a part of an Anti-Christ plan.



This was just to show that empathy/helpfulness and everything that comes with it can cause some serious problems for the civilization and that they are not a good choice in some situations.
This has nothing to do with hate or lack of tolerance it has to do with the fact that people don't think straight. Since this way you are only creating more people to die in the end.
What is quite cruel even if entire thing look like a good idea.




One more thing..

Is feeling bad in some situations a form of masochism?

In a way it is, but that does not mean that person can do something about it.
If you cry in that situation since you can't help yourself you in a way have a problem but if you cry and value emotion you are masochist.
There are plenty of situations when person enjoys being hurt and in a way like it in a perverse way.


One of my greatest personal strengths is my emotional stability which is linked with my strong T. What allows me to live without stress and depression while am still capable of humor and functioning normal. In many ways even better then other people.
(by their standards).


I am not saying that everybody should be like me but I think that the world be a better place if the most emotional people are somewhere around 20%T.
Also I understand that people can't change them self so this is just a comment.

I could say much more but I don't want to make too big OP.

 

[Amargith]

Love the way you didn't address the rest of the original post I made, as that was actually written with what little T I have *grin*

 

[FDG]

Neuroticism is what is not needed. Agreeableness is instead necessary.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Love the way you didn't address the rest of the original post I made, as that was actually written with what little T I have *grin*

That is why I ended with saying that I can say much more. Since for that I would need at least another post od this size and too big OP is not a good thing. But some parts are answering your post.

 

[Amargith]

That is why I ended with saying that I can say much more. Since for that I would need at least another post od this size and too big OP is not a good thing. But some parts are answering your post.

Understood

I'll get comfy and see how this develops

 

[sonata]

So I read this and started thinking about an NT world. Very efficient. We would make a whole lot of breakthroughs in all things academic. People would say what they meant. No one would get offended by honest, well-meaning advice.

But I think something would be missing. For the same reason that it always seems like something isn't quite there in my relationships (platonic, romantic, weird twisted love-hate thing, you name it) with other NTs. Yes, my NT friends can make great conversation and won't be offended by my cynical social commentary. But there's never the 'wow' factor that I get in certain relationships with NFs. I can't quite explain this, but it could be because they're not like me. They're intriguing enough for me to want to figure them out, but I can never quite do it completely.

I usually test as around 70% T. In general, I think that one should try to develop the functions that don't show up in the typee --- so someone who is, as you mentioned, less than 20% T, should try to develop their T, and the world would be a better place for it. But equally, I should try to develop my F. And my S. (I lost my cell phone the other day. Presumably dropped it in the snow and did not even notice).

I like my T. I apply it to global concerns, such as the examples you mentioned of the environment and poverty, and I apply it to pretty much all personal issues. The idea of 'making decisions using my emotions' does not appeal to me at all, and on the rare occasions that I've done so, I've felt completely out of control.

And yet, for many people, it seems to work quite well. I don't know how it works. I'm not going to know how it works.

Yes, we can make life really, really efficient and logical, but in the end, to what purpose?

Feelers, tiring as they sometimes can be to us INTJs, make life more interesting. I don't think we should send our killer robots after them yet.

 

[Anja]

So I read this and started thinking about an NT world. Very efficient. We would make a whole lot of breakthroughs in all things academic. People would say what they meant. No one would get offended by honest, well-meaning advice.

And then someday society en masse would have a psychic explosion as all the repressed emotions surfaced simultaneously and chaos and madness would reign.

 

[Sniffles]

.
The thing is that people don't understand that T is capable of replacing many things that are in F domain simply because it is logical and a person still has enough F to care about success of people around.

I don't know where to begin disputing this notion; and quite frankly I don't have the energy or will to do so.

What in practical sense means that you don't need to be touched by problems of people, to do something about it.

Maybe not, but whether or not you can effectively do something about it is another issue. And I'll point out that effectively is not the same as efficiently. Logic certainly can govern the latter, it can't govern the former.

 

[sonata]

And then someday society en masse would have a psychic explosion as all the repressed emotions surfaced simultaneously and chaos and madness would reign.

Psychic explosion? Sounds fuuuun.

But sure, that too. We'd all compete to be the NT-est of all. And it would catch up with us someday.

 

[nolla]

My question is: Do we need so much emotions in life?

The problem is not that there are emotions the problem is how much emotions there are.

