How do you feel emotions?

[sagewolf]

I don't watch horror movies. They just... don't scare me at all. Since that's the point, I don't bother watching them.

I have very little fear, but every now and then I'll just be, I don't know, walking down the street, or down the hall, and I'll get a surge of adrenaline-- I'll be scared out of my wits and want to sprint madly for it. Away from nothing. Well, maybe a speck of dust or something. Dear God, it might land in my eye. Or make me sneeze! GASP! RUN! My brain is so stupid sometimes.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I gravitate to certain types of horror movies, The Grunge 1&2, The Ring 1&2, Saw 1 but not the sequels, the HellRaiser series; most likely because the horror in them is subtle. It is not in-your-face blood and guts. Constantine is another which comes to mind and others of similar vein. I think it is because the fear depicted in these films is a fear which is detached from something physically recognisable. It infects like a disease or a virus.

I can be affected by movies with strong emotional content, but find myself 'embarrased' by it and cannot understand why they should affect me. If I am with others when this occurs, I am quite self-conscious of my reaction to the movie and do not want to show the emotion. I tend to avoid such movies or watch them when alone.

I have been told a number of times that I seem to walk around with 'armour' on, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get to know me. What I see in myself is a detachment, like being an observer to a situation involving overt emotion. Even in close relationships, there is a part of me which stands aloof or distant, never being involved, merely observing and assessing. I have never been able to understand why this is so in me. There are times when I would want to become closer, but it is like a barrier or a 'part' within forbids me from such close contact, fears a depth of contact. Leaving such situations is a sense of relief.
I can infuse my writing with emotion, but I have great difficulty in expressing it in the actual world.

Dread and anxiety always arise concerning social situations. I detest small talk and gossip and I know that these permeate social contact. I fear the off-chance of saying something socially inept or insulting someone unintentionally. I find I use humour to aleviate this somewhat. If I have to be in a social situation, I will invariably find myself on the sidelines detached and observing rather than interacting. Or, I will select one or two people to converse with. though if these people leave to socialize, I am left with the feeling of being 'exposed' and will seek the sidelines or somewhere remote from the general gathering.

There is more than once that I have written something as a reply to a thread on this Forum and have erased it because I am not sure of the emotional reaction of others to it. A fear of offending someone, possibly, or a fear of how it will be received? I don't know or I can't fathom why. I constantly re-read my replies and edit them for content and grammar/spelling.
Also, this is why I do not pursue publishing my writing, which is where my emotional factor is most exposed. Rejection anxiety is very prominent here.
My emotional component has always mystified and confused me, yet I find it extremely difficult to explore for reasons why it is how it is.

 

[Jennywocky]

... What I see in myself is a detachment, like being an observer to a situation involving overt emotion. Even in close relationships, there is a part of me which stands aloof or distant, never being involved, merely observing and assessing. I have never been able to understand why this is so in me.

Definitely there is a "Doctor Manhattan" -ish sense of being an observer that is very INTP-ish.

I used to experience (when I was younger) what you describe here. Eventually I got to a place where I could express emotions. In the past number of months, I've actually even been able to cry freely and not feel embarrassed by it.

But this was funny: The other night at a social gathering at a public restaurant for dinner, I was having a private discussion with another friend, and she said something about a relationship in my life I've been so broken up about, and out of the blue I just started crying at the table... actually sobbing about it with my head hanging down. (Thank god for long hair.)

That part is relatively new.

But I'm still me, and detached: The whole time I was crying, there was a very cold very neutral very unemotional observer in my head watching my friend and everyone else around the table, and I was reading her responses and reactions in real-time and evaluating what she was doing and why. I was both experiencing my feelings as well as observing them. (I even remember thinking, "How interesting -- [my friend]'s not sure what to DO." My tears made her uncomfortable; she tried to console me eventually; but it was so obvious how unsure she was of how to handle it.)

I don't know if that's sad or if just as hilarious as all-get-out.

There are times when I would want to become closer, but it is like a barrier or a 'part' within forbids me from such close contact, fears a depth of contact. Leaving such situations is a sense of relief.

That's the part I don't as much identify with. I have this strong compulsion to connect, I badly want to connect with people. I guess at some level I do fear the connection and found myself voiceless when I was younger; but now I'm more frustrated because I just can't connect as deeply as I want, even when I connect deeply.

...I fear the off-chance of saying something socially inept or insulting someone unintentionally. I find I use humour to aleviate this somewhat. If I have to be in a social situation, I will invariably find myself on the sidelines detached and observing rather than interacting. Or, I will select one or two people to converse with. though if these people leave to socialize, I am left with the feeling of being 'exposed' and will seek the sidelines or somewhere remote from the general gathering.

That makes sense.

Social banter has a lot of potential pitfalls, and it's hard to know how to word things in a way that might avoid ruffling SOMEONE'S feathers. The number of people involved also geometrically increases the complexity of managing other people's responses and avoiding problems. It's exhausting to have to talk to someone and have fun, all while thinking about who you might offend and in what way.

Once I got more confident in my ability to cope with social interactions, and I also stopped trying to avoid conflicts (and trusted that other people who pick up the slack and either drop unimportant conflicts or else maturely approach me if they had real issues), it got a lot easier.

There is more than once that I have written something as a reply to a thread on this Forum and have erased it because I am not sure of the emotional reaction of others to it. A fear of offending someone, possibly, or a fear of how it will be received? I don't know or I can't fathom why. I constantly re-read my replies and edit them for content and grammar/spelling.

:hug:

Sigh. Been there. Done that. It's hard, isn't it?

Nowadays I'm much more daring and just say things. But I still get neurotic afterwards. I'll probably feel neurotic even about my comments here... but I'll let them ride. Because I know I have to, if I want to connect. It's hard.

 

[eudemonia]

I haven't got time to do this really but.....just a quick post!

I'm reading Steven Reiss, The Normal Personality. His thesis is that personality derives from a mixture of 16 basic motives and that psycho-dynamic theory, which de-normalises many common behavioural and emotional problems, is wrong in this respect. A lot of our issues derive from not understanding and finding an outlet for our normal motivational profiles.

The 16 profiles are: the desire for
acceptance , the desire to avoid criticism and rejection
curiosity, the desire for cognition
eating, the desire for food
honour, the desire to behave morally
family, the desire to raise ones own children
idealism, the desire for social justice
independence, the desire for self reliance
order, the desire for structure
physical activity, the desire to move one's muscles
power, the desire for influence or will
romance, the desire for sex
saving , the desire to collect
social contact, the desire for friendship
status, the desire for prestige
tranquility, the desire for inner peace (by which he means avoidance of anxiety)
vengeance, the desire to get even.

The reason I mention this is that he describes Sir Isaac Newton in a way that reminded me of your post.

Isaac Newton (/type: thinker)
strong needs for acceptance and curiosity
weak needs for family, romance, social contact
average everything else.
Newton spent much of his life by himself, lived alone at Cambridge, worked alone, had no close friends, did not date women. Never married. And also, this surprised me, didn't publish much. He kept his ideas to himself and when asked why said it was because he couldn't bear criticism.

I don't think that Reiss has it all right and there are things I disagree with but I suppose the questions he would ask are;

to what extent is this 'barrier' or distance something you deeply desire to overcome. To what extent is it something that you think you should overcome in order to be more acceptable in other people's eyes?

