[NT] Reason leads to conclusions, Emotion leads to action

[Qre:us]

Assuming we are talking about MBTI, I'd use the five sub categories in Step II:

Empathetic
Compassionate
Accommodating
Accepting
Tender

--

Otherwise, I'd probably use some combination of a person's physiological response to an event. This tends to include the normal definition of feeling (ie: you "feel" something is wrong tends to involve physiological changes).

The key thing here is that F, as in MBTI F, does not measure the 2nd definition well, if at all.

What's the difference though, between feeling and emotion?

 

[Qre:us]

Whereas I believe that there is no such think as a feeling-based or thinking based situation.Every situation is of the same making, feelers just make it feeling-based, thinkers make it thinking based.

I agree. I'm not saying that a situation is feeling-based, but, that it has a potential to be feeling-based, i.e., how it is processed, can be through feeling rather than thinking. The person determines one or the other. And, as I outlined, in extremes/to clearly outline the dichotomy we speak of: A thinker would be ignorant (not really know) to the potential for the situation to be processed through feeling, just as a feeler would be ignorant (not really know) to the potential for the situation to be processed through thinking.

I did say pretty clearly we do not ignore the feeling aspect. We just deal differently with it. (Although maybe I should say I, instead of we, here.)

And, my point is simply one of logic:

Either process through A or B.
Given that, if A, then, not B.
Thus, A, then not B.

And that is why I perceived your opinion of me to be ignorant to such situations. Which is exactly what ignorant makes. I highly disagree wit your stance towards what T is. And just find it unfortunate you have such a low value of it.

:|

Again, please refrain from giving value-based assignments to my thoughts. You cannot know what I think/feel of thinking preference or its value (or lack thereof)...as you can only glean from this discussion is how I think a person in a situation utilizes thinking (or feeling), and the commentary then it makes on the other. Nothing of what I personally think of these functions.

 

[ptgatsby]

What's the difference though, between feeling and emotion?

Within MBTI or in general? In MBTI, it is entirely different. Emotion, as it would be clinically defined, is not represented in MBTI - or rather, a component of it is expressed in E/I. Nothing about F or T makes a person reactive or emotional (with the exception of decision of the decision making process - namely the degree of detachment... but correlation studies show no emotional reactivity correlation of note... so it is using a specific definition of feeling)

The difference in definition outside of MBTI isn't very big, although in common usage, feeling does not have to be a physical state - it means that "I feel that...", as in expressing a belief or subjective opinion (which is how it is used in MBTI)... but it also means "I'm feeling angry", which is emotional. So outside of MBTI, I would accept it meaning emotion, while MBTI uses one particular definition.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Again, please refrain from giving value-based assignments to my thoughts. You cannot know what I think/feel of thinking preference or its value (or lack thereof)...as you can only glean from this discussion is how I think a person in a situation utilizes thinking (or feeling), and the commentary then it makes on the other. Nothing of what I personally think of these functions.

Well, forgive me for being blunt then. I was merely under the impression we share our own opinions on this forum, and assumed you put forth yours. Either way, I won't hold a grudge or anything. I'm just eager to put forth my opinion and to try and understand other peoples opinion. And I'm having a pretty hard time trying to understand yours. But well, if it isn't your opinion then all is clear. Although the point of that is still elluding me.

Generalising is an annoying concept, and at times so are written posts on a forum. (For a NeTi)

 

[Qre:us]

Emotion, as it would be clinically defined, is not represented in MBTI - or rather, a component of it is expressed in E/I.

Sorry to be so redundant, but, I just want some clarification before I make a commentary. What is the 'clinical definition' of emotion?

The difference in definition outside of MBTI isn't very big, although in common usage, feeling does not have to be a physical state.

 

[Qre:us]

Well, forgive me for being blunt then. I was merely under the impression we share our own opinions on this forum, and assumed you put forth yours. Either way, I won't hold a grudge or anything. I'm just eager to put forth my opinion and to try and understand other peoples opinion. And I'm having a pretty hard time trying to understand yours. But well, if it isn't your opinion then all is clear. Although the point of that is still elluding me.

