Thinking types and their emotions.

[Athenian200]

I was reading Jung's work recently, and I noticed that it said that in types with dominant thinking, feeling would be the most repressed function.

Now obviously thinking types have emotion to some degree (if only on the level of instinct), because they value efficiency and correctness, and want to achieve their goals/understanding and survive. If they they were completely objective and detached, no particular outcome or action would be perferred over any other, and they would probably allow themselves to stagnate and die.

However, I've noticed that most thinking types seem to have far more emotional development than this. I suppose it's possible that thinking types respond to humor because it helps them comprehend humor in general, and don't enjoy it for its own sake. Also, perhaps they only value interpersonal relationships because they see people as another system for them to explore, and they master the intricacies of communication simply to study them, showing false compassion and interest only to gain deeper access and further data?

But from my perspective, it doesn't look that way. It seems when I look at them that they actually experience emotion on a deeper level, not just a primative, instinctive one. Perhaps it's simply an elaborate ruse for the reasons mentioned above, but if it is, it's a very accurate and well-conceived one.

So, which is it? Wouldn't it be difficult to tell the difference?

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by athenian200

Now obviously thinking types have emotion to some degree (if only on the level of instinct), because they value efficiency and correctness, and want to achieve their goals/understanding and survive. If they they were completely objective and detached, no particular outcome or action would be preferred over any other, and they would probably allow themselves to stagnate and die.

I don't think that's true. Objectively, some choices are always better than others, and especially survival instinct. Thinkers (and Feelers too) don't need to use much "Thinking" to decide, "Hmmm, if I do this, I won't die; and if I don't do this, I probably will die. Logically, I'd rather not die (!)"

I don't think the level of detachment you are describing is possible for any organism. The Thinking detachment is simply the ability to evaluate things without letting arbitrary/personal (dis)likes and/or values interfere. If the value is a universal one (like the survival instinct), well, that one is "true" objectively and thus is acceptable.

But from my perspective, it doesn't look that way. It seems when I look at them that they actually experience emotion on a deeper level, not just a primitive, instinctive one. Perhaps it's simply an elaborate ruse for the reasons mentioned above, but if it is, it's a very accurate and well-conceived one.

Of course T's do experience emotion, just as much as F's do think rationally. We are all human beings, and human beings do all these things. It's more merely a matter of priority and (generally) "which one is in charge" when both are operating simultaneously. And still, people are all inconsistent, so T's will sometimes just emote and F's will sometimes detach unconsciously, in the right situation.

Doing the inverse of your earlier example, would it make sense to say that, "it's possible that feeling types try to understand humor in general so that they can respond to it and enjoy it for its own sake. And perhaps they explore people as a system simply because they value interpersonal relationships and study the intricacies of communication simply to master them and connect better, showing false interest in the data so that they can experience compassion and interest in others...?"

(Or something similar, I know the analogy has not been worked enough yet to be totally equivalent but it should still give you an idea of what I am saying...)

Some of my analogy actually is accurate... but not 100%.

That is the thing:

T's DO generally use emotions as tools to achieve a goal rather than as ends in themselves, and otherwise suppress them -- especially the negative and unpleasurable ones, depending on the type. The Feeling is usually subordinated to the Thinking.

(Some T's actually don't mind anger, because it makes them even harder and more resolute and powerful. But sad depressing emotions or explosive insane emotions, ones that prevent the T from being out of control and thus unable to organize events in their preferred detached Thinking way, are the emotions that T's want to avoid.)

And F's DO generally use facts and details and structured logic in order to benefit the relational Feeling aspects of their lives. The Thinking is subordinated to the Feeling a majority of the time.

So Thinkers can often exude "real" emotions... but ultimately the emotions are still harnessed as they come out in service of a detached logic, if there is such a need. And Feelers can express "real" detached logic... but the logic is still harnessed in order to support the Feeler's values.

So, which is it? Wouldn't it be difficult to tell the difference?

Yes, for some people who are more nuanced and practiced, it can be hard to tell the difference unless you actually know the person, have seen them respond in various environments, and have also seen what they were like in the past (i.e., you have seen them "grow" as people and thus can interpolate back and imagine where they started from).

I think it is an interesting question and am curious to see what other people have to say.

[ptgatsby]

[/me goes on a general rant about using emotion and F interchangably]

There is an important distinction between feeling and emotions - both within MBTI and in a practical sense. One reason that the comment "T's have more emotional control than is suggested" is simply because it is not suggested that T's have any less or more emotional control. What is suggested is that they are not as compassionate, empathetic and all that. What is typically measured in emotions is the degree of stability - how much pressure needs to be applied to get a reaction... and the depth of the reaction.

The other important distinction is that F is a cognitive decision making process... emotions require a physiological change. This is also important because there is very little correlation between T/F and the amount of reactiveness or the depth of the reaction in emotions. T's get seriously pissed off about as much as Fs... just about different things.