That is an interesting question. In some respects I would like to be more socially at ease but in other respects I realise that this is an intrinsic aspect of my personality and I love the flip side of it - the tendency to get involved in deeper conversations. Last night, at a party, for example I left early because I was bored. But I happened to say something that prompted someone to approach me and have an intense conversation which she wants to carry on. On the one hand I am very boring in social situations, on the other hand some people are attracted to the 'silence' and the few things I do say.

so would I really like to be more socially at ease? Yes, if I could keep all the other parts of me. No if I had to give them up. I guess, some of these things are just 'skills' that you have to develop by hard and embarrassing practice, just like Jenny said. If I don't try them out, I don't get better at them, But sometimes I just can't be bothered!

The big question though is to what extent is your detachment, the natural you, which you are at ease with; and to what extent is it something that is really inhibiting your enjoyment of life? I get the impression of the latter but I am not quite sure.

Oh, and I never edit my stuff, I have extremely low needs for social acceptance. Which is why I will never be successful at anything - I can't be bothered to please or influence people.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Isaac Newton (/type: thinker)
strong needs for acceptance and curiosity
weak needs for family, romance, social contact
average everything else.
Newton spent much of his life by himself, lived alone at Cambridge, worked alone, had no close friends, did not date women. Never married. And also, this surprised me, didn't publish much. He kept his ideas to himself and when asked why said it was because he couldn't bear criticism.

just to clarify about Newton, he was a bitter asshole and was quite notorious for having feuds with other people and was (i think) the first scientist to be knighted and was president of the royal society. after failing to force someone to give up their work on astronomy, he systematically deleted the guys name from all the copies of Newtons own work "Principia Mathematica". during a dispute with another guy about who created calculus first, Newton, abusing his power, would write articles in his own defense and publish them under other peoples names, and appointed his own friends to investigate the matter, although he ended up writing their report for them and just had them publish it, officially accusing the other guy of plagiarism. Newton said later, after the guy died, that he took great satisfaction in breaking his soul.

on topic- i guess i feel emotions like what many INTP's say: detached and with a bit of curiosity. especially depression. when i start feeling depressed, i often analyze why it is that i feel depressed. whats funny is that even if i think i understand why, it still doesn't really help. i have an insatiable need to understand things, even if i know it will do nothing for me or do nothing to help me feel better.

observer is a good description of myself in social situations. i can't stand family functions, because at least if i go to a party (which i've only done i think 3 times my entire life) i have the anonymity, so i can just sit back and watch. at family functions, even though i know the people, i really don't feel that much more comfortable around them but they all still want to talk to me.

 

[Fleur]

I think I`m more emotionally blunt than I was before. Sometimes I wonder if this will continue until it will reach certain point, where I`m going to lose everything that has left. Perhaps to not feel is easier.

If I think, I can`t imagine myself showing my emotions to everybody without previous consideration to determine if there`s any point of doing it. Sometimes I`m afraid of people using my feelings against me.

Almost of the times, when I`ve cried, were connected to impassable irritation or extremely strong disillusion. I can remember only two times when I cried out of real empathy. And both times it was compassion to animals, not people.

Social situations? People for some reason avoid to start conversation with me, at least if it`s not necessary. And I`m fine with it because I don`t like to talk anyway. If I tell somebody this, they`re always being surprised, not understanding how one human being can hate speaking. One guy once said that I`m "talking only to few favoured people".

Laughting? Sometimes I`m laughting when everybody else is crying or being terrified... and in other inappropriate moments. It`s too funny to see how everybody is taking something, in my opinion, frivolous as seriously as their lifes were depended on it.

Fear? I have my own algorithm how to act when I hear strange noises.

• Stop and try to find a coherent explanation.
• (if explanation found) Continue my way/to do what I`ve started.
• (if explanation not found) Wait for noise.
• (if noise doesn`t repeat) Continue my way/to do what I`ve started.
• (if noise repeats) Listen to it and try to find a coherent explanation.
• (if explanation found) Continue my way/to do what I`ve started.
• (if explanation not found) Consider the noise`s type.
• (if noise: normal) Continue my way/to do what I`ve started.
• (if noise:weird) ....Run.

My mother`s asserting that I`m always angry, but I`m not. I just feel bit annoyed when people are being loud around me, and it`s not my fault, that they`re acting like this in 98,55 percent of events. Besides, wrath is aimed against something that you care about, but... I feel indifferent about most of things I have to face everyday. Right now, there`s nothing worth my wrath.

 

[eudemonia]

just to clarify about Newton, he was a bitter asshole and was quite notorious for having feuds with other people and was (i think) the first scientist to be knighted and was president of the royal society. after failing to force someone to give up their work on astronomy, he systematically deleted the guys name from all the copies of Newtons own work "Principia Mathematica". during a dispute with another guy about who created calculus first, Newton, abusing his power, would write articles in his own defense and publish them under other peoples names, and appointed his own friends to investigate the matter, although he ended up writing their report for them and just had them publish it, officially accusing the other guy of plagiarism. Newton said later, after the guy died, that he took great satisfaction in breaking his soul.

I guess Reiss left out the extreme, if not psychopathic, desire for status.

Its still an interesting way of looking at personality. You identify what you are high or low in (the rest has a neutral effect).

so INTPs (no quips PLEASE) might be
strong on curiosity, independence
low on social contact, possibly family, possibly status and possibly physical activity

Where we seem to differ is on the need for acceptance - the desire to avoid criticism or rejection.

Also, it's all very well being low on social contact, but as this forum proves, we all need some form of social contact. Its about quality not quantity. If you can't get that quality, then I guess that's where it starts to go wrong. We have to come out of our shells in order to attract that quality - where do we find it, how, how can I signal my openness to quality relationships (and disinterest in mediocre relationships) which invariably have to start at some degree of superficiality?

 

[Jennywocky]

Where we seem to differ is on the need for acceptance - the desire to avoid criticism or rejection.

I have definitely seen that variance in the INTP forums -- there are some who just don't seem to care at all about how others perceive them and there are those who actually care a great deal.

I don't know if the three enneagram variants (sx, so, and sp) might categorize those more neatly. It does seem driven by the need to connect, however; if one is Self-Preservationist and is content being relatively alone, they tend to not care about how people respond to their comments, whereas the Social variant and especially the Sexual variant would find it much more important... but since they're INTPs, they drag INTP-style issues into the relational realm.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I used to experience (when I was younger) what you describe here. Eventually I got to a place where I could express emotions. In the past number of months, I've actually even been able to cry freely and not feel embarrassed by it.

I don't think I could ever get to this point.
I've attempted to define my mode of detachment. I wouldn't describe it as cold or clinical, mechanical or even distant, I suppose. It's more like being slightly out-of-phase with the situation I happen to be in; like I'm not quite all there, much of me merely observing what is going on and inter-relating the various occurances; sort of watching the situation unfold and making predictions as to where various avenues may go. Occasionally, I become aware of this observing (observing my observing) and become self-conscious of what others may think.
If someone disturbs this frame of reference, I usually have to ask them to repeat their inquiry. If I notice someone approaching me, I know that certain 'defences' and attitudes are coming to the fore from within and I am I am attempting to predetermine their intentions.

But I'm still me, and detached: The whole time I was crying, there was a very cold very neutral very unemotional observer in my head watching my friend and everyone else around the table, and I was reading her responses and reactions in real-time and evaluating what she was doing and why. I was both experiencing my feelings as well as observing them.

Precisely. This 'observer within' is almost a constant with me. Perhaps it stems from childhood. I am knowledgable by way of accumulated information how one's early years may structure one's developement, though I have yet to see clearly any impact my parents would have had on this component of my psyche. I do remember being this way as a child, always 'separate' or slightly out-of-phase with my parents and siblings.