Generalising is an annoying concept, and at times so are written posts on a forum.

I don't see any bluntness in you by the way, just a lot of taking-it-personally. I'm here to discuss ideas, not me in particular (except in threads where it's quite clear I'm speaking anecdotally).

This is mind-boggling to me: why would you need to clarify, in the first place, that you don't hold a grudge?

(For a NeTi)

Personally: nope.

 

[Fluffywolf]

This is mind-boggling to me: why would you need to clarify that you don't hold a grudge?

To be sure your intentions are not ill-conceived and clear. As you may well know, we aren't debating face to face and have but written text for us to analyse with what sort of intention and determination a person has written.

For me that's a NeTi hell at times, I read a post and I see about 10 different ways to conceive a person's intentions (Most specifically debates and serious posts. Unlike the posts that aren't oblivious to intention such as jokes and sarcasm.). And as such, clarification is sometimes very helpful in achieving mutual understanding.

 

[ptgatsby]

Sorry to be so redundant, but, I just want some clarification before I make a commentary. What is the 'clinical definition' of emotion?

I don't know that a comprehensive one has been defined, least right down to the particulars. The generally accepted part of the definition that I am referring to is the physiological change (the subjects reactivity to an event).

(This part differs from the 'rational decision making process' definition of F that is used in MBTI/Jung.)

I'm not really arguing it because I know that if we dig deep far enough, we'll reach the "all thought is physiological", and so forth. The only thing that really matters, to me, is that F doesn't get associated to the reactive definition of emotion (and that Ts are less reactive) as it isn't true. No matter how we define the words, that remains true.

 

[Athenian200]

To be sure your intentions are not ill-conceived and clear. As you may well know, we aren't debating face to face and have but written text for us to analyse with what sort of intention and determination a person has written.

For me that's a NeTi hell at times, I read a post and I see about 10 different ways to conceive a person's intentions (Most specifically debates and serious posts. Unlike the posts that aren't oblivious to intention such as jokes and sarcasm.). And as such, clarification is sometimes very helpful in achieving mutual understanding.

Ne+Ti would be ENTP, not INTP (Ti+Ne). Just pointing that out.

And you don't really seem much like an NTP in the way you process things to me, anyway. It would seem from your responses that your personal feelings/reactions to things are obviously much stronger than mine. I'd actually think you were an ENFP or something at first glance. But then I don't know you well enough to comment.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I'd actually think you were an ENFP or something. But then I don't know you well enough to comment.

I'm an INTP with baggage. But trust me, INTP nonetheless.

(I switch between Ne+Ti and Ti+Ne a bit by the way. Around close friends and on the internet, I'm quite possibly ENTP instead of INTP in many ways. But I still remain INTP by nature nonetheless. As I am not always capable of maintaining Ne+Ti.)

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

We had a thread recently about NT prejudice against feeling... I posted in it what I've put below, and I think it still pertains here. The difference is that I see BOTH functions causing a person to take action, and I see them as inseparable halves of a whole.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...t-prejudice-against-feeling-8.html#post634330

"Being 'T' or 'F' doesn't mean you think or feel more than others, but maybe only indicates what will motivate you more to take action.

I still don't think there's much separation between what you think and what you feel though. I don't know that you can separate them the way we try to sometimes. Thoughts can lead to feelings, feelings can lead to thoughts... its all a cycle where each is dependent on the other. The kind of 'yin' and 'yang' of a person's soul perhaps.

If you've ever heard how Bruce Lee describes the function of Yin and Yang you'll know where I'm coming from here. There isn't 'good' and 'bad', 'black' and 'white', there is only balance and, like a rubber band that pulls in one direction, it must go back the other direction with equal force. They're all the same thing... thoughts and feelings. Just two halves of a whole. "

(Sorry, haven't figured out the permalink thing yet)

 

[Fluffywolf]

(Sorry, haven't figured out the permalink thing yet)

Right click the link and copy shortcut. (Or whatever it says in english.)

