About our inferior feeling function

[Vatroslav]

I want only to express some thoughts about this particular topic.

What I've concluded is that we take the "feeling" for granted... we take emotions for granted, and when I say "we" I don't mean the INTPs, but people in general!

What are emotions at all? What does it mean to feel?

Let's take it this way: If someone is able to feel, he has to have a feeling apparatus. (Like an organ, with which he perceives things on emotional level, abstract a bit, but very easily understood.) If someone is able to think, he has to have a thinking apparatus, if someone is able to express Volition, to Will, he has to have a Willing apparatus...just like when someone wants to see, he has to have the eyes.

But what DO we perceive with our instruments? Reality? An illusion? Can we say that all our emotions are illusory?

Or maybe- both?

What does it mean to feel something about an illusion, and what does it mean to feel something about Reality?

For example... when someone is in love- he is in love with an ideal... an ideal picture of a person he CREATED... and became carved to it... can we call that illusion a reality? Can we call that feeling real?

Can we call some social norms real and reasonable? Yes, and we can see that there is much illusory social norms... so if someone is unable to adapt- he must be, then, emotionally dull!

Or maybe he refuses to feel the illusion, and tries to find Reality?

Is our INTP "problem" really about the not-good-enough emotional apparatus, or is it about our need to see the reality?

Those are some of my thoughts, and I hope I expressed them clearly, because, English is not my mothertongue...

...think about that...

 

[Vatroslav]

oh yes- and I was not completely sure to put this topic here, or in philosophy section...but I leave that to administrators..

 

[RobertJ]

I think you raise a very fundamental question about the validity of perception. Those of us who place less emphasis on emotions are bound to be seen by others as cold, distant, detached, and therefore weird. In the eyes of those more emotionally inclined, those who are less so are seen to have a skewed perception about reality. Usually, one feels that everyone should share their perspectives about things, and to differ is to be wrong.

Reading and considering all your questions I can't help but feel overwhelmed by the complexity of them. The very nature of reality is in question here. Any further response I could provide would do little but trivialize the issue.

 

[Vatroslav]

Sometimes it is really necessary to raise such questions, I think...

Then just tell me this- What does it mean to feel?

 

[RobertJ]

Yes, I think it is a very necessary and GOOD question. I'm just not smart enough to answer it. I don't know what it means to feel. Feelings may just be a biological impetus for us to support our fellow tribe. They could embody some deeper, more abstract purpose. I don't know.

 

[Vatroslav]

No, I even think it is necessary for any thinker to question the reality... there is no sense in hanging to one particular view to reality... we must destroy our view to reality, and recreate it...and learn from it...

 

[RobertJ]

No, I even think it is necessary for any thinker to question the reality... there is no sense in hanging to one particular view to reality... we must destroy our view to reality, and recreate it...and learn from it...

I completely agree!
Thing is, I don't build much of a coherent reality to begin with. The one I have built (which ensures that I survive to see the next day, allowing me to eat and not be murdered), would result in my complete unhinging as a member of society if I were to deconstruct it. That's not to say I shouldn't deconstruct it, that is to say I don't have the balls to.

 

[Zero]

I think... feelings are biochemical... and kind of leave it at that.

 

[Vatroslav]

doesn't matter... you surely can feel true and false feelings... they do all exist inside of your "biochemical" apparatus... to what are they reaction?

Yes, we can define feelings as particular reactions to some stimuli, and feeling apparatus as the instrument that reacts... now not raising questions is there any metaphysics... that's not too relevant here for now...

the question could be- what is the primal state of ones feeling instrument? What is the natural state of human beings feeling instrument? Do we feel reality or an illusion? Is it able to really feel?

 

[RobertJ]

My question is; Reality and illusion. What is the difference?

 

[Vatroslav]

Oh, yes- for deductive approach to this subject- absolutely necessary...

to Zero- why to cling to such a view? Question everything, even that...

 

[Vatroslav]

So, okay- what would reality be? Reality not depending on any individual view? Let's try to answer it, but supposing it's not senseless to try...it's easiest to say- i can't understand it, so it makes no sense to try.

 

[RobertJ]

So, okay- what would reality be? Reality not depending on any individual view?

This would have to be so. Reality would have to be independent from individual perspective.
Or, take the other approach. Reality IS dependent on individual perspective. This would indicate that illusion is inseparable from reality.

 

[Vatroslav]

No...the VIEW on reality is dependent on individuals approach, NOT the reality itself...