I don't know if that's sad or if just as hilarious as all-get-out.

I don't think it can be qualified.

I have this strong compulsion to connect, I badly want to connect with people. I guess at some level I do fear the connection and found myself voiceless when I was younger; but now I'm more frustrated because I just can't connect as deeply as I want, even when I connect deeply.

I feel (so to speak) the desire to connect, yet how to connect usually eludes me, and the deeper the desire to connect, such as in a relationship, the more prevalent the observer. Even during intimacy, I am aware of an aspect of me aware of what I am involved in.

Social banter has a lot of potential pitfalls, and it's hard to know how to word things in a way that might avoid ruffling SOMEONE'S feathers. The number of people involved also geometrically increases the complexity of managing other people's responses and avoiding problems. It's exhausting to have to talk to someone and have fun, all while thinking about who you might offend and in what way.

My distancing is relative to the number of people present.
My input into a conversation is also relative to the number of people.
There have been occasions when I have been a bit more relaxed with whatever conversation is occuring and some comment I have said, which I considered completely relevant, produces silence. The complexities which arise within me, as a result, are numerous and often contradictory to each other. Internal mayham insues and flight the favoured option.

Nowadays I'm much more daring and just say things. But I still get neurotic afterwards. I'll probably feel neurotic even about my comments here... but I'll let them ride. Because I know I have to, if I want to connect. It's hard.

Here on this Forum I have found myself being able to speak my mind with greater frequency. For this, I am immensely grateful. The 'neurotic' is still there, yet as you say, if one wants to connect, this has to be done.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I don't think I could ever get to this point.
I've attempted to define my mode of detachment. I wouldn't describe it as cold or clinical, mechanical or even distant, I suppose. It's more like being slightly out-of-phase with the situation I happen to be in; like I'm not quite all there, much of me merely observing what is going on and inter-relating the various occurances; sort of watching the situation unfold and making predictions as to where various avenues may go. Occasionally, I become aware of this observing (observing my observing) and become self-conscious of what others may think.
If someone disturbs this frame of reference, I usually have to ask them to repeat their inquiry. If I notice someone approaching me, I know that certain 'defences' and attitudes are coming to the fore from within and I am I am attempting to predetermine their intentions.

i could have said that word for word about myself. its sometimes like the physical me is just a player and the mental me is watching how i myself will react to certain situations so i can analyze it.

Precisely. This 'observer within' is almost a constant with me. Perhaps it stems from childhood. I am knowledgable by way of accumulated information how one's early years may structure one's developement, though I have yet to see clearly any impact my parents would have had on this component of my psyche. I do remember being this way as a child, always 'separate' or slightly out-of-phase with my parents and siblings.

because of this, i almost feel more at home sitting here staring at my computer monitor, talking to people on this forum then i do with my own family. i probably feel less detached talking to you find people then i do any other time.

I feel (so to speak) the desire to connect, yet how to connect usually eludes me, and the deeper the desire to connect, such as in a relationship, the more prevalent the observer. Even during intimacy, I am aware of an aspect of me aware of what I am involved in.

once again, i could have said the same thing. often times, if my sister has people over to the apartment and they're watching a movie, i sit in my room reading or whatever, but part of me thinks "i should go out there and join them" (even though i don't have that much in common with her plethora of friends, her being ESFJ and all) but part of me is like "you'd look like an idiot going out there and just sitting down. those people don't know you, why would you sit with them?" and ultimately, i decide to just stay by myself.

usually i'm perfectly fine just being by myself, this only happens sometimes (usually if they're watching something i'd like to watch)

My distancing is relative to the number of people present.
My input into a conversation is also relative to the number of people.
There have been occasions when I have been a bit more relaxed with whatever conversation is occuring and some comment I have said, which I considered completely relevant, produces silence. The complexities which arise within me, as a result, are numerous and often contradictory to each other. Internal mayham insues and flight the favoured option.

Here on this Forum I have found myself being able to speak my mind with greater frequency. For this, I am immensely grateful. The 'neurotic' is still there, yet as you say, if one wants to connect, this has to be done.

i don't even have anything to add to this. it sums up my thoughts perfectly.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Steven Reiss, The Normal Personality.

I have not read him, though the 16 motives are interesting. Perhaps something to add to my long and winding booklist.

to what extent is this 'barrier' or distance something you deeply desire to overcome.

Unanswerable at this time. I know it exists and I know also that it inhibits.

To what extent is it something that you think you should overcome in order to be more acceptable in other people's eyes?

It is not something I consider overcoming merely "to be more acceptable in other people's eyes", I actually cannot focus clearly why I should. There is merely a faint 'feeling' of needing to connect in some way or being a more functioning individual within Humanity.

In some respects I would like to be more socially at ease but in other respects I realise that this is an intrinsic aspect of my personality and I love the flip side of it - the tendency to get involved in deeper conversations.

I thrive on the deeper conversations. It is the preparation for journey to them which assails me.

so would I really like to be more socially at ease? Yes, if I could keep all the other parts of me. No if I had to give them up. I guess, some of these things are just 'skills' that you have to develop by hard and embarrassing practice, just like Jenny said.

The 'down-side', in my opinion. If in social situations, I get to a point where I ask myself why I am really here. Usually, it is because someone else I know has brought me here and not from my own volition.

If I don't try them out, I don't get better at them, But sometimes I just can't be bothered!

My usual decision.

The big question though is to what extent is your detachment, the natural you, which you are at ease with; and to what extent is it something that is really inhibiting your enjoyment of life? I get the impression of the latter but I am not quite sure.

Actually, not a question until I began hanging out around here.
I'm not sure it is inhibiting my enjoyment of life as socialising is not high on my priorty list, though I am part of Humanity.
I am more at ease with my detachment than with socialisation. No question there. I am relatively sure that this is natural for me as I have been this way since I can remember, yet, obviously, I am beginning to question the validity of this attitude.
I will not say that I am not emotional, as my personal writing demonstrates emotions, but my emotional component is just that, mostly internal.

Oh, and I never edit my stuff, I have extremely low needs for social acceptance. Which is why I will never be successful at anything - I can't be bothered to please or influence people.

It is not so much social acceptance than precision in what I wish to say, which it is why I would rather write about a subject, for I can choose my words carefully, than respond in a conversation without forethought.
I would be much more comfortable if social functions were scripted and I could edit them for my content.

 

[eudemonia]

I've attempted to define my mode of detachment. I wouldn't describe it as cold or clinical, mechanical or even distant, I suppose. It's more like being slightly out-of-phase with the situation I happen to be in; like I'm not quite all there, much of me merely observing what is going on and inter-relating the various occurances; sort of watching the situation unfold and making predictions as to where various avenues may go. Occasionally, I become aware of this observing (observing my observing) and become self-conscious of what others may think.

this illustrates what I was attempting to articulate before. To what extent is it OK to have this internal observer ie. natural to our type? Are we fretting over the fact that the dominant psychological culture, which is tuned into feeling and the feeling mode of relating, is denying our way of being? We are normal, but the culture of psychology, with its different values, is de-normalising us. We have absorbed their values but we do not need to.

often times, if my sister has people over to the apartment and they're watching a movie, i sit in my room reading or whatever, but part of me thinks "i should go out there and join them" (even though i don't have that much in common with her plethora of friends, her being ESFJ and all) but part of me is like "you'd look like an idiot going out there and just sitting down. those people don't know you, why would you sit with them?" and ultimately, i decide to just stay by myself.

Exactly, where do all these voices come from? They come from a dominant paradigm which says 'you should relate', 'you should extravert', 'you should join in'. If we were living in the 19th century, many of these norms would be regarded as strange.