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

Ne+Ti would be ENTP, not INTP (Ti+Ne). Just pointing that out.

And you don't really seem much like an NTP in the way you process things to me, anyway. It would seem from your responses that your personal feelings/reactions to things are obviously much stronger than mine. I'd actually think you were an ENFP or something at first glance. But then I don't know you well enough to comment.

I'm a strong NT as well, but I am an Enneagram 4. I experience extremely strong emotions, but rarely express them to others. They're more likely to come out in bits of poetry or be seeped out into the tears on my pillow rather than be heaped onto people I know.

The way I DEAL with the feelings in the moment is very NT-ish. When I'm put under the gun in a situation where I'm overwhelmed with feeling I am REALLY good at acting like nothing is wrong and not 'reacting' to it. I once sat on my couch having a nonchalant and happy conversation with my sister (who didn't perceive that anything was wrong) while my boyfriend was storming around the house packing his things and moving out. I was breaking to a million pieces inside, but I never missed a beat. When he was done packing, I was already in bed and he came to the bedroom door to 'talk'... I rolled over and calmly told him to turn off the light and lock the doors when he left as if he was a stranger who had rented my couch for a week and was traveling on.

After he left I cried my eyes out.

When I was younger, I also thought that I 'didn't have' emotions like other people because I never stopped to think about them and recognize what that 'uncomfortable feeling in my stomach' meant or wonder why my neck muscles were so tense and I had a headache. One of the first steps (don't laugh) was to make a conscious effort to SAY, out loud, the word 'ouch' when someone said something that either hurt my feelings or was hurtful to someone else. It was shocking how often I said it, and eventually I began to realize what my feelings were when I was having them. People used to do things to take advantage of me or piss me off that I would completely blow off and never think about again. I still distinctly remember the day when a co-worker made me angry and he said 'I'm sorry, did I make you mad?' I said no... but as he turned to walk away I said 'Actually, yes you did, and here is why...' It was LIBERATING let me tell you!

Learning to recognize what you are feeling when you are feeling it is difficult for someone who stone-walls them out of habit the majority of their life. They ARE there, whether you acknowledge them or not.

Thoughts and Feelings are not mutually exclusive. Thoughts lead to feelings and feelings lead to thoughts in a very cyclical manner. They work in harmony to build our perception of the world around us. This is why our opinions change and why people we didn't used to like 'grow' on us.

 

[Qre:us]

Rational thinking and emotion: one without the other is a dangerous thing

^ article, I thought was used to see if we could perhaps draw inference to MBTI categories of T/F given the words used, 'rational' and 'emotion'.....as a simple interpretation of the OP's intent (I could be wrong).

Within MBTI or in general? In MBTI, it is entirely different. Emotion, as it would be clinically defined, is not represented in MBTI - or rather, a component of it is expressed in E/I. Nothing about F or T makes a person reactive or emotional (with the exception of decision of the decision making process - namely the degree of detachment... but correlation studies show no emotional reactivity correlation of note... so it is using a specific definition of feeling)

I don't actually remember F having anything to do with emotions.

so it's kind of a non-sequitur whether MBTI officially recognizes and uses the terminology 'emotion' to pertain to F.

Unless....you want to challenge the specific way emotion is being defined/inferred in the article and how it differs from F (which was your point ). Personally, I couldn't find a clean definition of what the article means by 'emotion' to comment either way. Other than to take that the OP wants to infer, for this case, emotion to be F, and rational to be T.

All I could get from the article, in terms of how it defines emotion, is the clinical case study of the man with the brain damage 'that stopped him feeling emotions'.

There was just one problem: he could never make up his mind. He would just go on weighing the pros and cons.

See the point? Being able to evaluate coolly and carefully the choices we face is a valuable skill. But to motivate us to pick one option over another - to make us care about one more than the others - we need our emotions.

