[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Is "Feeling" as RATIONAL as "Thinking"?

[Wonkavision]

To summarize, "feelings" is used to define opinions and reactions, which are measurable parts of human psychology. People's feelings in this context occur in a predictable cause-effect pattern. Feelers rationalize (or "reason") people's possible feelings about a subject based on that pattern, using existing feelings about parts of the subject. ("X is a part of Y, and people think Z about X. Therefore, they will also think Z about Y"). This presents a logical equation that some Thinkers don't recognize right away, because they don't always see feelings as something that can be evaluated logically.

That's true.

Interpersonal dynamics are much more measurable and predictable than some people realize.

(Socionics, MBTI and other personality type theories are obviously based on this principle, aren't they????)


Nice way of putting it.

 

[Unique]

Since we seem to have trouble locating our dictionaries in this thread, I took the liberty of looking up both words.

The definition of "rational," as defined by Webster's:


The definition of "feelings," as defined by the same:



"Rational" does NOT mean "logical." It means "reasonable," which means "within reason," which means "not taken to the extreme." "Logical" means "valid," which can apply to anything considered to be "within reason."

"Feelings" does NOT mean "emotions." It also means "opinions," "thoughts," and "impressions."

Therefore, when you put the two words in their proper context, "feelings" can be "rational." This is the basis of the Feeling function; we rationalize what other people will rationalize about the subject. What thoughts and opinions people will have toward the subject. How they will feel about it. ("If X happens, then people will think Y about it.") This is in contrast with the rationalization of a Thinker, which is generally focused directly on the subject. ("If X happens, then it will mean Y.")


As for the Thinker VS Feeler argument, both sides are right about one thing: their respective accusations against each other. The Feelers in the argument ARE immature and hypersensitive, and the Thinkers in the argument ARE insensitive pricks. If they weren't, there would be no "Thinkers VS Feelers" argument, because everybody would be too busy not giving a damn.

Feelers, you are NOT the Guardians of the Loving Heart. If you were that emotionally solid, you wouldn't get riled up every time a Thinker posts a thread slamming feelings as rational. It doesn't do anybody any good when one of you gets a hair up your ass because one Thinker didn't have his facts quite right. Swallow your pride and go do something else.

If you MUST post a rebuttal, do it with hard facts, not a river of tears. Thinkers don't pity; they respect. To earn their respect, you show them you're at least half as intelligent as they are. You do that by providing them with documented evidence to the contrary, not by flying into a rage and telling him he's an A-hole.

Thinkers, you are NOT the Grand Intellects of the human race. If you were that smart, you wouldn't engage in stupid arguments over who spouts the stinkiest bullsh*t. Check your egos at the door and stop belittling every Feeler that gets his panties in a wad.

If you MUST post a response, post "sorry, my bad" instead of sarcasm or a counter-argument, even if it wasn't your fault. Believe me, nine times out of ten, we'll drop the issue in a heartbeat. And you'll save on Advil!

Rational
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Feeling (F)

Feeling refers to how people make decisions. Feeling people are subjective and make decisions based on principles and values. They are ruled by their heart instead of their head. Feeling people judge situations and others based on feelings and extenuating circumstances.

Feeling Characteristics
Decides with heart
Dislikes conflict
Passionate
Driven by emotion
Gentle
Easily hurt
Empathetic
Caring of others
Warm

Feeling (F)
I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I have a people or communications orientation.
I am concerned with harmony and nervous when it is missing.
I look for what is important to others and express concern for others.
I make decisions with my heart and want to be compassionate.
I believe being tactful is more important than telling the “cold” truth.
Sometimes I miss seeing or communicating the “hard truth” of situations.
I am sometimes experienced by others as too idealistic, mushy, or indirect.

(As bolded) "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator."

Would you describe someone who is "passionate" to be "calm"?

Would you say someone who is "exercising reason" would not tell the "cold truth" Truth: "accuracy, as of position or adjustment."

"3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational."