The most important challenge is to identify 'your' voice. Do you want to join them? Would you be happier in yourself joining them? Are you happier just reading? I don't know the answer to these questions - but I do know that it's important to distinguish your voice from the plethora of societal 'extraverted feeling' voices trying to colonise our brains.

There have been occasions when I have been a bit more relaxed with whatever conversation is occuring and some comment I have said, which I considered completely relevant, produces silence. The complexities which arise within me, as a result, are numerous and often contradictory to each other. Internal mayham insues and flight the favoured option.

I've done this on so many occasions Normally it relates to politics or controversial subjects. I come away despairing of them. I guess this relates to Jenny's point - I really don't care what most people think of me. Those whose opinions I value (less than 10 people easily) know me and put up with me. What I often fail to do is assess the emotional impact of my words on others. I am so much better at this now though, simply because I have put myself in situations where I have had to practise. But there aren't that many people whose opinions I respect. Actually, I respect the opinions of people on this forum much more than I do those of people I interact with in RL.

I have definitely seen that variance in the INTP forums -- there are some who just don't seem to care at all about how others perceive them and there are those who actually care a great deal.

I don't know if the three enneagram variants (sx, so, and sp) might categorize those more neatly. It does seem driven by the need to connect, however; if one is Self-Preservationist and is content being relatively alone, they tend to not care about how people respond to their comments, whereas the Social variant and especially the Sexual variant would find it much more important... but since they're INTPs, they drag INTP-style issues into the relational realm.

I'm not that familiar with the enneagram, but its an interesting distinction that you have found on other forums. I wonder what the roots are - experiential, genetic or both. I guess this is a really important distinction.

EDIT: sorry cross posted with EB's above

 

[sagewolf]

@eudemonia:
Exactly, where do all these voices come from? They come from a dominant paradigm which says 'you should relate', 'you should extravert', 'you should join in'. If we were living in the 19th century, many of these norms would be regarded as strange.

I get those feelings too, sometimes, but I wouldn't if a bunch of people I barely knew were watching a movie with my sister. If a bunch of my friends were going to a party, and I knew it was going to be loud and filled with people, my desire to connect with my friends and spend time with them (these friends are really fun, for context) would war with my natural aversion to loud drunken parties filled with people. Sometimes I go, sometimes I don't. My friends are really good about accepting the fact that I don't like parties, but recently one told me there was a party and I had to go to that one at least. So maybe I'm more fun than I thought, and i do connect with them.

The question now is: Why did I miss that memo? Shouldn't I know if I'm connecting with people? Maybe we require more intellectual or deeper connection to feel it, and other people just feel like you connect if you have fun together.

@EloquentBohemian, regarding the writing: I think I must do that too: I've written so many stories about friends, even when I don't seem to express friendship to others. Might we be, as authors, projecting our emotions onto our characters and in so doing, making them safe to analyze and observe, since they're not ours (that's Chriss's emotion, not mine. That makes it safe for me to explore intellectually, because it can't affect me). Also, have you tried sites like fictionpress and critiquecircle? It might get you used to criticism/rejection, and it might be easier to take there, for the same reason that it's easier for us to talk to each other through this forum.

 

[severus]

Do extraverts need to work on their introversion? I think that just because some ignorant folk see me as "aloof" does not mean I need to socialize. Obviously, complete introversion is unhealthy, but I don't think there should be any pressure to

Edit: I cannot think of an appropriate ending for that last sentence, but you get the idea.

 

[sagewolf]

It's probably not healthy to live your life constantly socializing OR constantly being on your own. Extraverts and introverts both need to learn to accept the chaos of interpersonal dealings and the quiet of personal, private introspection. It would lead to Es understanding themselves (and by proxy, possibly others) more deeply, and Is being understood by and understanding others better. I don't feel pressured to go to something because someone tells me I should, but I know that I probably will enjoy it, if I can guarantee myself some quiet time before and afterwards. And don't go to another one in the near future. So I feel like I should go, although I don't specifically want to.

Either that last sentence IS finished, or I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[Agent Intellect]

humans are social animals. even introverts are still acting out a part in society. i've been reading up a bit on cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, and its made me wonder about how the different MBTI types fit into society.

what i've read of evolutionary psychology, humans are the biggest "information dependant" animals on earth. even back in the hunter gatherer times, humans depended on knowing where the good vegetation was, where the animals were and what seasons they were around, what kinds of animals and plants were dangerous. the need for information kept increasing as more innovations were made.

i've always thought that in human society, from a purely biological sense, INTP's were sort of like the "information batteries" or "information storage" in the group. our natural curiosity and need to know the truth and learn as much about as many different things as possible make INTP's not only a good storage of information.

i imagine the hunter gatherer INTP's (or even just NT's in general) were the ones that kept the information that the sensors (who were probably the ones that did the actual hunting and gathering) in their heads and used that information to come up with ideas about how to better hunt a certain type of animal. in todays society, NT's seem to be the one that come up with the ideas for how to build and run a society and have other people implement those ideas. NF's, from what i understand of them, seem to be kind of like the "social glue" that keeps society together.

what i've been trying to figure out, though, is what introversion does to help social animals like humans in an evolutionary sense.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

@EloquentBohemian, regarding the writing: I think I must do that too: I've written so many stories about friends, even when I don't seem to express friendship to others. Might we be, as authors, projecting our emotions onto our characters and in so doing, making them safe to analyze and observe, since they're not ours (that's Chriss's emotion, not mine. That makes it safe for me to explore intellectually, because it can't affect me).

I rarely write in other than the first person and what I write is prompted by a personal event, usually, or my reaction to an event which has impacted me personally. I write verse in contrast to prose. I find it difficult to sustain plot and character(s) over great lengths. Though there is narrative in much that I write, the narrative is subordinate to the expression of emotional content. Also, I find that I cannot analyse most of what I write.

Also, have you tried sites like fictionpress and critiquecircle? It might get you used to criticism/rejection, and it might be easier to take there, for the same reason that it's easier for us to talk to each other through this forum.

I have no problems with criticism or rejection of my work, per se, in fact, I have had work published in an anthology once (only because someone I respect pushed me) and have posted a few poems on forums before, as I have here because the poems have expressed what I wished to say better than any explanations or comments. It is more to the point that I know my work contains emotions which I cannot fathom and for the most part, do not know why I write them. I assume my reluctance is the exposure of those emotions I secrete from myself which I cannot fathom. The majority of my writing is a mystery to me.

An addendum to why I write verse instead of prose is that I cannot just sit down and write. A line or phrase will 'hit' me and from there, the poem emerges. I have attempted many times to seriously write so much each day, but to no avail.

It is possible that I utilize words as a shield of some sort, which could explain my penchant for editing, accuracy and vocabulary; therefore, exposing a shield composed of words which express that which I keep hidden from myself is tantamount to emotional suicide.

 

[sagewolf]

@Eloquent
An addendum to why I write verse instead of prose is that I cannot just sit down and write. A line or phrase will 'hit' me and from there, the poem emerges. I have attempted many times to seriously write so much each day, but to no avail.

Ah. I write like that sometimes, but more often the feeling is vague and I just write because I like to do it. Most of what I write lately is short stuff too: 3,000 words or less. Most of the ideas I run with are intellectual or hypothetical, though: I don't write for emotional expression the way you seem to. I don't write every day, either, but once I start a short story i keep at it until it's polished enough to show to people and not be ashamed.

