But what is thinker?

[Hadoblado]

Ideas:
1) Thinkers are just superior logical people who can handle emotions
2) Thinkers experience less emotions so it's comparitively easier to choose logic over them
3) Thinkers experience more emotion to the point they can't interpret it easily

In the webserial I'm currently rereading (worm) there is a character by the name of Cherish, who has the power to sense and control other people's emotions. She can make people enjoy stuff they'd otherwise find repulsive (like eating their children or some shit), or hit them with such shame that they commit suicide on the spot. It's pretty terrifying to think about.

I got to thinking, if a thinker is supposed to prioritise ideation over emotional drives, this would render them somewhat resistant right? But the way the serial is written nobody is resistant - and I think this to be closer to how it would work out in real life. Thinkers get completely fucked by depression and anxiety all the time. They seem to have less ability to handle these emotions when they do have them... This makes me think (1) is false or at least not the whole picture.

So is it that thinkers just experience less of these emotions? I don't.

For me, from what I've read and been told by experts, it's that I experience such a constant state of anxiety that other emotions seem dim by comparison. Unless something is increasing my anxiety specifically it is less likely to affect me. I had my bike stolen the other day and it didn't phase me at all. My mother won $10k from lottery or w/e and gave me $1000 of it and I struggled to make her feel appreciated because even though I'm having financial difficulties, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. I couldn't even be happy for her (she told me she'd quit smoking for two months as well, so this should have been multiple big wins).

Compare this to when I had by bag swiped a couple weeks ago (yeah, bad month) - it had my diary in it with all my appointments etc. and it shook me to the core. Suddenly I didn't know when anything was and I was paralysed with anxiety.

So for me it seems like I'm just overwhelmed by emotions to the point I'm insensitive to them. I often can't tell my own mood before I look at the way I'm behaving etc.

How is it for you other thinkers?

 

[QuickTwist]

Same way pretty much.

Part of the problem (I think) is not getting that dopamine hit when you accomplish a goal. It could be a problem setting goals or it could be a neurological problem, don't know.

I've been trying to implement some structure to my life recently. I'm working on brushing up on some math skills so when I go to school in the spring I don't have to pay money at the college for a high school level math class. I spent about 2.5 hours doing really basic math today, but when I completed what I set out to, damn did that feel good.

So in other words, you might either:

• Be underchallenged
• Be overchallenged
• Be depressed to the point where "normal" emotions are just not felt (this is common in depressed people) (see A)
• Be overstressed (see B)

The solution, whatever your problem is (barring the fact that you've been plagued with a mental illness and aren't being medicated properly) is to create a structure and routine in you life and breaking goals down into smaller bite sized steps. There is no such thing as too small of a step as I learned doing math today.

This would involve something you may or may not be doing: creating a "to do" list every day.

But besides all that, because I assume you already know all that shit, I suggest you get a mental evaluation and see if you have a diagnosis. I know you are going to school. Should be easy to see a counselor/psychologist there, which would prolly be a step in the right direction. But I would also schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist.

My whole point is that its not "normal" to be like you are being, so some support is needed.

 

[Hadoblado]

Woops added too much personal - was trying to elaborate by way of anecdote, not actually make this about me. MB.

Spoiler

I'm seeing a shrink already. Not on any medication, but will probably think about jumping back on that horse at some point. I did something similar with the math (khan academy rocks all of the socks) - not for any course but just to brush up. Didn't get to finish before uni started back up. I didn't feel good about it, but felt less bad?

Yeah structure is important. I had mine disrupted fairly heavily and am struggling to recover.

 

[QuickTwist]

Woops added too much personal - was trying to elaborate by way of anecdote, not actually make this about me. MB.

Spoiler

I'm seeing a shrink already. Not on any medication, but will probably think about jumping back on that horse at some point. I did something similar with the math (khan academy rocks all of the socks) - not for any course but just to brush up. Didn't get to finish before uni started back up. I didn't feel good about it, but felt less bad?

Yeah structure is important. I had mine disrupted fairly heavily and am struggling to recover.

Sorry for derailing the thread.

Will try to compose a better post based on the more pertinent topic since you seem to have yourself fairly well sorted.

