Why concentrate on feeling over thinking?
Feeling types, why F over T?
Why concentrate on feeling over thinking?
As a child I tried to avoid overreacting to things. When I did, I found out I wasn't rewarded, so I tried to avoid it. I made a point of figuring out what exactly was going on... whenever I assumed something without investigating it first, it seemed to be the wrong assumption. Even today I am sometimes guilty of stereotyping, only to be surprised when people defy my expectations. I very much try to avoid being wrong, about anything.
Why try to understand people?Originally Posted by Goldilocks
Speaking for myself, I do it for personal gain, obviously.
At best, it helps you make other people happy.
At worst, it helps you make other people make you happy.
I suppose "Thinking" and "Happy" could go together too; but I'm less sure how.
Happy, no. Safe, perhaps.
I am a person who is very anxious about their personal safety. I've always been that way.
In contrast, I've always looked to others to make me happy.
Because it's how my brain is programmed to work. There's really no easier answer than that. It's not a conscious decision for me to focus on more subjective, emotional subject matter; it simply happens naturally. The same way that T egos naturally consider things on a more strictly thought-based pattern, except inverted.
Because they feeeeeeled like it.
for positive interaction, for some at least. i just want to learn, maybe figure out their motives as to why they behave certain ways. this might not be related to "F" though..
Interaction... I keep hearing that word over and over in this thread from the Fs. Perhaps it means something....
Fs, do you feel it is important that you be "in control of" other people?
Well to begin with its not like it is a choice as Galen said. You just do. To me its just a natural thing to do and something which makes the most sense.
Humans are social beings and most of what we have is due to cooperation and in order to do that we need to understand one another. Thats a very dry way to explain things of course.
Feelings its what drives most of our decisions and if you learn to understand people and deal with them it makes your life much easier not to mention much more pleasant.
Neither of those positive things are some isolated reasons though. Its like breathing, you do it, you dont think about it, you dont know how to do it differently. Its not even really a choice, its what I am.
No. Not to mention where is the fun in that? On the other hand I am sort of "in control of" some people, epecially at work and it does benefit me. Much of what I achieved in my company is due to the fact I know how to get along with my co-workers, how to make a good impression for the client etc., how to say sentences in a manner my boss would accept it. So it is important in that sense, but overall its not something I occupy my mind with. However to be in control of my own emotions is important for me.Fs, do you feel it is important that you be "in control of" other people?
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
Feeling is very useful, but like all human traits, it is a double-edged sword, and one that has powerful blades on both sides.
A world full of pure thinkers, devoid of feelings, will be ordered and even peaceful it its members survives. That is to say, if their reason somehow concludes that life does have some intrinsic purpose. But if that were the case, there would be no point in feelings.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Not particularly. If I'm in a position of leadership then of course I'd like to know what everybody is doing so I can manage it in some way; basically everything that Ssmall already said. But when it comes to relationships on a more meaningful level then I really couldn't think of being "in control" of the other person as healthy.
Well, it's a weird question, but I guess from my point of view it just seems like focusing on the cold logic of things often obscures the personal factor, which to me is the main point of anything involving people in the first place. I mean, I completely understand the hows and the where-for's of syllogisms or, say, streamlining a process to reduce labor, but to me if that's all there is then something's wrong, something's lost. It makes me think of work and how much of the upper management are so deeply attentive to issues of productivity that they routinely treat employees like cogs, demoralize them, and seemingly promote an adversarial relationship between themselves and the people working under them.
Allow me to be more specific: is it important for you, as feeling types, to be in control of others' emotional states?
As I said, when it comes to others - not so much. It is important when it comes to myself. Either way in some cases it is important for me, like I dont want someone to be upset with me as that makes me feel bad myself. And even then its not about "control" it more or less about influence. I dont want to "control" anything whatsoever.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
I'm T because I want to understand human emotions rather than be engaged with them in a way that obscures their nature from me.
Not really. It's much more important for me to understand other people's emotions/feelings/what have you, because I feel that manipulating people's states on my own free will is reckless and mean. Some Fe valuers feel like they are subconsciously manipulating other people's emotional states, so I guess it can seem controlling to non-Fe valuers.