It is possible that I utilize words as a shield of some sort, which could explain my penchant for editing, accuracy and vocabulary; therefore, exposing a shield composed of words which express that which I keep hidden from myself is tantamount to emotional suicide.

Yeah, that makes sense. If we concentrate on the grammar, or the logic of character and plot and circumstance, the we distance and shield ourselves from the emotions involved.

I have had work published in an anthology once (only because someone I respect pushed me)

More'n I've managed. Congrats.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

this illustrates what I was attempting to articulate before. To what extent is it OK to have this internal observer ie. natural to our type? Are we fretting over the fact that the dominant psychological culture, which is tuned into feeling and the feeling mode of relating, is denying our way of being? We are normal, but the culture of psychology, with its different values, is de-normalising us. We have absorbed their values but we do not need to.

Very well said. I consider my observer side 'normal' for me, as well as my need for solitude, reflection, amassing and structuring information.
The values prevalent in Western society seem alien to me. They do not have much substance, in my opinion.

The most important challenge is to identify 'your' voice. Do you want to join them? Would you be happier in yourself joining them? Are you happier just reading? I don't know the answer to these questions - but I do know that it's important to distinguish your voice from the plethora of societal 'extraverted feeling' voices trying to colonise our brains.

Identifying one's voice. An excellent phrase denoting what I am transiting presently. I will admit that I refrain from setting myself into situations where colonisation of my brain by extraverted feeeling types may occur.
(...I like that 'colonise' phrase also. I had a vision of little extraverted ants over-running my safe little nest and chewing on my books.)
On a side note, when asked 'How are you?', my usual reply is 'Breathing.'

I guess this relates to Jenny's point - I really don't care what most people think of me. Those whose opinions I value (less than 10 people easily) know me and put up with me. What I often fail to do is assess the emotional impact of my words on others.

Hmmm... That could be it. Others opinions do not bother me much. What I come away with is wondering if what I said actually communicated what I meant. Was I clear enough or too vague? Usually when this occurs, what I have said has set the conversation off on a 'left turn' into unchartered territory. The blank stares are saying 'Why would you go there?', yet, to me, this was a fairly logical turn to make.

Actually, I respect the opinions of people on this forum much more than I do those of people I interact with in RL.

I resemble that remark.

 

[sagewolf]

Very well said. I consider my observer side 'normal' for me, as well as my need for solitude, reflection, amassing and structuring information.
The values prevalent in Western society seem alien to me. They do not have much substance, in my opinion.

Technically, 'normality' is what is culturally accepted/endorsed, or what is more prevalent in society. I would say my observer-ness is 'natural' for me: it is my usual and most comfortable state of being. I'm not normal. I don't give a damn, either. I agree with you on the values: cultural acceptance and social standing? "Oh look, I have 500 Facebook friends and a Porsche. I must be great."

...Actually I think I have little other than contempt for that.

...I like that 'colonise' phrase also. I had a vision of little extraverted ants over-running my safe little nest and chewing on my books.)
On a side note, when asked 'How are you?', my usual reply is 'Breathing.'

lol.

 

[Fedayeen]

I agree with you as well. I have no illogical fears. The only one I had was my fear of spiders because of this childhood incident. How ever a yeas ago when i started contemplating the idea of fear I realized that my arachnophobia was irrational and quickly convinced myself to stop.. This is why scary movies can't really effect me unless they have a logical scientific possibility of coming true. For example "The Ring" never scared me because the idea that a ghost would haunt a videotape and kill anyone who watched it after 7 days is silly and scientifically impossible. However "Signs" scared me horribly because scientifically the possibility of other intelligent life on other planets is very high. I am actually convinced that other life exists. In addition I am no optimist to believe that it will be a peaceful species. So because the scenario in Signs is possible it has the power to scare me. Of course I quickly convince my self that there is no point in worrying because there's nothing I could do about it anyways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else feel as if their emotions are not exactly real? For example when i get mad or sad i can usually sit down and distract myself pretty easily and make the feeling go away. Anything that is so easily changed cannot possible be real can it?

I noticed something similar to your fear of spiders. I don't know if I would call it a fear or not, but when I see a needle go into skin I think about what that would be like to have something under your skin and it kind of creeps me out. Makes me shudder at the least, and the same thing with cutting open people (like on medical shows for example) Then I thought of it in a very logical way and I was completely fine. I just wish I could do that with my fear of heights. Unfortuneatly it has the opposite effect. I think of me falling hitting the ground shattering my bones, and maybe having bones protruding out of me.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

humans are social animals. even introverts are still acting out a part in society. i've been reading up a bit on cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, and its made me wonder about how the different MBTI types fit into society.

what i've read of evolutionary psychology, humans are the biggest "information dependant" animals on earth. even back in the hunter gatherer times, humans depended on knowing where the good vegetation was, where the animals were and what seasons they were around, what kinds of animals and plants were dangerous. the need for information kept increasing as more innovations were made.

i've always thought that in human society, from a purely biological sense, INTP's were sort of like the "information batteries" or "information storage" in the group. our natural curiosity and need to know the truth and learn as much about as many different things as possible make INTP's not only a good storage of information.

i imagine the hunter gatherer INTP's (or even just NT's in general) were the ones that kept the information that the sensors (who were probably the ones that did the actual hunting and gathering) in their heads and used that information to come up with ideas about how to better hunt a certain type of animal. in todays society, NT's seem to be the one that come up with the ideas for how to build and run a society and have other people implement those ideas. NF's, from what i understand of them, seem to be kind of like the "social glue" that keeps society together.

what i've been trying to figure out, though, is what introversion does to help social animals like humans in an evolutionary sense.

I like the thought experiment of MBTI types in hunter-gather times.

Here's a link that talks about introversion and extroversion
http://www.benziger.org/articles/physintroextra.php

Their theory is that introverts just naturally have a higher level of intellectual arousal. We can naturally bring things to mind and entertain ourselves- the extroverts have a desire to have more information, to be stimulated more because they naturally are focused on the outside world.

Both I and E have their place.

I'll agree that NFs are social glue- but I think that the Ss (SP/SJ or ST/SF, take your pick of how to split them up) can work together well just from having their shared experience of the world. NFs can help glue the Ss together (ENFJ and ENFP are great at that) but I think that a society only with Ss would hold together.

I think that the NFs help glue the NTs into society, especially onces that have difficulty being understood (like the INTs). Maybe I'm just being NT-centric.

 

[fullerene]

I definitely think SPs and SJs make more social glue than NFs do. I've spent a considerable amount of time talking to NFs and... well... they're deep--my favorite of all the temperments. NTs design systems and spit out ideas for making things better and learning how they work and think things through logically, while NFs do all the same things--just relating to people and what's important to them. How many of the world's problems would be solved if everyone empathized well with each other? Is the path our society going down really the best thing for the future? What can be done about world hunger and poverty and diseases? NTs tend to care for people by trying to fix the problem... NFs make people feel as good as they can until we do. They're as much "dreamers" as we are, and possibly more so, but the solutions that NTs and NFs make when they're in good communication with each other seem to be pretty powerful ones.

I think of NFs as problem solvers too, for all the problems that NTs tend to ignore. We're complimentary forces pushing society into the future. Much more than social glue, in my experience.

 

[Perseus]

Most of the Artisans and Guardians have emotions that are just "too heavy"! I can do light emotions without getting stressed out as my Thinking component is only 7 out of 12.

INTP's typically use intuitive cues and communciation between to INTPs is uncanny and can be shown by smallest things like an involuntary cough or a finger or wrist action. Is this feelings? Or just communication?

I am not sure I understand what feelings are?