 

[Black Rose]

The amygdala is the center for fear, anger, sadness, and happiness.

Low impulse control by dopamine leads to more emotional expressiveness.
Focused people have more Serotonin that leads to steady goals.
Logical people have more testosterone and feeling people have more Estrogen.

I believe that I am Estrogen dominant. Girls have more Estrogen than boys so me potentially having high Estrogen as a guy and having intuitive feeling, gives impressions I am female here to others.

Testosterone - ExxJ
Estrogen - IxxJ
Dopamine - ExxP
Seritonine - IxxP

Explorer, Builder, Director, And Negotiator

 

[Hadoblado]

@QT
You're fine. Instructions were unclear :^)

@AK
I feel as if you're making very bold statements based on limited understanding. I'm no expert, but these interactions are more complex than just having more or less of certain hormones or transmitters. I don't want to attack you or anything, but if things were as simple as you're making them out to be we would be a lot further in personality psychology than we currently are. The way you talk about it makes me feel like you're strapping modern words onto the hippocratic humors. You'll probably tell me I'm not understanding what you're saying, which may be the truth, but I can only respond to what you actually say.

Also people think you're a girl at first because you typically have female avatars, and your name is the more feminine 'kitty' as opposed to 'cat'.

 

[PmjPmj]

Emotions aren't nuanced. They're about as basic as can be, and unless I'm experiencing them intensely I'm seldom aware of them. Of course, this blindness is a great weakness; I'm actually troubled by my inability to discern what my emotional state is, because being more aware of it would probably keep me from making piss poor decisions from time to time.

Honestly though, I put very little stock in to what I feel. I navigate life by 'what makes sense'. Feelings are often unnecessary. Fairness is paramount.

 

[Hadoblado]

How are emotions not nuanced? Are you saying you don't experience them as nuanced or that there is no nuance to them to be experienced?

To me they seem exceedingly complex. They're one of the fundamental subjective dimensions of reality and they can be very difficult to describe.

 

[Black Rose]

I think that you can be fluid or rigid in how you feel and express different emotions. The brain is interconnected so both the limbic system and the cortex interact by affecting the energy flow between them. I have memories that each have a different feeling to them. Yesterday I looked at 20 of my drawings I did in elementary school and middles school with my therapist. Each one made me feel a different way. Each feeling was a different energy state. Hadoblado was right that I was making things too simple. I think that the reason some people are logical and have composer over emotions is that they condition themselves to respond to any situation as having a reasonable explanation. But they are still not immune from emotions. Some people who are logical can get a sense of superiority, anger, and arrogance from pride in their own logical abilities. These emotions are in the back ground and are seldom acknowledged. I have seen people bullied by people that act logically. Negative emotions in them are used to drive there logic. This does not mean all logical people are this way. Positive emotions can drive a logical person also. But logic is highly ordered and structured. They use this to deal with their emotional content.

Logical people usually do not express their emotion when they have them. But other types of people express themselves by anything that their emotions compelled them to do. They have no structure to order their emotions so they express themselves any way they feel like it.

In between the two extremes are people that have some orderliness and some expressiveness. Just by being in any one mode of emotional states can condition the type of expression and type of orderliness that people will have.

Marvel vs Capcom 3: Dante

 

[TheManBeyond]

if you are a Ti dom you repress objective data gathering, which is to Ti, Fe, factual, agreeable, measurable states of feeling, you could say in a way Fe is logical. If a woman is invited to a classy party (important people and such) she might even avoid going for not being able to find the right partner (a tall man, with money, a degree, master, amazing job, social skillz, such things).
So emotions are not about emotions exactly, they can be very logical but just if they are felt in the right way. Ti doesn't pay attention to this kind of facts. Ti are less capable of expressing whereas Fe spreads it all over the place and then they look back and, damn wtf did i just do.
contrary to Te they don't care about what's true, they prefer to form their own half truths, and they build a system of half truths to make their own structure, complitely different from the real one.
From what've experienced Fe doms can be as logical as Ti, but as a difference they do express their need to be understood. Ti doesn't. They are perfectly fine with being misunderstood, they get lost themselves in their own misunderstanding and it is what makes them keep building their own true lies. like what carl jung did with psychological types book, it's so sketchy, like a demotape, and full of contradictions which tie to each other and it's even harder to break through their bullshit. Which might be the reason why i see so many XSXPs interested in conspiratory theories and such things.
Te is not like that, it just take data as it is. Repressing Fi gives them the power to avoid getting lost in themselves, because Fi tries to understand as Ti does and build its own incomprhensible code based on half truths (in case of Fi, more like half lies).
you could say my whole paragraph seems very Ti, but i'm just taking what i know from Jung and trying to understand my way and giving back to you. I'm twisting his words the less i can, but that had to be his goal, perhaps 85% physcology is Ti driven. Let it be open, let them enter so they cannot escape ever. because it just makes no sense, anyone can be anything.