When "Driven by emotion" would you describe them as "sane and lucid"? or in full possession of one's reason?

Now of course there are rational parts to the feeling preference but it isn't how it is primarily. Add those rationalities to whatever percentage a person is thinking preferred, for example 30% then you have a very "rational" person however that wasn't the question

The question was Is "Feeling" as RATIONAL as "Thinking"?

I just stated the facts, you come up with a conclusion but from what I can tell the answer to this question is no.

 

[CzeCze]

How exactly the four non-natural functions are used is quite a matter of debate.

To put it as succinctly as possible, we find it very hypocritical that Fs:

A) Have no problems pointing out all the ways Thinkers could learn to improve upon their personal reasoning, and
B) Don't seem to believe there's anything at all they can or should do to work on their impersonal reasoning.

It's as if you think Fi is just automatically superior in all situations. You see our inferior Feeling skills and treat us like children because your Fi doesn't see any reason you should have to bother learning anything about Ti and/or assumes you understand it fully (trust me, you don't.)

I get tired of hearing, "You are such an insensitive jerk who really needs to learn to pay attention to people's feelings...but ME? I can't possibly remove my emotions from my viewpoint, why...that'd just be removing the very essence of who I am! You Ts should really grow up and learn to act more like Fs though. kthx"

And my GOD, I don't even have enough exaggerated words to properly express how frustrating that is.

See SciVo in the "Simulated Hijacks..." thread. Look at the end where he:

A) Declares that I'm an emotional child in need of learning about emotional intelligence,
B) Declares that having a math degree means he knows everything there is to know about the Thinking perspective, and
C) Considers the Feeling perspective to be obviously and objectively superior.

Why should he bother learning anything about an obviously inferior system that he clearly already knows everything there is to know about?

And self-improvement is supposed to be high on Fi's value list! How the hell do you communicate with someone who won't acknowledge, and moreover ISN'T EVEN AWARE, that he could possibly learn anything from your value system or that his isn't 100% objectively the best?

That sounds like the definition of closed-mindedness to me. At least thinkers ACKNOWLEDGE our Feeling deficiency from time to time...half the time it seems Feelers aren't even aware that there's anything of value to be learned from Thinking, which is rather a bit distressing for those of us Thinkers who are trying to better understand Feeling.

You need to meet us half way.

Is that really how it seems? Feelers and Fi doms are subjective and close-minded?



Sorry Sim, but I can't engage in this 'Fi' conversation with you or anyone else because I take things too personally LOL. Meaning irl, I use a bunch of different functions at once and I think I am hella reasonable. I don't think I make decisions on "pure Fi" or pure anthing. I am naturally accepting of people and "big picture". I get along with 99% of people irl (the other 1% I simply do not like) and get comments about this not infrequently. And yes, I have a lot of thinker friends and acquaintances, especially INTPs.

Basically, I have no idea how other Fi users use their Fi irl. I only know how I engage people. I am learning just as much about other Fi users as you are (probably more ) by being on this forum.

I'm not going to take it upon myself to speak for other Feelers or Fi doms because frankly, I don't know how they operate and I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself but as you have made it clear in the past, you are not interested in how Cze Cze (the outlier!!! HA. HA. HA.) operates or thinks. (I am SO. HURT. Sim. SO. HURT.)

You're interested in the aggregate of "feelers". That's cool. I hope you are keeping it a chart though 'cause once you get a lot of responses it'll be hard to keep track of them.

So I'm pretty much just gonna lay back and observe from this point forward and probably just jump in if I think some (or one) thinker(s) seem to have a crusade against "feelers".

And yes, I agree that people in general, regardless of their type need to bend a little.

If you don't learn to compromise and take things with a grain of salt and look at things from other POVs you have more problems in life. Of course, going too much to the other side and accomodating everyone will also 'cause problems.

Personally though, the only interpersonal issues I have are with people I date. And they happen to be fellow NFs 99% Or my family. But "everyone" has problems with their family and I honestly think a lot of that lies outside of personality type.

Um, that is all.