 

[jamez345]

I think that this is way to general of a stereotype. Around people i know really well like my dad i show strong emotion. in fact i cry a lot. its just hard for me to hold it in because of my bipolar which causes heightened emotions and very quick emotion changes. For example one minute i could be an impassive figure - the next my fist could be in your face. I only have a split second to decide - is this a good decision? That is a very wrong stereotype.

 

[stercusaccidit]

This question has been bothering me for the past couple days. No matter how I phrase it, my manner of dealing with and expressing (and even feeling) emotions comes out sounding negative. I view the world from the dark void that is my mind (I view it like this-- as a dark void), and I analyze it. There's an ongoing rational narrative in my head no matter what's going on in the real world, but it isn't as COLD as it sounds. My mom told me that if I don't learn to express my emotions, I'll never form a loving relationship-- unless it's with another robot. But the voice is not inhuman or robotic either. It's often fascinated by what it sees; it thrives on intellectual stimulation or stimulation by music and art (quiet euphoria, I think it was called). It doesn't always understand and I don't always understand, and that's frustrating because it makes me feel somewhat powerless, and I hate to feel out of control. But I TRY to understand.

Sometimes I think even Feeling types don't REALLY understand. It's just that understanding the why and how and logic behind their emotions isn't as important to them. Maybe that's completely wrong. Just a thought.

Sometimes I have physiological reactions to emotions that I didn't even know were there-- I cry in private, but I don't know why it's happening, and I feel fine afterwards. I know the emotions must be there, but because I'm so focused on THINKING as opposed to FEELING, they aren't as strong, I guess. Or, they aren't as big of a deal. Not sure which. Sometimes I do explode, but it's usually frustration with someone being unfair or judgmental. In general I'm content or even happy. Even that I didn't realize until recently though -- about a month ago I woke up with the sudden epiphany that I'm happy and I have reasonably high self-esteem. Good for me.

I don't know if I'm explaining this properly... That's why this question has been bothering me so much. I don't know if I can explain. None of it feels like a bad thing. I have an ESFJ friend who thinks I'm emotionally idiotic. She even said once that she didn't think I even had emotions. Most people view me as perpetually good-natured, constantly finding something to laugh about even when it's inappropriate, lucky in that I don't stress easily, but just as emotionally distant as my silent, sit-in-a-corner-and-read, childhood "bitch" self. People don't typically come to me with any hardcore problems, and I wouldn't really know what to do if they did-- probably because when I have hardcore problems, I need to THINK it out. Maybe WRITE it out. But rarely TALK it out. And when someone DOES come to me-- my ESFJ friend, for example-- I find them to be incredibly dramatic. I get why they're upset, but they're sad when I would just be frustrated. They mope and whine when I would, if anything, rant and list out precisely and logically the reasons why the person who wronged me was incorrect in doing so (even if only to myself).

 

[sagewolf]

...You've explained it really well, actually.

Sometimes I have physiological reactions to emotions that I didn't even know were there-- I cry in private, but I don't know why it's happening, and I feel fine afterwards.

That's very true: I tend to take the crying as evidence that I must be sad, because people cry when they're sad. If I weren't crying, I would assume that I was mad at or frustrated with whoever upset me so badly, but if I'm crying, then I must actually be sad or hurt or something. But I wouldn't know if I wasn't crying.

Sometimes I think even Feeling types don't REALLY understand. It's just that understanding the why and how and logic behind their emotions isn't as important to them. Maybe that's completely wrong. Just a thought.

I wonder if to a Feeling type, the emotion isn't a truth in itself? Or maybe to them, the emotion is more malleable and understandable; I read in a profile somewhere that INTP's tend to shy away from trying to change their emotions when they recognise they have them, because we can't understand them and view them as being something not to be tampered with.

...I wonder how Fs view logic?

 

[Perseus]

INTPs are always being described as being detached from their emotions. This is such a vague statement. What exactly does it mean? Do you feel the emotions, know they are there, but they don't directly effect you that much? After giving it a lot of thought that is what it sounds like being detached from emotions would be.

I don't feel that. I feel an emptiness. A void. Like there is nothing there at all. When my grandma had a heart attack then a week later died instead of feeling sadness I felt emptiness. Like there was something I should be feeling but don't. When I'm with this one girl I feel an emptiness where there should be something else. When my basketball team won the league tournament where I should feel happy I felt emptiness. Is this being an INTP or is this something else?

Being like this isn't constant. There are times where I feel happy, I laugh at just about anything in these moods and act very oddly. But it doesn't seem real seems....wrong somehow.

I enjoy the emptiness I simply seek understanding. Is this being an INTP or is this something else entirely.

I have great difficulties. I use my intuition. It is not the only policy and has drawbacks. Using feelings is fraught with problems.

I gave her a diamond ring and she (ESFJ) sold it.

Some more at:
http://tinyurl.com/5hrxb7

 

[fullerene]

for what it's worth, an ESFJ I know doesn't think that emotions can be changed either... I asked her just because I was wondering the same thing. I stayed away from asking whether she thought she used logic, though, because people tend to get pissed off if you suggest that they don't think, or don't use logic. It's funny, though, because the most basic logic is all they really need to hear to feel better. "Why do you feel the way you do?" "And this is bothering you?" "Is there anything else that's also a problem?" Questions that are like... the most basic things, that you'd think anyone would immediately start to wonder about when they're upset... somehow they know all the answers to these things, and a little order is all they needed to feel better. So it's like... they don't think emotions can be changed, but they know everything they need to know to make them change. At least... that's what it looks like to me.

I dunno about the logic, though... and I'm not about to ask.

 

[sagewolf]

So basically, they don't feel the need to analyse their emotions to the same extent that we do? And because of that, they don't see them the same way as us-- they still see them as being unchangeable, but they don't see them as being arcane and incomprehensible, which is the way I can think of my emotions sometimes? God this is confusing.

Hmmm, good point-- I don't want to ask either, unless I didn't think the person I was talking to would take it personally. Or if I didn't like them and didn't care if I upset them, but I don't tend to know a lot about those people, so I wouldn't know if they were Fs.

 

[fullerene]

well its like... with ESFJs, our functions are opposite in strength... so Ti is their inferior. It's like if someone you knew just died, or you walked upon a recent car crash where the driver was thrown through the windshield and scattered across the street, and an Fe-dominant person were with you, and they just showed all sorts of external signs of disgust and sympathy and whatnot, while (from the outside) you just stood there watching it.... and then they turned and said "how are you not hurt, or disgusted (depending on death of someone or car crash) by this! That's sick!"

Inside you'd just be like... are you kidding? You're trying to tell me how I "should" feel and what I "should" show? I hardly ever show that much emotion, and I certainly can't control what I feel, so stop judging me for it! It just seems like a dangerous thing to pick on someone's inferior function like that, unless you're real close and they know that you're not trying to insult them for it, and know that you're just trying to learn about it or help them out or whatever. I think inferior functions are sensitive for everyone... but thinking/feeling I think are more sensitive than sensing/inuition, just because the culture knows them better.


oh but yes... that's how it does look to me, that they don't think they can change them, but they certainly understand them and their causes a hell of a lot better.

 

[sagewolf]

Ah. I see what you're saying now. Sooo.... Hmmm. I know an INFP, and I wonder if I might be able to get her to give me a good answer on this if I asked her nicely and included a link to our happy little conversation, just so she can see I'm not attacking her, I'm just in a super analytical Ti mode, encouraged by all my fellow freaks.

Of course, I want her to keep being my friend...

