A theory about emotions, emotion-based convictions and logic

[wildmoon]

I’ve noticed that a lot of T-types seem to regard F-types as inherently less logical. I’ve considered this and while I understand that this deduction seems entirely fair to T-types, I want to put forward a theory as to why the F functions are in fact very logical in their own way. I’ll be using evolution and neuroscience as the basis for my argument.

Consider an early human clan exploring a new area. Let’s say that the clan’s F-dom strongly dislikes the area and senses danger, but the T-doms want to explore the area a bit more because there’s nothing apparently wrong with it. Being less affected by their emotions (which essentially comprise their internal alarm systems), they might choose to regard the F-dom’s convictions as unimportant.

Now, while emotions are formed in the brain, they’re primarily experienced in the body. They’re the body’s way of a) responding to thoughts that are going through the conscious mind or b) sending signals about information that might be being processed in the subconscious mind. The body doesn’t wait around for all the thoughts and ideas to be sorted out. The body functions in a very no-nonsense way. Emotions demand to be noticed, and they signal when something requires attention.

In the situation described above, if the T-doms didn’t listen to the F-dom’s convictions, the F-dom’s emotions would heighten to the point where the T-doms’ mirror neurons (empathy) would be strongly affected. It’s likely then that the clan would move on from the area, since they would all have unpleasant feelings about it now. Leaving the area might not make sense at the time, but they’d be thankful for it later when the subtle danger signals they were receiving proved to be fruitful. And if the danger signals didn’t prove to be fruitful, well, at least they’re not dead. If you’ve read much about neuroscience, you’ll know that our alarm systems evolved this way (and evolved to be a little bit excessive) to maximise the chance of survival.

In conclusion there are a few things that we can glean from this. The first is that emotions are a somewhat subconscious, application-oriented form of logic. The second is that in such situations as the one described above, emotions and empathy form a sort of collective logic. (In the grand scheme of survival and evolution, moving on from a potentially dangerous area is the most sensible thing to do, and the group understands this.) And the third is that emotions can act as a catalyst to evoke the group and prompt them to combine their thinking skills, providing a platform for logic to be examined from multiple perspectives.

Of course, T-types can use emotions in this exact same way and this discourse is not intended to polarise types, just to present some ideas about the purpose of emotions. If you’ve read this far, thanks! And if you have feedback or your own theories about this topic, feel free to contribute.

 

[Grayman]

You have to understand the source of the emotional response in order to understand whether the response is appropriate in this situation or not.


Ithe response could be a result of experiences that you may or may not remember. Perhaps you unconciously heard a sound and this sound is something you had heard a year ago when you where attcked by a bear. Your mind responds with a sense of warning but you are not conciously capable of understanding the warning.

Now that you recongnized this behavior you increased your awareness to it but only because you took the time to utilize all your functions. With this awareness you can now identify the sound and then determine if the sound had a different source this time and if the sound is something that might be consistent with bear attacks.

If you simply choose to follow your feelings and do so at every turn you could be validating those unfounded feelings resulting in paralyzing phobias. Perhaps one day you have conflicting feelings about two choices that could be dangerous for different reasons but because you never evaluated these feelings you end up choosing the actual danger instead of the false one.


While a feelimg itself may seem illogical there is a reason for its existence and that reason is logical in itself. If one disregards their feelings or others as irrelevent on the basis of them being illogical they handicap themselves and choose to be ignorant of the cause and effect that drives emotions and feelings even though cause and effect is a form of logic in and of itself.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

How does that show that it's logical though? It's emotion based reason in that scenario, not logic based reason. The thinker uses logic based reason by saying, well if the feeler feels it is a bad idea it probably is.

 

[wildmoon]

Ah, yes, true. All the functions would need to be used to navigate the emotional response effectively. Thanks for your insight.

I love the way you worded that last paragraph - especially the bit about cause and effect being a form of logic in itself. My thoughts exactly!