If you like to think from functionalist view, then emotions are mostly waste of time and money. However, we are not here to get to some big goal. Humans I mean. We have no function except to keep living. Why should we be more productive? The production is what is making the most damage globally.

I don't actually see what is the big deal with emotions. I mean, there's often NTs here talking about how they don't like emotions or wonder why people couldn't be less emotional. Do you see emotions as a nuisance? Is it your personal experience that has convinced you that most of your problems start with emotions or emotional people? Do you feel the world would be easier to understand without emotions?

This is not meant to be any kind of personal attack, BTW, I am just curious. It seems sometimes that some NTs who like to talk about this subject have communication problems or such IRL and this is why they are likely to claim that emotions of other people are the problem, and not the poor communication of them. It would be, from a functionalist view, a lot more useful to concentrate finding out where the problem comes from in their mind and not trying to fix other people.

 

[placebo]

Dude, the world wouldn't be so FUN without crazy feelers running around.

 

[Giggly]

Antisocial one,

lets say this is true, do you have any ideas on how to get rid of emotions?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Antisocial one,

lets say this is true, do you have any ideas on how to get rid of emotions?

That exactly what I was going to say, but I felt guilty for not reading more than a paragraph of the OP. Heh.

 

[nolla]

lets say this is true, do you have any ideas on how to get rid of emotions?

It could be done. We just start teaching different style of parenting. Parents should:

1) Show no emotion

2) Ignore or punish child for showing emotion

By doing this we can make antisocial personality disorder the new standard and eventually we can push all emotions into collective unconsciousness. Shouldn't take more than two generations. It will be one helluva time for seeing crazy nightmares...

 

[FDG]

Emotions are like high volatility. High risk, high return.

 

[nolla]

Really? To me it seems like they are a gift. They come out of nowhere and make me alive.

 

[amigone]

Would I have been born into a world with less emotion, and I myself wouldn't have as many emotions as I have now, then no, I would probably not need it if I couldn't compare that life to this. But that could be said about a lot of things. There is more we wouldn't need if we were born into a world without the possibility of it. Do we have to need something for it to be considered valuable? Do we have to be useful?

Of course it could help a case if you were to combine your feelings with rational thoughts. If it was this you meant, then I can't do anything but agree. I wouldn't consider feeling being as short sighted as you suggested, though. But are you talking about pure emotion or feeling as a function? Pure emotion doesn't think rationally. But feeling as a function - have I been completely mistaken for thinking it being able to size situations up?

To me, it comes back to variety. The less variety, the less individualism. And honestly, that's what makes things exciting. That's what brings colour.

Masochistic, well - hi, I'm a masochist and I love it. But really, I don't consider it enjoying being hurt as much as enjoying.. well.. being on fire. Feeling passionately. And that goes for happiness as well. The same way one might dwell over a hard puzzle, trying to figure it out and simply loving the strain it puts on you, loving how it makes your brain having to go farther into itself to figure it out.

 

[nolla]

The same way one might dwell over a hard puzzle, trying to figure it out and simply loving the strain it puts on you, loving how it makes your brain having to go farther into itself to figure it out.

Good point. If there was no emotion, would the rational people even WANT to try and solve things? They love what they do, otherwise why do it? This applies to everything really. So, less emotion, less effort, less productivity. And this works with negative emotions too. If I truly hate the situation I am in, I am going to improve it, in other words I become creative and again solve something.

 

[Pancreas]

Antisocial one,

lets say this is true, do you have any ideas on how to get rid of emotions?

No. It’s one of those hypothetical N discussion things.



First of all, I want to say I enjoy reading your posts and the issues and questions you raise in them, but I always have difficulty trying to figure out what points you want to discuss.

I sort of half agree, half disagree with the main question. In the particular scenario you described, less emotion and more cold, hard logic would probably have a better result, in the long run, for the wellbeing of the planet. (I personally think that the preservation of the human race as it is will never be a good thing for the planet.) People might be able to survive in a society where emotion is less prevalent, but disregarding all the nuance you would lose by simply deleting emotion, would it be healthy? Okay, so on a whole, emotion may be wreaking havoc on the planet, but would each individual be healthy? Probably not. And if the individuals aren’t healthy, then the logical society isn’t going to function as well as it could.

 

[Amargith]

I'll have you know that not every F feels strongly about saving the human race...