 

[Black Rose]

contrary to Te they don't care about what's true, they prefer to form their own half truths, and they build a system of half truths to make their own structure, complitely different from the real one.
From what've experienced Fe doms can be as logical as Ti, but as a difference they do express their need to be understood. Ti doesn't. They are perfectly fine with being misunderstood, they get lost themselves in their own misunderstanding and it is what makes them keep building their own true lies. like what carl jung did with psychological types book, it's so sketchy, like a demotape, and full of contradictions which tie to each other and it's even harder to break through their bullshit.

It is convoluted how Ti creates different realities but that is the nature of subjective logic. In the process of deciding how a construct is made perception plays a huge role. INTP's have Ne so Ti is not completely cut off from the world. Ne notices patterns and connects them. Ti then creates logical structures to place those connections in. This is not always expressible because what they know is in a bundled up web. This does not mean what they say is false/not real. Ti organizes the Ne patterns it sees but this organization has way too many contextual references and this leads to convoluted expression. Conditionals must be stated so that the right frame of reference is avalable to contextualize the concepts being discused.

INTJ operate in a completely different mode. Te does not collect data. Te is not Perception. Te experiments in the world with objective logic. This has the result of confirming or denying the subjective insights of Ni. Ni sees a collection of gaps that must be filled. Ni fills those gaps (sometimes inaccurately) but needs Te to confirm them or deny them by experimentation. Ni then discovers more gaps and fills them in. Ni insight is about recognizing something is missing and then having an Aha! moment.

INFJ's use Fe to help Ni fill the gaps. Fe is a value system that decides what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Ni then has insights into the nature of acceptable and unacceptable. This is why Counselors (stereotypical INFJ job) can understand people. Motivations are assortments of what others do. This relates to understanding motivations. Fi is more about what is acceptable and unacceptable to the subject. Fe is more about knowing the way other people are. Fe is similar to Te and tries to find objective data on the values others hold. Ni has Aha! moments about what is missing from their understanding of people.

INFP's use Ne to form connections from patterns. Then Fi decides what is acceptable and unacceptable internally, creating entire worlds of a valence of like and dislike. So what happens is that Fi decided what patterns are good and what happens are bad and where everything connects in a web they must navigate to have what is most acceptable well at the same time knowing where all the bad things are in their abstract mental space.

Te is not like that, it just take data as it is. Repressing Fi gives them the power to avoid getting lost in themselves, because Fi tries to understand as Ti does and build its own incomprhensible code based on half truths (in case of Fi, more like half lies).

you could say my whole paragraph seems very Ti, but i'm just taking what i know from Jung and trying to understand my way and giving back to you. I'm twisting his words the less i can, but that had to be his goal, perhaps 85% physcology is Ti driven. Let it be open, let them enter so they cannot escape ever. because it just makes no sense, anyone can be anything.

I hope I clarified some things in the above paragraphs.
We all have a Judgment Function and a Perception function.
If one is oriented outside the other must be oriented inside.
We must all have both an extraversion and an introversion function.
Ti does not work alone, It needs data from Se or Ne.
Ti is internal.

 

[PmjPmj]

How are emotions not nuanced? Are you saying you don't experience them as nuanced or that there is no nuance to them to be experienced?

To me they seem exceedingly complex. They're one of the fundamental subjective dimensions of reality and they can be very difficult to describe.

Apologies for the late / brief response. Work has me snowed under at the moment.