Oh wait -

PS I will say though, when I do have problems with people irl I don't know what their motivation or thinking is and sometimes I don't care. I just know they pissed me off or I think they're tacky. The end. Period. Is there really any need to bend over backwards for complete strangers? I don't hold it against anyone or try to give them a hard time, I just know I'm done with them.

PPS When I say "you are acting like you are upset" it means exactly that. It is an opportunity for you to explain yourself. It also means, "You are raising your voice and I do not like the tone you are taking with me. Change it or this conversation is over." I tell people that, too.

PPS I don't think Thinkers necessarily have problems with 'feeling', I think that a lot of thinkers have problem socially integrating themselves because they are so oblivious and dismissive of social etiquette and norms.

This doesn't bother me at all as long as they are aware of it. If you don't care, you don't care (I have 'feeler' friends who are like this and a few friends who can be rude as hell - but they know it and own it and accept the consequences. I don't have a problem irl with social awkwardness or being "rough around the edges" or being temperemental or unemotional or extremely blunt any of those things. They don't affect me for the most part.

HOWEVER - what bothers me is when you act like an ass and then cry like a baby about how people don't understand you and somehow you're operating on some high cerebral/spiritual/etc. level and other people just can't "reach" it.

Nah, they understand you.

They understand that you are cognizant of what you are doing and saying and you choose to behave "poorly" but after the fact you wanna brush it off or rationalize it or have "take back-sies". That's the ONLY issue I have and I think ENTPs are prone to this. I can't stand that kind of behavior in general. Don't just act like you're grown, be grown. That's where I find your "meet people halfway" comment even more applicable.

 

[MFJAGgernaut-B]

Rational
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Feeling (F)

Feeling refers to how people make decisions. Feeling people are subjective and make decisions based on principles and values. They are ruled by their heart instead of their head. Feeling people judge situations and others based on feelings and extenuating circumstances.

Feeling Characteristics
Decides with heart
Dislikes conflict
Passionate
Driven by emotion
Gentle
Easily hurt
Empathetic
Caring of others
Warm

Feeling (F)
I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I have a people or communications orientation.
I am concerned with harmony and nervous when it is missing.
I look for what is important to others and express concern for others.
I make decisions with my heart and want to be compassionate.
I believe being tactful is more important than telling the “cold” truth.
Sometimes I miss seeing or communicating the “hard truth” of situations.
I am sometimes experienced by others as too idealistic, mushy, or indirect.

(As bolded) "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator."

Would you describe someone who is "passionate" to be "calm"?

Would you say someone who is "exercising reason" would not tell the "cold truth" Truth: "accuracy, as of position or adjustment."

"3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational."

When "Driven by emotion" would you describe them as "sane and lucid"? or in full possession of one's reason?

Now of course there are rational parts to the feeling preference but it isn't how it is primarily. Add those rationalities to whatever percentage a person is thinking preferred, for example 30% then you have a very "rational" person however that wasn't the question

The question was Is "Feeling" as RATIONAL as "Thinking"?

I just stated the facts, you come up with a conclusion but from what I can tell the answer to this question is no.

Like I said, definition means nothing without context, and not every definition of every word will apply in every context.

Feeling is rational, as it is a method of thinking. A Feeling type thinks with his emotions, because his emotions draw energy from other people's emotions, giving him an estimate on their emotional state and their reaction to stimuli. And like I said before, people's feelings are measurable cause-effect patterns which can be crafted into a logical equation.

BUT! A person's feelings only work like that if they're kept under control and within reason, which is the real meaning of the word "rational." If left to wander to the extreme, that sense becomes lost; the Feeler become emotionally unstable, leaving his other three functions to defend his vulnerable F function from "attack."

So the answer is "Only if the Feeler's feelings is in more control than the Thinker's thinking."