 

[EloquentBohemian]

@EloquentBohemian, regarding the writing: I think I must do that too: I've written so many stories about friends, even when I don't seem to express friendship to others. Might we be, as authors, projecting our emotions onto our characters and in so doing, making them safe to analyze and observe, since they're not ours (that's Chriss's emotion, not mine. That makes it safe for me to explore intellectually, because it can't affect me).

This squatted in my brain and festered ever since I wrote the reply to it a while back. This may be a bit disjointed, but let me see if I can get some coherent thought together.

I replied that I write in the first person, but in reality, the first person is the act of the writer creating a character out of one's self. I, the writer/narrator, choose to be a voyeur of myself. I, the Narrator, create a character who is Me (even though I do not know who Me is) whose purpose is to reveal hidden aspects of my emotional depths to myself in a narcissitic voyeuristic 'Dance of the Seven Veils'.
It is a Dominant/Submissive relationship where the Dominant is the character and I (the Narrator) am the Submissive, for I can make it stop at any time. The character, Me, wants nothing less than to stand naked before the Narrator in its horrible glory, but the Narrator is in control and can re-dress or even banish Me.

This character I call Me is going to deal only with certain parameters of emotion in this particular situation which I, the Narrator, have created. I can choose how Me will act in this situation and only expose myself (the Narrator) to a certain amount of my emotional morass which is a mystery to me (only going to undress some parts of the whole) and which I suppress.
This character, Me, may experience as much emotion as I am prepared to throw at Me, because now I am detached from Me and objective to what Me will experience.
Me is Punch in my own private Punch and Judy puppet show who I can laugh or cry or deny or be indifferent to because I (the Narrator) am not Me.

In publishing what the Narrator has written, I can reveal parts of my hidden and estranged emotional daemon to others without fear of direct confrontation. I can even deny, if I so choose, that this Me is an aspect of myself (the Narrator) if others point this out. I have created a detached safe avenue for investigating my suppressed emotions without fear of being overcome by them or allowing emotions which I don't wish to confront, or which I fear, to assail me.

This is the same for every creative work an INTP births, whether it be a poem, a painting, a musical score, a piece of jewelry; whatever is the INTP's creative outlet. There is no such thing as an 'objective work of art'. Every creative piece is subjective, and being subjective, it must contain an emotional element. We imbue a creative piece with an aspect of our emotional melieu and set it outside ourselves so that it may be an object of investigation detached from us. It can be analysed. It can be dissected. We can view its emotional content because it is not our emotional content anymore, it belongs to this 'other Me'.

I do not think the emotional aspect of an INTP is 'inferior', I think it is merely innocent and primal because it does not often 'go outside to play'. We keep it safely confined to a darkened quiet room and give it 'intellectual toys' to play with. But the 'toys' are insufficient. One does not give calculus to a small child, for the child cannot build castles from numbers. This child wanders its grey and shadowed confines, constantly seeking to escape and play with others; and when it does, when the window or door is flung suddenly open in times of extreme stress, the child runs screaming outside, fearful of the brilliant light of outside and the noise and confusion it is ill-equipped to handle.

In other cases, the Salome of one's emotions may rush through the opening, revealing her nakedness. She may appear as a Gorgon or a Goddess, but regardless, she is naked and one's self and others may not be able to deal with her brilliant Darkness.

The specific creative outlet, or outlets, which an INTP has are the ways in which the child of our emotions can play and our daemonic Salome may reveal herself. To cultivate one's creative aspects is to reveal one's emotions to one's self, and in consequence, to others.

 

[Jesin]

Beautifully written.

---

I do not think the emotional aspect of an INTP is 'inferior', I think it is merely innocent and primal because it does not often 'go outside to play'.

Yes, but "inferior" is still the technical term for it. (Maybe you already knew that?)

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Thanks. I do wax poetic at times.

Yes, but "inferior" is still the technical term for it. (Maybe you already knew that?)

Yup, but I think it suggests the way the Dominant and Auxilary terms view this one (though just my opinion), so I felt it described its position well and was an appropriate term to use.

 

[sagewolf]

This is the same for every creative work an INTP births, whether it be a poem, a painting, a musical score, a piece of jewelry; whatever is the INTP's creative outlet. There is no such thing as an 'objective work of art'. Every creative piece is subjective, and being subjective, it must contain an emotional element. We imbue a creative piece with an aspect of our emotional melieu and set it outside ourselves so that it may be an object of investigation detached from us. It can be analysed. It can be dissected. We can view its emotional content because it is not our emotional content anymore, it belongs to this 'other Me'.

That makes some sense, but I don't usually feel as if I'm revealing myself emotionally when I write or when I draw. There have been stories that I remember putting emotion into, and the themes of the pieces certainly speak to me emotionally, so i suppose it might be coming out subconsciously in my writing, but I really don't think it's coming out in my drawings, since they're so based around a stylised depiction of reality (I want to go into animation or comics, so that's what I'm working towards in my art, mostly). That requires more thought, as do colour theory and the properties of form, using negative space, etc. Drawing for me is a very analytical process.

I just thought of this today, though: when I was a kid and I joined the band in my elementary school, I picked not the flute, or the violin, or the clarinet, or any of the girl instruments my mom tried to get me to pick. I picked the trumpet; the big, heavy trumpet, against her advice. Now I'm beginning to wonder-- NT's are apparently fiercely independent and autonomous, and I'm wondering now if picking a brass instrument wasn't a way of unconsciously expressing a feeling of pride in my own identity that I didn't know I felt. (Or a way of annoying my mom. She was never pushy, though.) The brass section of the orchestra is still my favorite precisely because it's so strong and clear and proud. Music is the artform that I think most of my emotion comes out in.

The INFP (Fi to our Ti and Te to our Fe) friend I mentioned didn't mind at all. She said that she does try to use logic, but it gets overwhelmed by her emotions easily in most situations, and that she normally has good self-control in this regard, but when she feels strongly it gets overwhelmed. (I hope she doesn't mind me saying this stuff, actually, but I know I mentioned the forum...)

I wonder if that's the Fi hiding away until something really engages it: I mean, how often do we actively show our Ti? There's now... and when I write English essays... and Math class. And that's all the examples I can think of.

I do not think the emotional aspect of an INTP is 'inferior', I think it is merely innocent and primal because it does not often 'go outside to play'.

But it's an Fe function: the secondary part of the Ne-Fe partnership we show the world most often. I read something in an INTP profile somewhere that said we avoid making snap decisions because our Ti needs time; if we're rushed, that's when the Fe takes over. But we think it's immature and unless the Ne backs it up, we tend to repress it. I agree with this intrepretation: many times when I feel an immediate reaction to something someone does, it's along the lines of 'punch his face in/ snap at him.' They're all things I know I'll regret later.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

@sagewolf:
When you draw, do you make aesthetic judgements? Aesthetic judgement contains an emotional element. Do you draw some line or group of lines because it 'feels right'?

Concerning trumpet: Which trumpet players do you listen to or inspire you? Miles? Chet Baker? Dizzy? (my 3 favourites) Wynton Marsalis? Maynard Ferguson?

 

[Artifice Orisit]

@sagewolf:
When you draw, do you make aesthetic judgements? Aesthetic judgement contains an emotional element. Do you draw some line or group of lines because it 'feels right'?

Just for the sake of argument,
When drawn concept designs and pesudo code structures I don't think I make any "aesthetic" discisions other than considering padding from page sides, everything else is due to my poor dexderity. But my point is weak considering everyone has drawn "art" at some time for the sheer fun of it and by definition art involves emotion.

 

[sagewolf]

When you draw, do you make aesthetic judgements? Aesthetic judgement contains an emotional element. Do you draw some line or group of lines because it 'feels right'?