Discussions around emotion is incredibly difficult for me, as I just don't have the experience nor the vocabulary to participate. It is important to note that I see this as a very real issue which must be tackled. I mention this because so often you'll hear people talk about how they're cold or unfeeling, but in actuality they're just projecting an image to appear cool or edgy. That isn't the case with me. I'm legitimately terrible with discerning how I feel about things.

Fortunately I can detect fairly well the emotions of others (at a basic level). I'll pick up when someone is sad, or angry. I can adjust my behaviours accordingly.

But for myself? There are no 'shades' to my emotions. I've had individuals who use Fi in a dominant or auxiliary capacity explain the function and its manifestation to me, and I just can't wrap my head around it. Rarely I'll feel angry, or sad. Maybe stressed. Optimistic or 'warm'... but that's about it, and the recognition of such states is only briefly acknowledged. My baseline is more machine-like I suppose. I have a set of goals to accomplish and I execute with nary a thought about how I 'feel' at any point. Unless the task is arduous and I get restless or pissed off.

See? I'm ranting on but saying nothing of value. Emotions are something I have to work on. Desperately.

A psychologist took me through an EQ test at some point earlier this year. Now, I'm not sure if I buy in to EQ being a thing, but whatever - that's another conversation for another day. Point being, she asked me to name ten emotions. Just ten.

I managed two initially. After a long pause.

I did bang my head a lot as a child, so there is that

Note: I'm not unsympathetic to others. I'm not a complete asshat that doesn't acknowledge and honour the emotions of others. It's just that emotions are of such little consequence to my personal day-to-day operation that I seldom pay any attention to them. To do so is to hurl myself in a world where everything seems ass-backward.

I agree that emotions are complex things, of course. I just don't experience that complexity on any level remotely close to conscious.

This is another reason I often assume I'm ENTJ rather than INTJ. All the INTJs I've known (admittedly only a few - but all very much the real deal) exhibit an inner warmth which I lack. They're far more in touch with themselves and almost always better at keeping their cards to their chest. I'm prone to outbursts of incandescent rage when pushed too far, but my INTJ buddies tend to keep a lid on their emotions to an extent I'll probably never replicate.

I know that isn't a great post, and I apologise. I wish I could contribute more to the conversation (it's an interesting topic for me) but between my own retardation and work...

 

[Hadoblado]

You're fine dude :P

I'm kind of similar, though maybe not of the same magnitude. I could name 10 emotions with little difficulty for instance. I'm wondering which two you got? I can't imagine anyone missing happy, angry, or sad XD

I mean, with at least an average vocab there's no way you don't know of 10 emotions, you just couldn't access the words at the time you were asked for them.

But I guess I do the psych, and these words are thrown about a lot.

I tend to identify internal states by looking at external outputs. I'll notice I'm happy if I can laugh freely, that I'm excited if I'm machine-gunning out sentences, or irritable if I'm lacking in patience for people. Like you, other people's moods are more apparent to me, even if I'm not that great at reading them.

 

[Crystabelle]

Ideas:


Compare this to when I had by bag swiped a couple weeks ago (yeah, bad month) - it had my diary in it with all my appointments etc. and it shook me to the core. Suddenly I didn't know when anything was and I was paralysed with anxiety.

Quick side note: This would cause me a lot of anxiety as well. Google Drive & Calendar are great ways to never lose that important info if you don't mind the cloud.

 

[Crystabelle]

Also people think you're a girl at first because you typically have female avatars, and your name is the more feminine 'kitty' as opposed to 'cat'.

Tru dat.

 

[Crystabelle]

Emotions aren't nuanced. They're about as basic as can be, and unless I'm experiencing them intensely I'm seldom aware of them. Of course, this blindness is a great weakness; I'm actually troubled by my inability to discern what my emotional state is, because being more aware of it would probably keep me from making piss poor decisions from time to time.

Honestly though, I put very little stock in to what I feel. I navigate life by 'what makes sense'. Feelings are often unnecessary. Fairness is paramount.

I really like this topic. As an ESFJ, the above post is completely foreign to me but I'd like to understand. I'd actually like to be a little more immune to or unaware of my emotions.