 

[jazzstock12]

Cognitive Functions diagram

Active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational, whereas the passive is irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention. [Psychological Types, par. 729]

Both thinking and feeling as directed functions are rational. When these functions are concerned not with a rationally determined choice of objects, or with the qualities and relations of objects, but with the incidental perceptions which the real object never lacks, they at once lose the quality of direction, and therewith something of their rational character, because they accept the accidental. They begin to be irrational. That thinking or feeling which is directed according to accidental perceptions, and is therefore irrational, is either intuitive or sensational. [Psychological Types, par. 776]

Hope this helps.

 

[INTP]

According to jungs definition of rational/irrational functions, feeling is an rational function:

Rational
Descriptive of thoughts, feelings and actions that accord with reason, an attitude based on objective values established by practical experience. (Compare irrational.)

The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history. Most objective values-and reason itself-are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. . . . Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, "correct," adapted attitude. Everything is "rational" that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is "irrational."["Definitions," ibid., par. 785f.]

Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection

Irrational

Not grounded in reason. (Compare rational.)

Jung pointed out that elementary existential facts fall into this category-for instance, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element or that water freezes at a certain temperature and reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade-as does chance. They are irrational not because they are illogical, but because they are beyond reason.

In Jung’s model of typology, the psychological functions of intuition and sensation are described as irrational.

Both intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.[Ibid., pars. 776f.]

Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as "unreasonable." It wouldbe truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves entirely on experience. ["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 616.]

 

[Lady_X]

oh damn...i thought wonka was back :/

 

[Society]

i think both T & F can be either rational or irational, depending on how the person uses them:

if you use your Ti to break down a situation without giving an understanding towards the subjective perspectives and points of view of all the minds within that situaiton, you are exercising Ti into an incomplete assestment and are choosing to function on ignorance, in which case you are exercising Ti irationally.

if you use your Fe to form an understanding of the subjective perspectives within the situation, but don't try to check your assumptions with information in the objective world - the leveled playing field down here on earth where things aren't always what they seem or the way we'd like them to be - then your forming an incomplete understanding and exrcising Fe irationally.

i think the same can probably be said about Fi & Te. alone, neither of those functions are particularly rational.

 

[Porcelain Hearts]

I think there is a stream of rationalism in the way Myer Briggs personality typing itself have manifested. Psychology has always been the scientific study of mental functions and requires a great deal of calculation to predict behaviour. It coexists with one another. What would our decisions be based on if we did not react upon people's best interests? Just yourself? Only if you oblige to alienate yourself completely from society. The F side is present to connect with people and to mobilize people. No rational mind can convince themselves they are better without people. It's just not going to happen.

 

[visaisahero]

I think about my feelings, and I have feelings about my thoughts. In reality, it's rather impossible to divorce the two.

---

"No rational mind can convince themselves they are better without people. It's just not going to happen."

This can be achieved within specific contexts, but it's rarely desirable.

 

[Winds of Thor]

A couple of thoughts..not really sure on this though..

Feeling seems like it's more complex than could be described rationally - because feeling is something other than rationale.

Still it undoubtedly has something to do with rationale, so it's back to square one - and very hard to describe. To go along with this there are unlimited emotions possible...so then there are feelings with not yet words to describe them..even more complexity. Maybe an impasse is as good as it gets but I'm really not sure

Maybe philosophy and metaphysics is part of this too. It just seems that somehow feeling and thinking are inseparable. Because to recognize feelings isn't the mind needed? On some levels one can seem more front and center but the other is still there, it might just not seem like it.

 

[jixmixfix]

Feeling is rational in alot of ways since feelings are related to our emotions feelers reason with their hearts and our emotions are what drives us forward. If A B and C don't match up it doesn't necessarily neglect the feelers decision. Falling in Love is a "feeling" decision. There are probably many rational explanations as to why falling in love is adaptable for the survival of our species.It may not make rational sense to the person falling in love but it makes sense in the grand scheme of universal law. In a way feeling is just unexplained reason it seems to fit but the person feeling it doesn't know why.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Feeling as rational is just emotion lined up with best interest. I think fjs do it more than fps and ef > if esp in mate selection.