As the words suggest, motivation comes from emotion. And if motivation is a good thing emotion must be good, too.

Given the above, if we can't even figure out exactly what the article means by emotion, we cannot then comment whether it did or did not hit the mark. Unless...we take the article's inference at face value, and comment.

I disagree with the article, however. What is being described isn't "emotion", but motivation, making it (to me, anyway) circular reasoning. I have been run over by motivated 'emotionless' people, and have seen emotional people flounder. Having said that, emotions can definitely be classed as 'reactive', however I also think the 'reactive' parts do not represent motivation, least not long term drive.

See, here's where I think the article *is* trying to say that...emotion, because it's reactive, motivates one to action....

The only thing that really matters, to me, is that F doesn't get associated to the reactive definition of emotion (and that Ts are less reactive) as it isn't true. No matter how we define the words, that remains true.

Hence, I'd agree with the above, but, within the context of the article, it is such that emotion is the motivation to react. I'd prolly agree with your argument for why we cannot lump them together but it doesn't do much for the article as it sets up emotion to be very vaguely defined and inferred as motivation for action through the clinical case study. Given only that premise, I agree with the article.

Where things get hairy...my main contention is: if emotion is a motivation for an action. And, as per the article:

Even so, emotions such as ambition and curiosity are the great motivators of achievement

Curiosity is an emotion. Then, a rational, must ALSO need a motivation to conclude, that of curiosity. Thus, a rational would still have emotion. Which doesn't do much for how they've set up the dichotomy. Or....bring up the question: what then is a rational's motivation to conclude? And, if there is no motivation, there will be no conclusion, and if there *is* motivation, it cannot be 'emotion'=motivation, if the article is aiming to point out a dichotomy.

 

[Qre:us]

To be sure your intentions are not ill-conceived and clear. As you may well know, we aren't debating face to face and have but written text for us to analyse with what sort of intention and determination a person has written.

Or, one can start off with a default position of: no personal intention. Problem solved.

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

:steam:

I get frustrated by the lack of understanding in MBTI of WHAT it means to be T or F preference.

It essentially says 'What do you trust the most when making decisions'.

Or, to re-word - 'Which would lead to a BETTER decision in your experience... thinking things through and having the details and 'facts' before moving forward, or going with your immediate inclination.'

It doesn't mean that Feelers can't think and that Thinkers can't feel.


/rant

 

[Qre:us]

Or, to re-word - 'Which would lead to a BETTER decision in your experience... thinking things through and having the details and 'facts' before moving forward, or going with your immediate inclination.'

That's not really the Feeling preference, to go with your immediate inclination. Thinking and Feeling uses different measurement scales. Not a quicker or slower scale. Thinking uses formula, logic, natural laws, etc, while Feeling uses ethics, morals, social rules, etc.

 

[ptgatsby]

so it's kind of a non-sequitur whether MBTI officially recognizes and uses the terminology 'emotion' to pertain to F.

It is a semantics argument. I was trying to divide the two 'meanings' behind feeling and emotion and point out that MBTI only really uses one definition in particular.

Unless....you want to challenge the specific way emotion is being defined/inferred in the article and how it differs from F

Well, namely that it has no connection in the article to the way MBTI considers F! But I don't agree with the article, so I can't use it for my position.

All I could get in terms of how it defines emotion, is the clinical case study of the man with the brain damage 'that stopped him feeling emotions'.

The part that I got hung up on is that he kept on considering his options. That's not a F or T trait - it's a P/J trait, which is decidedly not emotional.

See, here's where I think the article *is* trying to say that...emotion, because it's reactive, motivates one to action....

It is true that reactivity leads to action quite often, however it isn't to say that all action is caused by reactivity.

For instance, I do not necessarily need to get 'emotional' to do the dishes. Not unless my wife bugs me about it, anyway. Motivation and action is more complex that just emotion, IMO.

I also believe that most things in the mind are more interactive than we think, so I'm open to the concept that emotion ties into a general brain function that is used on many levels... but the actual emotional reactivity doesn't seem necessary.

what then is a rational's motivation to conclude?