Can you elaborate on when being more aware of your emotions would help you make better decisions. I know this is simplistic, but it seems like purely logic based decisions would always be better.

 

[Happy]

I can't imagine anyone missing happy

Aw my feelings

(This was going to be a serious post, but I got all self conscious and deleted it. This behaviour is out of character for me.)

 

[TheManBeyond]

It is convoluted how Ti creates different realities but that is the nature of subjective logic. In the process of deciding how a construct is made perception plays a huge role. INTP's have Ne so Ti is not completely cut off from the world. Ne notices patterns and connects them. Ti then creates logical structures to place those connections in. This is not always expressible because what they know is in a bundled up web. This does not mean what they say is false/not real. Ti organizes the Ne patterns it sees but this organization has way too many contextual references and this leads to convoluted expression. Conditionals must be stated so that the right frame of reference is avalable to contextualize the concepts being discused.

INTJ operate in a completely different mode. Te does not collect data. Te is not Perception. Te experiments in the world with objective logic. This has the result of confirming or denying the subjective insights of Ni. Ni sees a collection of gaps that must be filled. Ni fills those gaps (sometimes inaccurately) but needs Te to confirm them or deny them by experimentation. Ni then discovers more gaps and fills them in. Ni insight is about recognizing something is missing and then having an Aha! moment.

INFJ's use Fe to help Ni fill the gaps. Fe is a value system that decides what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Ni then has insights into the nature of acceptable and unacceptable. This is why Counselors (stereotypical INFJ job) can understand people. Motivations are assortments of what others do. This relates to understanding motivations. Fi is more about what is acceptable and unacceptable to the subject. Fe is more about knowing the way other people are. Fe is similar to Te and tries to find objective data on the values others hold. Ni has Aha! moments about what is missing from their understanding of people.

INFP's use Ne to form connections from patterns. Then Fi decides what is acceptable and unacceptable internally, creating entire worlds of a valence of like and dislike. So what happens is that Fi decided what patterns are good and what happens are bad and where everything connects in a web they must navigate to have what is most acceptable well at the same time knowing where all the bad things are in their abstract mental space.






I hope I clarified some things in the above paragraphs.
We all have a Judgment Function and a Perception function.
If one is oriented outside the other must be oriented inside.
We must all have both an extraversion and an introversion function.
Ti does not work alone, It needs data from Se or Ne.
Ti is internal.

gonna quote jung on this so u understand what i mean:

"In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim --in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined."

It doesn't collect, it renders objective data, it's not about where he takes it, it's the way he sees the world as facts and then accomodates to them accordingly, avoiding subjective impressions/feelings/thoughts. Jung doesn't talk about E-I-E-I stack of functions, he talks about a dominant and other repressed primitive functions which are contrary to the attitude of the dominant, in the case of extraverted types, introverted. I mean i understand mbti point of view but i'm trying to come to terms with Jung's first. Because then for Jung, an INTP would have Ti-(Ne/Se)--(Fe). or smth like that.

This might be why i think Quicktwist is either ESTJ or ESFJ.

 

[PmjPmj]

You're fine dude :P

I'm kind of similar, though maybe not of the same magnitude. I could name 10 emotions with little difficulty for instance. I'm wondering which two you got? I can't imagine anyone missing happy, angry, or sad XD

I mean, with at least an average vocab there's no way you don't know of 10 emotions, you just couldn't access the words at the time you were asked for them.

But I guess I do the psych, and these words are thrown about a lot.

I tend to identify internal states by looking at external outputs. I'll notice I'm happy if I can laugh freely, that I'm excited if I'm machine-gunning out sentences, or irritable if I'm lacking in patience for people. Like you, other people's moods are more apparent to me, even if I'm not that great at reading them.

The first emotion I mentioned (after a protracted "eeeeerrrrrrrm") was anger, which is about the only emotion I'm in constant touch with. Anger drives me, so I welcome it.

The difficulty in naming 10 was real. By the end of a two hour session, I'd nailed 6 or 7. This was a big eye-opener for me, because I suddenly realised that when it comes to discerning my own emotional state (or emotions in general), I'm probably about as evolved as your average six year old. Great. It wasn't a hyper-focused exercise mind you, and I'm sure I could have come up with more if it were.