[/rant]

[Athenian200]

So, what you're saying is, thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? But how can you know that they haven't merely become so engrossed in such a goal, that they've actually convinced themselves that they feel emotions deeper than curiosity, a desire for efficiency, a drive towards their goals, and survival, when in reality they don't? In more extreme cases of this, perhaps the person would even appear to be a feeling type, because they will have convinced themselves so fully that they genuinely care and want to be cared about. How can we really know that we or anyone else genuinely feel anything, and don't just believe that we do? That's the question.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by athenian200

So, what you're saying is, thinking types actually feel real emotions, and don't simply express false ones out of a desire to learn more about people and/or acheive their goals? But how can you know that they haven't merely become so engrossed in such a goal, that they've actually convinced themselves that they feel emotions deeper than curiosity, a desire for efficiency, a drive towards their goals, and survival, when in reality they don't?

How do we know Feelers feel anything real? What is "feeling" anyway? It's a very complex category, isn't it?

How can we really know that we or anyone else genuinely feel anything, and don't just believe that we do? That's the question.

This question is meaningless, from a rational point of view.

(That's not a criticism, I simply mean there is no way to answer it. It's like asking, "How do I know that you and everyone else in the world is not just a figment of my imagination, and I'm imagining this conversation and the rest of reality around me as we speak?" It can't be answered through any rational process.)

[Athenian200]

I've actually asked myself the other question as well. It probably can't be answered.

Okay, let's try this. Have you ever felt sad or happy about something, even though it had nothing to do with understanding or acheiving something? Would you feel any emotions unrelated to logic in any of the following situations:

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

My answers:

1. Both. I'm very sad that they died, but I'm also contemplating receiving the money. Additionally, I feel guilty for being glad that I'll receive money.

2. No, because it wasn't beautiful. If had been, I would have been a little sad, but not much.

3. Yes, because I wouldn't have missed the money being a millionaire, and it would have haunted me for the rest of my life that I just left them there in that state when I could have done something.

[Opivy1980]

Originally Posted by athenian200

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

I might be sad for like a day or two but I would already be planning what I can do with the money to better myself the day I found out it was mine.

Originally Posted by athenian200

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

No

Originally Posted by athenian200

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

I would find out why they were in such a situation and only offer them my help out of it, not a hand out.

[Jennifer]

Without reading your answers first...

Originally Posted by athenian200

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

Both.

Although I can become consciously appalled at myself (because I know it's considered shallow) for how easy the first part is for me... the logical opportunism of a moment is not lost on me, I simply force myself to interact better with others than that.

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

How can a work of art not be beautiful to SOMEONE? Isn't that what art is?

If it's something that is not beautiful (is not evocative), and is not worth anything, and isn't even useful, I don't really care if it's destroyed. It's like a basket of plain crepe paper.

If I tweak the parameters of your question a little, though: If something is beautiful to someone OR I can see that considerable skill was necessary to create it (regardless of my personal feelings), then I do feel a bit of loss because something unique is gone forever. I try to preserve things that are unique.

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

There's a possibility I would give them something, regardless of their attitudes.

However, it would probably depend on how they plead. If I feel like they are demanding money from me just because I have it, or that they are in the mess they're in because they continuously squandered past monies and I can't perceive that they will do any better THIS time around, I probably would not give them money.

Because they are in dire straits and/or because I knew them in the past, thought, I would be inclined to help them in whatever way I thought was going to benefit them most... but this might not involve money.

The fact that no one knows whether I would help or not has no real bearing on my reaction.

[Natrushka]

Originally Posted by athenian200

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

1. Both.

2. Did it belong to me? If yes, yes. If not, no.

3. Yes.

[ptgatsby]

1. Someone you knew for a long time dies, and you get a large inheritance. Internally, despite what you express to others, are you pondering about the goals/understanding you can achieve with the money, or are you sad that they died?

I have yet to really be sad over death. The money wouldn't affect how I felt however, either way. I would still be planning over the change it offered in my life, yes, and I would be as sad (or not) if he didn't leave anything for me.

2. A work of art that that wasn't useful or worth much monitarily, and wasn't beautiful to anyone is destroyed. Does this affect you?

All destruction affects me. The effect might be minor, but at some level I would be wondering about the failed work of art. Something that was created that is then destroyed is part of the process... but something unwanted, a failed creation... that does evoke some reaction.

3. You see a person you used to know really well a few years ago but lost touch with on the side of the road in rags, begging for money. You are a millionaire. Somehow, you know that no one will ever know if you helped this person or not, and that they will never be able to return the favor. They pleadingly ask you for some money. Do you give them anything?

Yes, I most likely would. But this is a rather complex calculation between my view on charity, my own means, the required amount to have a significant influence, the past relationship, the character of the people involved, the history between us...

I wouldn't do it to someone I don't know; I wouldn't do it to someone I did know but had issues with; I wouldn't do it if the influence of my actions didn't cause a lasting change in their fortunes. The gap between my means and theirs would have very little to know influence, except from the viewpoint of it's impact on me (ie: the difference between $5 now and $5 as a millionaire isn't significant... but $1000 now to $1000 as a millionaire is significant).