 

[RobertJ]

No...the VIEW on reality is dependent on individuals approach, NOT the reality itself...

Then the view on reality is not necessarily reality, right? It would be an illusion separate from reality.

 

[Zero]

Feelings being a result of biochemical changes in the brain is the best answer we have for feeling emotions. We can be emotional and not be reacting to direct stimuli.

It is the simplest, most direct and most likely explanation, therefore it is the best explanation.

 

[Jesin]

No...the VIEW on reality is dependent on individuals approach, NOT the reality itself...

Ah, really? You're saying that reality exists independently of individuals. That is to say, reality is separate from individuals. Which also means that individuals are separate from reality.

And, if something is "separate from reality", is it real?

(This thread is horribly mistitled, by the way.)

 

[Vatroslav]

Yes, maybe, so we have to suppose there is no possible way for it to be wrong... if any great scientist thought like that, they wouldn't have discovered anything...the earth would probably still be flat...it was the best explanation to them, surely... this was to Zero..

 

[ashitaria]

I want only to express some thoughts about this particular topic.

What I've concluded is that we take the "feeling" for granted... we take emotions for granted, and when I say "we" I don't mean the INTPs, but people in general!

What are emotions at all? What does it mean to feel?
Let's say people perceive with their five sense: taste, touch, smell, etc. Feelings are that, except a different kind of sense. Instead of an extroverted sensing, it's an introspective sensing, very similar to instinct. For example, bears protect their young because they have the instinct to do so. The feeling of love is about the same thing.

Let's take it this way: If someone is able to feel, he has to have a feeling apparatus. (Like an organ, with which he perceives things on emotional level, abstract a bit, but very easily understood.) If someone is able to think, he has to have a thinking apparatus, if someone is able to express Volition, to Will, he has to have a Willing apparatus...just like when someone wants to see, he has to have the eyes.

But what DO we perceive with our instruments? Reality? An illusion? Can we say that all our emotions are illusory?
We can perceive danger. When you feel threatened, you experience fear. Fear helps us avoid danger. Take the mechanism of pain. It about works the same way.
Another example is how birds drive other birds out of their territory. The same applies to humans in the form of anger.

Or maybe- both?

What does it mean to feel something about an illusion, and what does it mean to feel something about Reality?
And illusion is not completely fake. In my point of view, it's simply a distorted view of reality. And your second question- might you be referring to intuition?

For example... when someone is in love- he is in love with an ideal... an ideal picture of a person he CREATED... and became carved to it... can we call that illusion a reality? Can we call that feeling real?
This is a very broad subject, I could get into a philosophical debate about that, but my view that it is very in-between. The fact that the picture is real points to reality, but the fact that he believes the picture symbolizes a real person points to an illusion. Perhaps we call it...hm, illusioned-reality?

Can we call some social norms real and reasonable? Yes, and we can see that there is much illusory social norms... so if someone is unable to adapt- he must be, then, emotionally dull!

Socail norms are not in fact social norms. They are merely stupid imposed standards.

Or maybe he refuses to feel the illusion, and tries to find Reality?
The correct wording of this is not 'feeling' illusions. It is perceiving illusions. Anyway, if you want answers on this, go check up the 'Faith' sub-forum. Alot of interesting topics are there for you to read.

Is our INTP "problem" really about the not-good-enough emotional apparatus, or is it about our need to see the reality?
I don't want to answer this one. Perhaps another INTP person who is more understanding of his own personality might answer this one?

Those are some of my thoughts, and I hope I expressed them clearly, because, English is not my mothertongue...
You are not alone in that aspect. I've only been learning English for four years. Good luck.

...think about that...

Finally. An interesting topic.

EDIT: Jesin, huh? I've heard a lot about you. XD

 

[Vatroslav]

Ah, really? You're saying that reality exists independently of individuals. That is to say, reality is separate from individuals. Which also means that individuals are separate from reality.

And, if something is "separate from reality", is it real?

That's purely rhetorical trick... you think that the Earth rotates around the Sun independently of YOU? You, and I are going to DIE... and, the Earth, that same Earth is going to travel through space like it travels now...

 

[RobertJ]

the earth would probably still be flat...it was the best explanation to them, surely...

Maybe that why my life is still flat =(

So, for the sake of this discussion, we are not concerned with an objective reality. Is that correct?

 

[Jesin]

that same Earth is going to travel through space like it travels now...

Well, yes, of course you will.

 

[Vatroslav]

Finally. An interesting topic.