I later sat down with a friend (also TJ) and we brainstormed a good 20 or so between us. It was a pitiful effort to say the least

The way you note your own inner state makes a lot of sense.

Sorry, yet another shitpost as I'm snowed under. If I don't rattle something off quickly (and now) though, chances are I won't be able to respond for another few days or so.

 

[Polaris]

*deletes second post*

 

[QuickTwist]

Ideas:
1) Thinkers are just superior logical people who can handle emotions
2) Thinkers experience less emotions so it's comparitively easier to choose logic over them
3) Thinkers experience more emotion to the point they can't interpret it easily

In the webserial I'm currently rereading (worm) there is a character by the name of Cherish, who has the power to sense and control other people's emotions. She can make people enjoy stuff they'd otherwise find repulsive (like eating their children or some shit), or hit them with such shame that they commit suicide on the spot. It's pretty terrifying to think about.

I got to thinking, if a thinker is supposed to prioritise ideation over emotional drives, this would render them somewhat resistant right? But the way the serial is written nobody is resistant - and I think this to be closer to how it would work out in real life. Thinkers get completely fucked by depression and anxiety all the time. They seem to have less ability to handle these emotions when they do have them... This makes me think (1) is false or at least not the whole picture.

So is it that thinkers just experience less of these emotions? I don't.

For me, from what I've read and been told by experts, it's that I experience such a constant state of anxiety that other emotions seem dim by comparison. Unless something is increasing my anxiety specifically it is less likely to affect me. I had my bike stolen the other day and it didn't phase me at all. My mother won $10k from lottery or w/e and gave me $1000 of it and I struggled to make her feel appreciated because even though I'm having financial difficulties, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. I couldn't even be happy for her (she told me she'd quit smoking for two months as well, so this should have been multiple big wins).

Compare this to when I had by bag swiped a couple weeks ago (yeah, bad month) - it had my diary in it with all my appointments etc. and it shook me to the core. Suddenly I didn't know when anything was and I was paralysed with anxiety.

So for me it seems like I'm just overwhelmed by emotions to the point I'm insensitive to them. I often can't tell my own mood before I look at the way I'm behaving etc.

How is it for you other thinkers?

I'm inclined to thinking that 2 is the most correct, but it really has more to do with neuroticism. I know I am this way generally*.

For the Cherish example to work, given 2 is accurate, Cherish would have to have FULL control over the person's emotions. Think of it like this: everyone has basically the same limit of how extreme their emotions are, its just that it take a lot more or less of an affecting thing to have the same effect on people with different levels of T/F.

Being a T is about coming to conclusions based on logic, it has nothing to do with how creative they are. So while someone can be very logical, that doesn't mean that they have higher ideation of ideas, it just means that they prefer a logical approach to solving problems, most notable (because everyone has the capacity to use logic when making big decisions to some degree) with personal matters.

They seem to have less ability to handle these emotions when they do have them

This, however, does make a lot of sense to me.

I think depending on the person's nurture growing up, they will learn different coping mechanisms depending on the severity of circumstances and the intelligence of the nurturers compared to the intelligence of the individual and the intelligence of the individual themselves. For example, someone who is really heavy on T, but has had an emotionally abusive upbringing, they will be a lot more likely to rationalize and justify their emotional state logically and will prolly develop emotional coping mechanisms that are more melancholic/choleric in nature to deal with that trauma, which would long term create more emotions such as depression, anxiety, and anger.

About Anxiety flooding your emotional regulation. I don't doubt you experience that. I think this has to do partially with being genetically predisposed to feeling anxiety and then on top of that you had/have things that are important to you that are taken away. Its not even illogical that you feel this way about getting $1,000 and losing your bag. You didn't ask for $1,000 and had no expectation to get it (hence no dopamine hit, because you weren't anticipating a reward) and your bad sounds like something that is really quite important to you. Perhaps not the bag itself, but what it represents. The bag is literally who you are - you identify yourself as what was in that bag. So its perfectly rational to fee horrible about losing your bag and feeling overall "meh" about getting free money. One thing is personal to you and one thing is complete objectification. Even if you make judgements logically, this makes sense that you would care about something that actually means something to you and not care about something that doesn't.