 

[wildmoon]

@Tharaz Apologies, I just noticed your comment now.

In my theory I’m admittedly equating reason with logic. Do you have an understanding that the two are very different?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@Tharaz Apologies, I just noticed your comment now.

In my theory I’m admittedly equating reason with logic. Do you have an understanding that the two are very different?

Well, to give an example

Someone asks someone: why did you do X?

Answer a) because if I did X it would result in Y
Answer b) because I felt Z

So I'm thinking that logic is more propositional in nature - you can write out a logical statement or chain of statements from one thing to the other, whereas emotion based reason lacks this kind of logic, the emotion kind of speaks for itself as a motivational factor.

If you see all reason as logic, and feeling is based on emotion, what is thinking based on?

 

[Black Rose]

T and F are different ways to achieve a goal. T looks at all the technical data available and decides the truth of the matter is. F will decide that what it wants is more important than what is true and factual. An example is most people believe in God because it feels true rather than how it is true that God exists. Feeler: Evolution is false because "Feelings". Thinker: evolution is false because "Facts".

Both feelers and thinkers can believe in God as well as disbelieve. But the difference is in how the decision was made. Fe feels God is real and it will take actions on those feeling to do what God wants him/her to do. Fi will be devoted to becoming like God as a perfected being. Te will look at reality and come up with a watch maker. Ti will say God is beyond space and time. The clear difference is between factual explanation(T) and personal responsibility(F). F may be more empathetic and understand God as a person (theory of mind) but T must define what God is and how it makes sense to say anything about Gods ontology. Is God a delusion as a hallucination or is God actually in existence.

T types hate self-deception that they think F types do all the time. T types decide based on facts and evidence. F types do not require this to decide what to do. F must do what is ethical. T must do what will work. So T sees F types as people that do what is irrational because even if they accomplish their goal F does not do so based on reality to them. F is values, T is facts. T cares about how you get the ice cream, F knows it wants chocolate. T doesn't care that you like chocolate, T must know how you get chocolate ice cream when you don't have money or are on a deserted island with no ice cream shop. It would be nice to have ice cream but if it is impossible then it cannot be done. F simply states it is ethically and morally wrong for people not to have ice cream, we need to figure something out.

Generally, people decision process is dominated by F or T and this cause of the conflict because T thinks F types can't understand the how and F types will feel T types don't care about the why. Everyone has T and F so it is not impossible for people to use both for decisions.

 

[wildmoon]

@Tharaz Ah, I see.
If someone answered the X question with ‘I felt Z when I thought about X resulting in Y’ would that be a bit of both, then?
I like the idea that logic is more propositional in nature.
And idk, I would suppose that thinking is based on a bit of everything.

@Animekitty Oh, wow. Based on your description I think I might be smack in the middle of F and T in terms of preference. Haha, lucky me...?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@Tharaz Ah, I see.
If someone answered the X question with ‘I felt Z when I thought about X resulting in Y’ would that be a bit of both, then?
I like the idea that logic is more propositional in nature.
And idk, I would suppose that thinking is based on a bit of everything.

Well, that would be thinking, followed by feeling about the thought. You're suggesting a model like this:

thought -> feeling -> behaviour

As opposed to just
thought -> behaviour, or
feeling -> behaviour

Or they could be put together to be like
X*thought + (1-X)*feeling -> behaviour, i.e. the influence of the thought and the feeling in determining the behaviour varies from person to person (here 0<X<1)
and then a feeling generated from the thought would be a further variable, thought*feeling.

Thoughts themself are based on many things, yeah, but as one of the four functions, it must have something more concrete that it can be linked to apart from just a "thought". The names given to the four functions are not enough in themself to understand what is meant by that function, generally it would have to be explained in more specific terms.

 

[wildmoon]

Yeah, I often tend to see things in terms of thought -> feeling -> behaviour. Or sometimes I compare the thoughts and feelings with each other before acting, if that makes sense?
But your model of the varying influences of thought and feeling works well.