That's how they go down sometimes, yeah. More often than not, though, I have to keep erasing and redrawing them until they look right. Sometimes this involves making a crude model out of my pencils and erasers so I can see the perspective and proportions better.

Art is an expression: I don't know that I agree it has to contain emotion. Art doesn't really need a definition: it's just an expression of what's inside us, and there's more than just emotions inside me.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I do not think the emotional aspect of an INTP is 'inferior', I think it is merely innocent and primal because it does not often 'go outside to play'. We keep it safely confined to a darkened quiet room and give it 'intellectual toys' to play with. But the 'toys' are insufficient. One does not give calculus to a small child, for the child cannot build castles from numbers. This child wanders its grey and shadowed confines, constantly seeking to escape and play with others; and when it does, when the window or door is flung suddenly open in times of extreme stress, the child runs screaming outside, fearful of the brilliant light of outside and the noise and confusion it is ill-equipped to handle.

In other cases, the Salome of one's emotions may rush through the opening, revealing her nakedness. She may appear as a Gorgon or a Goddess, but regardless, she is naked and one's self and others may not be able to deal with her brilliant Darkness.

I've been thinking about how to comment on this, but all I can think of is that it's elegant and correct. Very well done.

On a slight tangent, your discription of a darkness child seeking a playmate is truely creepy.
I wonder what other forms people here use to characterise their emotions?
Normally I see a dark twisted black wolf or something, crazed and hungry.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Thank you, Cognisant. I appreciate the comment very much.

On a slight tangent, your discription of a darkness child seeking a playmate is truely creepy.

When I look at aspects of the Unconscious, I try to create an image of what that aspect would look like, then visualize what it is doing, then create a 'story'.

hmmm... reading this, it seems sort of a weak explanation, but close, I think.

 

[loveofreason]

I agree. That whole post was so accurate, EB.

It was like reading an explanation of my own writing process, only I couldn't have explained it so well. And the piece about the emotion-child that Cognisant quoted above. So very true, except that I have also constructed for my emotional self a walled garden, and the child has access to this for as long as no other human is present. And as long as I'm not punishing it for something. There is sunlight and fragrance and beauty here. I have tried to make a 'safe' outside filled with the only emotionally nourishing presence I know - Nature.

Still... sometimes find the child scratching at the wall with a rock. Or throwing random things over. Remember once it made a little portal in the wall, so as to look out.

We agreed it was best to brick that up again, together.

 

[Zezon Vice]

Emotions...

Are we better off with them, or without them?
Ive found myself arguing both sides of this in several depths of the topic.
To start do you think having emotions is worth the negative sides?
Keeping in mind that if you didnt have them, you wouldnt miss them because you wouldnt care.

Also...what is it that defines an emotion as negative. Why do we prefer happiness over sadness? (in general) When upset i often found myself thinking about why our mind perceives emotions the way it does. I tried enjoying being upset which i found difficult to do for some time, but eventually i became used to the feelings and things felt normal. It was then that i became happier once more but in the same breath i felt like something wasnt right and i fell into a depressed state again. I personally think it was a false feeling that just passed. The point being, i wonder if it would be possible to reverse the emotional preferences of the typical human.

 

[loveofreason]

Re: Emotions...

There are several threads dealing with issues like this already. Shall probably merge your questions with one of those.

 

[Zezon Vice]

Re: Emotions...

There are several threads dealing with issues like this already. Shall probably merge your questions with one of those.

True and i am sorry if my questions were repetitive, but i have yet to see anything on either of these questions and now no one will look because they have already replied to this threat. If you believe my questions are repetitive then np. Not my choice anyway.

 

[fullerene]

sort of... people here are pretty good at keeping up with the posts, here... and everyone'll look at the new one if they notice a really old thread get bumped like that.

I don't have much to say, though... "what is it that defines an emotion as negative. Why do we prefer happiness over sadness?" has pretty much defined my last few years' worth of thought. I don't know whether we're better off with or without them--since we have them, there's no point in trying to get rid of them. It's like trying to breathe water... you'll just hurt yourself if you try. That's why I've spent my time trying to embrace them, rather than analyze them... to bring oneself into greater conformity with reality is probably a good thing, no? At any rate it doesn't seem worthwhile to me to deny it...

 

[didyouknow]

I only know how I feel when it's immensely strong. Like something amazingly good or atrociously bad happens to me and I'll know almost straight away how I feel. Otherwise I don't even 'realise' that I'm supposed to have something there. It's like a normal state of emptiness. I'm used to it.

Sometimes it's very weird when people ask me how I feel or how other people feel. I have to think and then guess depending on the situation. Often I guess wrong and then they stare at me or assume I wasn't listening to what they were saying.

Does that mean I'm analysing the probable emotions of people around me and attempting to replicate them when they expect me to?

 

[Da Blob]

I appear to be awakening a bunch of old threads but this is a good one.
Have any of you experienced a lover crying out in frustration, with tears, "Why can't I reach you" and you having no idea what (in my case) she was talking about. It has happened to me with both of my wives, and probably the main reason i quit trying, after a while, to find my other half. Have I always been "Unreachable"? Am I a member of the caste of the "Untouchables"?

The only emotion I was allowed to express as a child was anger, any other emotional expression was viewed as a weakness, a vulnerability and was the cause for severe discipline. I was brought up to associate emotional 'outbursts' with severe pain. Anger was acceptable though, as long as it did not result in aggressive behavior. I learned to convert all sorts of emotions into anger, especially the negative affects. I would get angry at myself for feeling, sad, compassionate, empathetic, remorseful, pity or frustration. After a while, the process of (e)motion failed to put me into motion at all, and I ceased to be motivated by emotions. This was viewed as a very good thing by the Captain, my father.

I eventually bought into his philosophy, decisions need to based on logic not temporary emotional states. Emotions can be easily manipulated by others, self control was a means of freedom, for "Free Men Govern Themselves' and are not governed by emotions like animals.

I believe that INTPs have always been highly valued, even to the point of creating them from scratch. However, there does seem to be a genetic component involved in my case, for on my father's side of the family, we are all cold and 'detached'. We only show affection to our pets and the occasional young child.
All I know is what we have in common is a useful, but not particularly enviable ability, to be objective. Maybe, it is a peculiar relationship between our Right brains and our Left brains, or some other neurological condition, but after a while it gets to be tiresome being the local Spock...

 

[Dissident]

The only emotion I was allowed to express as a child was anger, any other emotional expression was viewed as a weakness, a vulnerability and was the cause for severe discipline. I was brought up to associate emotional 'outbursts' with severe pain. Anger was acceptable though, as long as it did not result in aggressive behavior.

That sounds like a rationalization, I got the "you are insensitive" "cold" "nobody really knows who you are", etc. but I was always like this, because of that, emotions were even encouraged, but it had no effect.

 

[soloratii]

Sometimes it's very weird when people ask me how I feel or how other people feel. I have to think and then guess depending on the situation. Often I guess wrong and then they stare at me or assume I wasn't listening to what they were saying.

Does that mean I'm analysing the probable emotions of people around me and attempting to replicate them when they expect me to?

I have the same problem. For example, I remember that once, in grade school, it was my birthday, and in the morning two people brought me gifts (bags of new clothes, in fact, though I never really cared about new clothes). I was kind of overwhelmed, not sure how I should thank them, so I just tried to act gratefully surprised. Later, one of them told me that she had thought I would cry (out of joy). It made me feel very awkward, as I didn't want to offend her, so I just said, "oh."