I would say you are affected by a neurological condition that causes you to be depressed and anxiety prone.

*Might get to answering about myself a bit later.

 

[nanook]

you are emotional about whatever you are consciously concerned with (including projections). there are eight thinking types who are in one of three states of consciousness (ego, soul, spirit). that makes for 24 types who have completely different emotional experience. factor in stages of development (roughly 5 in grown ups) and you have 120 degrees of emotionality, just for thinking types. and equally as many degrees for feeling types.

the mental states (along with correlating emotional states) can perhaps also be simplified into these three: being in conflict (anxiety, anger), being autonomous (detached focus or boredom, perhaps mild sadness), being in love with life (more rewarding feelings).

so if your emotional spectrum is flat (anxiety, anger, detachment), this says nothing about your type. you are in a bad or lame place in life.

if you care about your calendar but not about a bike or your mom it might imply something like intuition and thinking, little (subjective) sensation, butt hurt soul.

 

[TheManBeyond]

Yeah my soul is butthurt at the momento Fe Fi inferior.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can't deny that, my soul is pretty butthurt right now.

@QT
I don't really get personal with my possessions. It's the loss of utility. When the bike was lost, I didn't *need* it right then, so it was meh. For the money, while I have no income, I'm living off savings and that $1000 will come into play only when those savings run out. For the bag, it had everything uni related, and my entire organisational keystone. I could have burned everything there not feeling anything, if I had replacements. Losing my organisational tools has pretty extensive ramifications too, suddenly I don't know when assignments are due, when I have appointments, who owes me what, what my lesser used passwords are etc. So I guess it represents my organised self at some abstract level, but realistically I think it's a more pragmatic concern.

Hmmm...

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

what is thinker
does it thinks?
or it tinkers when is blinks
doesn't eh knows the thinking?
in the head it goes words
and also pictures
and strangenesses
doesn't it has a feels?
emotions when it does a thinks
doesn't it have a senses and intuitions too
what is thinker?
will we ever know

thank u 4 reading my poem

 

[Stu Chastic]

thank u 4 reading my poem

omg i kno wat u mean 4 srs

 

[Polaris]

I think it is a bit more complex than just being concerned about a diary (dhuh). There is a whole lot of stuff going on here.

And besides that, attachment to things is just a replacement for the humans that weren't/aren't there (not related to Hado, just generally)

...can't be bothered elaborating, maybe later, although it should be fairly obvious.

 

[redbaron]

Question: But what is thinker?

Answer: But who was feels?

 

[Pizzabeak]

Why is this under psychology and neuroscience instead of MBTI? There's nothing inherently special or exclusive about "thinking" over feeing. You can live your life however you want with no consequences and still be successful. It's all the same and based on the same principles. Sure you might have marked differences in outlook, response, and life philosophy but if all this is to really be taken seriously, it all reaches the same conclusion. There aren't that many that can be reached. All the "functions" are always there in differentiated form. People have bad things happen to them and has it as an excuse to justify their interpretation of type theory. So you had a run in with someone and typed them, and use that as a basis for what those people must be like.
It's none of them. So you read the Psychological Types. Jung isn't really that hard to decipher but congrats. A thinker or a feeler could be shy. People with high imagination enter the soft fields and politics. People with a higher sense of rationality could become scientists. So what's a thinking function then? It's just about ideas rather than people. But t all gets applied to quickly, and you have ideas that could benefit humanity for example, or something applied to the feeling or other functions and vice versa. Keep your identity crisis under the table.
Butt hurt souls could have feelers and S people thinking they're badass and "N", or a thinker heavily introverted. That was cool for a while because you couldn't get in. Must be what Jung meant when he said type is not static. Read more Jung obv.

 

[havic]

Feeling is similar to sensing, more playful less shrewd.

Feeling is to evade the ambiguity of problems by resorting to the core functions of the mind (aesthetics, morality, empathy). This doesn't suggest that feelers lack in brain power, but feelers aren't very methodical. Given any problem, a thinker could carve a crystal-clear path from A to B, but a feeler would tinker until a solution unfolds.

Note that feeling is phonetically the same as "feeble", e.g. effete, weak or exposed.