Hmm, for you how does engaging in emotions/feelings obscure their nature? As far as I'm concerned, the nature of emotions is that they are meant to be engaged with. As such, to be anywhere outside of one's emotions isn't really understanding them.
Last edited by Galen; 10-26-2010 at 08:32 AM.
Because of this:
Life is a tragedy for those who feel. But it's also a comedy and epic romance for people who feel. Life is just flat-out boring for those who think.
People hate and mock feelings and 'emos', because the lows of emotions are indeed extremely sucky. So they start thinking that it must be better to not allow themselves to feel anything. But the pain and intense suckiness is inherently connected to the feelings that make you soar.
.
I just hope someone doesn't pop out and say "F is humanity and goodness". I don't know what F is but it sure ain't that.
There is a question that comes to my mind now and then:
why some people prefer being aggressive instead of being curious?
Your idea has made me think about the "shared resources" between the leading and the role functions.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
F is evaluation on the basis of like/dislike, good/bad. T is evaluation on the basis of is/isn't, true/false.
So is there an F leading perspective on this matter?
i don't know how to answer. i'm not sure if you are implying it is a choice, in which case why opt for feeling? or if you want an argument as to why feeling might be superior to thinking? i don't believe type is a choice and i don't think either is superior, so unless i am misunderstanding the question i simply don't have an answer, sorry.
i don't strive to be in control of other peoples' emotional states, but i usually feel some obligation to not negatively affect them and to try to be a positive influence if they are unhappy.
Type is a choice and it is not a choice, because we really don't have choice, only the appearance of choice. People demonstrate a clear preference for one over the other and over time, the preference can be shown to win out. While we have a "choice" as to what function we use in a given situation, behavioral reinforcement cannot be ignored. Criticism is the prime reinforcer of function use: we use the functions which are most reliable for obtaining praise that we agree with having. (e.g. praise from a conflictor parent will not seem as meaningful as praise from an identical person out of family).
Whether we have choice or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that we process choices, and the choices we process include taking one approach to something or another, particularly in the case of T vs F.
You mean, why live by emotions and sentiment rather than strictly by logic? *shrugs* Because I'm hardwired that way. It's who I am.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I think you're mistaking free will for choice.
So it should have been: "Type is a free will and it is not a free will, because we really don't have free will, only the appearance of free will."?
*shrug*
it's just so much easier...
i like to be able to influence other people's emotional states, but to always be in control of them, no... that's impossible.
Wahahaha... It's fun.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
What ?
Yes....because we really don't have free will, only the appearance of free will."?
You're learning fast, tut.
Not having free will basically means you can do anything you want.
Haha. It, actually, means you can't do what you want. Something is controlling your actions. But you still have a choice.
Applies more to the society in general. As in "if society were to adopt it, it would be bad, really bad". Smart individuals are more likely to get away with it than sheepopulus.This is why I think adopting the deterministic philosophy is bad.
I know "you know".
It's not a belief and I don't.What I actually meant was:if you do believe in determinism
I was about to write another post and I accidentaly edited the old one, and now it's gone. I guess that's good. It was probably meant to be that way. What if someone got some crazy idea there? Very good. Very very god.
You are projecting where there is no need for it. You associate determinism with bad behavior, but there is no implicit tie between the two. A determinist could just as well be persuaded of the importance of doing good deeds, and believe that they are good people who by their nature do good deeds.
Now what I'm hearing, is that Fs believe it advantageous and important to influence others' emotional states. How is influencing an emotional state different from controlling it?
What do the T types on here have against influencing others' emotional states? (if anything)
It's the game of numbers. Can you be completely sure that the ratio good-determinists/bad-determinists would stay the same if determinism was to be adopted as your average philosophy? Bigger the ratio of "evil determinists", bigger the crimes. (Incidentally, i think it would stay the same, but still can't get rid of the ugly feeling in my stomach). In fact: just being "bad" determinist - bigger the willingness to transgress. I am not sure does determinism amplify "good" determinist's will to do good. That my be the reason why my stomach still hurts.
Last edited by Trevor; 10-26-2010 at 09:51 PM.
The connotation is different. In my mind, influence is more subtle, whereas control is more harsh and overt. Usually I tend to equate the two in my own head, though.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
