Why concentrate on feeling over thinking?
Feeling types, why F over T?
Why concentrate on feeling over thinking?
Feeling is very useful, but like all human traits, it is a double-edged sword, and one that has powerful blades on both sides.
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
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.
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.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
I'm in the camp who said it really isn't a choice
Type seems to stem from the subconscious, which is not an area that can easily be subjugated by will, even if you're keenly aware of your strengths and weaknesses.
I'd also think it's probably common for people to take their strengths for granted and focus on their weaknesses; so for me, it isn't so much about focusing on feelings since I do it without generally realizing that I am; it's more about those moments in between where I realize that I'm neglecting my weak points.
In other words, the Ego-block is something that people have their entire life (at least I believe so), so I find it difficult to look at it from an objective point of view, in this way I can't really answer your question
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
Something's beginning to become apparent here. Although everything said in this thread so far suggests the validity of Model-A, it does, ironically, suggest that Jung's "function competition" model of differentiation is wrong. In fact, I'm getting the impression that not only the functions, but also their positions reflect certain motivations and, especially, attitudes. It is that the attitudes are true for that person, that their Model A is what it is. I have certain attitudes towards the calibration of Fe states that aren't shared by either Fe ego people nor even Fe id people, therefore I am a strong T type and moreover, a Ti dominant.
In other words, where a function is in model A has an affect on how it's manifested in the psyche? Nothing new there. Hmmmmm.
Fs, by what means do you feel you MOST EFFECTIVELY influence your own emotions?
Eh? O.o Change them, you mean? Prayer. Otherwise, they might fade, they might not. If I attempt to change them, it's through reasoning that the emotion is inappropriate (ie wrong) given the situation. I don't think it really works, though. It just invalidates my right to feel that way. The other thing I might do is analyze why I feel that way, in an attempt to discover the underlying attitude. If I can find the irrational belief at work, I can work from there. After that, prayer. ^.^ I don't get very far trying to change them on my own.
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.
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?
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.
Yeah that's exactly what i was going to say. It's how i was made.
and btw, tcaud, that is a very MBTI-rooted question. FYI, my HA is Te and it receives a LARGE amount of my focus, probably just as much as Fi.
Sorry, had to be said.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
No, it is a Jung rooted question and a Reinin-rooted question.Yeah that's exactly what i was going to say. It's how i was made.
and btw, tcaud, that is a very MBTI-rooted question. FYI, my HA is Te and it receives a LARGE amount of my focus, probably just as much as Fi.
Sorry, had to be said.
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/
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.
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.
Allow me to be more specific: is it important for you, as feeling types, to be in control of others' emotional states?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