In personality theory, it is considered a somewhat separate dimension. That's the problem I have with the article the way it is. Rational people are defined, IMO, as "over thinkers"... but that's not "rationality". Emotional people seem defined as people who "rush to conclusions", as an extension, and that's only true under impulsive, which *is* a measurement of reactivity. So they keep the definition vague, but are very specific about the calls to action... it doesn't fit together for me. I can't validate their claim as they have stated it - or the interpretation that 'rationality' is a barrier to action.

It is especially evident with the tug-of-war appeal that they appeal to. The tug of war is really "subjective" vs "objective". Yes, we can get locked into excessive subjectivity or objectivity and not know how to act (ie: going through all the options all the time)... but they do so equally. The dimension that pushes someone towards carrying out (/being motivated to carrying out) their decisions doesn't seem to relate strongly, if at all, to almost any definition of emotions (I exclude reactions as 'motivation' here.)

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

There is a part of one of one of my favorite books that I'm re-reading, that I just happened to come across tonight and it made me think of this thread.

The books are in the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. In Faith of the Fallen, there is a section that reads:

"It was what Richard said, when he was telling me what he had finally come to understand about what he had to do. He said that the only sovereign he could allow to rule him was reason."

"Richard said that? Those were his very words?"

Kahlan nodded ... "He said the first law of reason is that what exists, exists; what is, is, and that from this irreducible, bedrock principle, all knowledge is built. He said that was the foundation from which life is embraced.

He said thinking is a choice, and that wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discover them. Richard said reason is our only way of grasping reality - that it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking - to reject reason - but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see.

What's wrong?"

"The boy figured it out himself... he understands it - he interpreted it perfectly. Its the most important rule there is; The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason. It is the hub upon which all rules turn. It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest. Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised. It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests of the wicked.

Misery, iniquity, and utter destruction lurk in the shadows outside its full light, where half-truths snare the faithful disciples, the deeply feeling believers, the selfless followers.

Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim. They are a virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.

Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason's light.

Reason is the very substance of truth itself. The glory that is life is wholly embraced through reason, through this rule. In rejecting it, in rejecting reason, one embraces death."



If these aren't some powerfully disturbing words, I don't know what is. In essence, it seems to make sense... after all, what is 'true', what is 'real' and tangible we understand. The only problem with the human idea of 'truth' and 'reason' is that it changes based on what we learn. What was true a few hundred years ago is not true today. We make discoveries, make new hypotheses and make new discoveries... its an ongoing process.

I saw a quote earlier this week... "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" (Philip K Dick Quotes used in The Millenium Project - 1 to 100 )

But... who's to say that reality isn't going to change again tomorrow? Maybe this is why INTJ's are so weird in their view of reality and why they say we see it differently and as 'malleable'... but TRUTH and REASON are only sustainable to a certain point. When you reach that point, you have to make a conscious decision to BELIEVE that you have arrived at the correct answer until more data becomes available. So even in the most fervent search for 'truth', you're still applying a feeling, a need or want to believe in something. Whether that something is science or a God, at any direction you look, you're still arriving back to the same point:

We don't KNOW anything for certain. All we have are hypothesis, and ideas and what evidence has been collected to date. That's it.

 

[INTJMom]

Rational thinking and emotion: one without the other is a dangerous thing

THERE'S a famous case in neuroscience of a man whose brain was damaged in a way that stopped him feeling emotions. He was a living example of homo economicus - the rational calculator of what course of action would suit him best.

And, in fact, he was very good at carefully itemising and weighing the pros and cons of every choice.

There was just one problem: he could never make up his mind. He would just go on weighing the pros and cons.

...does the article hold any merit to you?

Not in my opinion...
The guy could have been a strong P and not a J...
or some other physical damage could have caused his struggle.
I don't see how it could be definitively blamed on T vs F alone.

Though I agree with the title that rational thinking and emotion together is better than one without the other.