EDIT: Jesin, huh? I've heard a lot about you. XD

Oh mine... this topic is broader than I first thought.. xD

Let me take some time to answer your answer... XD

 

[Vatroslav]

Maybe that why my life is still flat =(

So, for the sake of this discussion, we are not concerned with an objective reality. Is that correct?

Then realize it's actually round all the time...

It looks like at least giving a fixed hypothesis about reality can bring this discussion further...but it looks like people are afraid to do so...

 

[Zero]

Yes, maybe, so we have to suppose there is no possible way for it to be wrong... if any great scientist thought like that, they wouldn't have discovered anything...the earth would probably still be flat...it was the best explanation to them, surely... this was to Zero..

It's not necessarily "correct". It's the best "theory" at the moment.

It's not necessarily a matter of asking random questions, it's a matter of being curious.

Curiosity killed the cat and curiosity made us dissect it.

 

[LAM]

The OP is kind of vague. Is it about whether emotions are real/illusion, perception of emotions, why INTPs might value emotions less, why people take emotions for granted, why INTPs reject social norms most of the time or something else?

 

[Vatroslav]

It is about reality and illusion of emotional perception and the reason why INTPs are/appear to be emotionally cold...

 

[Zero]

I'm somewhat confused as to why it's titled "inferior function". We're literally discussing emotions, not Jung's function "feeling".

 

[echoplex]

I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the MBTI Feeling function /=/ feelings themselves. For example, things like recognizing social norms, anticipating others' responses, knowing how to appeal to others' values, etc... are all a part of Extroverted Feeling, which is of course the INTP's inferior function.

And yet, I wouldn't say that any of these things necessarily involve emotions, or 'feelings.' They're more about having a sense of the perceived value of things, as they apply to others. They're about relating to others and using this ability to manipulate your interactions with them in a favorable way. They're how we pick up on another culture's styles so we don't unknowingly offend its people, or how we know just how to say something so it will make someone laugh, or smile, or cry, etc..

But yes, INTPs often appear emotionally cold -- not because they lack emotion -- but because they are more interested in understanding the underlying system than catering to the subject. And catering to the subject (other people) often involves emotional reciprocation, recognition of others' values (which are undoubtedly emotionally relevant to them), and using this recognition to modify our behavior for the benefit of the subject.

F is more about people than feelings. But people, of course, have feelings, and dealing with people successfully often requires behavior that considers the things their feelings are indelibly attached to. T can involve feelings too, but since it is more detached and concerned with the system itself, there is less consideration for the things to which feelings are most often attached. For example, I doubt many people become emotional over a math problem, although I do think the pursuit of understanding can be quite emotional, because it often involves a deep sense of purpose, as well as intense struggle. I'm sure many an INTP has shed a tear over some problem they just can't seem to understand.

 

[Zero]

Jung's Feeling often crosses over with literal feelings/emotions. But I guess that's because Feeling is the subjective/personal deciding trait and that's bound to happen.

I experience emotions quite frequently. As a matter of fact, I experience to the point that I'm pretty sure I have some kind of ... imbalance. But they're fleeting and random and sometimes totally insane. I don't let them interfere with my thinking, because they're senseless and unstable.

I don't base decisions on what I personally feel or how I feel about the situation. I base my decisions on what seems to have the best long lasting outcome. My feelings about something can go from 100 to 0 in a second. Or it can stay 0 for a very long time.

 

[Vatroslav]

I'm somewhat confused as to why it's titled "inferior function". We're literally discussing emotions, not Jung's function "feeling".

Ew...indeed... because I named it, and then wrote the text...it transformed to something different...

 

[RobertJ]

Ew...indeed... because I named it, and then wrote the text...it transformed to something different...

No, I even think it is necessary for any thinker to question the reality... there is no sense in hanging to one particular view to reality... we must destroy our view to reality, and recreate it...and learn from it...

Just like how we destroyed the original topic, recreated it, and learned from it.

 

[Causeless]

So let me boil this down for myself...

Are you wondering if we INTPs have an inferior feeling function because we have a weak "feeling organ"... or if it's really because we realize that most of what we see with our senses is perspective based, and therefore that far skewed from true "reality"?

Then, being naturally skeptical of that very perceived reality, are unwilling to ride our personal feelings on it?

If so, yeah, I can see that.

 

[Vatroslav]

something like that, yes... i'll quote myself...

"Is our INTP "problem" really about the not-good-enough emotional apparatus, or is it about our need to see the reality?"

so yes...

 

[Vatroslav]

and, not only sceptical... but subconsciously knowing we do not perceive it right..