 

[Hadoblado]

Why is this under psychology and neuroscience instead of MBTI? There's nothing inherently special or exclusive about "thinking" over feeing. You can live your life however you want with no consequences and still be successful. It's all the same and based on the same principles. Sure you might have marked differences in outlook, response, and life philosophy but if all this is to really be taken seriously, it all reaches the same conclusion. There aren't that many that can be reached. All the "functions" are always there in differentiated form. People have bad things happen to them and has it as an excuse to justify their interpretation of type theory. So you had a run in with someone and typed them, and use that as a basis for what those people must be like.
It's none of them. So you read the Psychological Types. Jung isn't really that hard to decipher but congrats. A thinker or a feeler could be shy. People with high imagination enter the soft fields and politics. People with a higher sense of rationality could become scientists. So what's a thinking function then? It's just about ideas rather than people. But t all gets applied to quickly, and you have ideas that could benefit humanity for example, or something applied to the feeling or other functions and vice versa. Keep your identity crisis under the table.
Butt hurt souls could have feelers and S people thinking they're badass and "N", or a thinker heavily introverted. That was cool for a while because you couldn't get in. Must be what Jung meant when he said type is not static. Read more Jung obv.

A valid concern. I guess I don't really have much investment in typology, so I approach (and encourage others to approach) the topic from a broader psychological perspective. This's some neat post-hoc rationalisation though :^)




(I deleted some shit-talk)

 

[QuickTwist]

@QT
I don't really get personal with my possessions. It's the loss of utility. When the bike was lost, I didn't *need* it right then, so it was meh. For the money, while I have no income, I'm living off savings and that $1000 will come into play only when those savings run out. For the bag, it had everything uni related, and my entire organisational keystone. I could have burned everything there not feeling anything, if I had replacements. Losing my organisational tools has pretty extensive ramifications too, suddenly I don't know when assignments are due, when I have appointments, who owes me what, what my lesser used passwords are etc. So I guess it represents my organised self at some abstract level, but realistically I think it's a more pragmatic concern.

Hmmm...

I wasn't trying to say you had a sentimental attachment to the actual things, just what they represent. Like school. That is, I imagine, a relatively large part of your life. As such I can see someone being upset, even if they are logical, that they don't have things having to do with that anymore.

 

[PmjPmj]

I really like this topic. As an ESFJ, the above post is completely foreign to me but I'd like to understand. I'd actually like to be a little more immune to or unaware of my emotions.

Can you elaborate on when being more aware of your emotions would help you make better decisions. I know this is simplistic, but it seems like purely logic based decisions would always be better.

Apologies Crystablle, I did intend to respond to this earlier. Life, etc.

Overall, I think that being better in touch with how I feel about things would've set me on a more direct path to where I'm at now. Instead I spent quite a while bouncing around from thing to thing, trying to figure out which direction I should head in. For somebody who is chiefly concerned about efficiency, my lack of being in touch with myself has probably bred a lot of inefficiency in my life. But, meh - I'm rapidly making up ground now I'm in my 30s.

There are other ways in which not being emotionally aware has impacted me, too.

I can't cite any specifics off the top of my head, but overall I haven't done myself any favours with people. It's like the old saying "If everyone around you is an asshole, maybe the asshole is you". Of course, I could never understand why most people around me were 'assholes' - I had never done anything intentional to upset people (in my mind) yet time and time again I would be on the receiving end of hostility or many a cold shoulder. By 24 I'd worked in something like 8 or 9 different work environments, somehow managing to make enemies in every single one. Quite surprising for somebody who historically has been able to pinpoint how somebody is feeling. I just failed to account for how I impacted others, I guess.

Had I been more aware that not everybody likes the truth, or being told how things are sans any kind of sugar-coating (which in my mind was needless fluff) then I'd probably have a much larger network of individuals with which to interact than I do now. Instead I have a long list of people who I've pissed off / think I'm a tremendous thundercunt.

It's all cool, mind; by 25 or so I'd figured it out, and these days I tend to sugarcoat everything. I've learned how to be quite charming and engaging.

That wasn't a great answer, was it? Ask me something more specific if you want. I'll think on it.