# Thinkers and Emotions/Feelings



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Obviously, they have them as much as everyone else does. Hopefully no-one is under the impression that they feel less than anyone else, or that they are more logical, which is a myth (T and F are both logical judging temperaments). I wanted to talk more about this, however. Do _feelings _really make them uncomfortable? Or is it just their lack of observing people the way Feelers do that makes them feel unprepared in various social situations? There seems to be a belief/notion around the site that Thinkers (particularly NTs) aren't emotionally intelligent, and are therefore...unapologetically short with people. It's turned into a sort of reputation that's unrealistic (smarter, sharper, tougher, unfeeling, etc...).

So, if Thinkers have feelings, yet Thinkers come off differently in demeanor than Feelers, what is happening with their feelings? Is it accurate to say that a Thinker's feelings are encompassed by efficiency than by socially relevant objects (kind words, norms, mannerisms, blah)? That would mean to say they simply respond to different objects than Feelers, not that they have fewer feelings. So, should they seem so intimidating? Are they misunderstood? Do they play it to their advantage? After all, they're not (necessarily) socio/psycho-pathic.

This question, perhaps, pertains _mostly _(though not strictly) to types that are Introverted and Thinking and have Fi, rather than Fe, to wit, ESTJ, ENTJ, INTJ, ISTJ.

Also, may we say the Enneatype 5 (and those with the 5 wing), on average, deals with asocial feelings the most frequently?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Are you asking how emotions are processed by the ego functions when they flood from the unconscious? If they flood through the inferior and I'm assuming that feeling for this person's inferior or MBTI tert function are undeveloped, then they must be stopped by the aux unless they want the whole ego to fall under its spell. e.g. Say it's an intense anger and aux Se is developed => channels anger through external sensory feedback by hitting the gym to blow off steam.

If it's a question of whether thinker dom/aux users have the same intensity + range of emotions than feelers, then it depends on the energetic level of the datum in the unconscious that would induce the emotion. e.g. Two people can look at the same movie scene and register completely different emotions (your example) with different intensities. As to what sort of contents trigger emotions depend much on what was internalized and deemed valuable by the person. 

e.g. Schindler's List did nothing for me despite the wonton death and Spielberg's plays on sentimentalism as the former is lost to Se desensitization from modern media culture and the latter a lack of Si nostalgia and frame of reference. Contrast this to say a certain opening scene in Watchmen depicting Vietnam protests with a girl placing a flower into the bayonet of a rifle. That scene hit a sensitive nerve for its idealism in the chaotic culture of the times, Ni symbolism of flower as peace during war, and the Ti-Se slow-mo realization that she along with the protestors were going to get shot. Oh, and movie music, heat of the moment deaths, comrades in arms, for some more examples.

What are asocial feelings exactly?


----------



## Unforgettable (Aug 3, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Obviously, they have them as much as everyone else does. Hopefully no-one is under the impression that they feel less than anyone else, or that they are more logical, which is a myth (T and F are both logical judging temperaments). I wanted to talk more about this, however. Do _feelings _really make them uncomfortable? Or is it just their lack of observing people the way Feelers do that makes them feel unprepared in various social situations? There seems to be a belief/notion around the site that Thinkers (particularly NTs) aren't emotionally intelligent, and are therefore...unapologetically short with people. It's turned into a sort of reputation that's unrealistic (smarter, sharper, tougher, unfeeling, etc...).
> 
> So, if Thinkers have feelings, yet Thinkers come off differently in demeanor than Feelers, what is happening with their feelings? Is it accurate to say that a Thinker's feelings are encompassed by efficiency than by socially relevant objects (kind words, norms, mannerisms, blah)? That would mean to say they simply respond to different objects than Feelers, not that they have fewer feelings. So, should they seem so intimidating? Are they misunderstood? Do they play it to their advantage? After all, they're not (necessarily) socio/psycho-pathic.
> 
> ...


well, as an INTJ i can tell that expressing emotions is usually really difficult for me . i can't and i do not really depend on emotions generally and especially when making decisions as i know that logic is much more reliable than emotions. being surrounded by a lot of emotional extroverts who are expressing their emotions freely and expecting me to do the same is so uncomfortable for me and makes me easily misunderstood by them. what i usually do with my emotions (which i might not respond to) is that i understand and analyze them , then i automatically hide them. but if they do not make sense or tend to be obstacles for me especially in my career , i will have to and do get rid of them or ignore them (no matter how strong they could be or how hard ignoring them is) . I always take control of my emotions. and even the closest people to me might not notice them easily. they are obvious when i express them in some extreme conditions ,such as if someone i love is dying or traveling abroad or very ill or something dangerous will happen. usually when i want to express my emotions -which rarely happens BTW- i translate them into actions instead of saying them out loud as that is more effective and comfortable for me.
mainly trying to manipulate me or my emotions especially by some (kind words, norms, mannerisms, blah) is totally and completely useless with me(i.e it never works).


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Are you asking how emotions are processed by the ego functions when they flood from the unconscious? If they flood through the inferior and I'm assuming that feeling for this person's inferior or MBTI tert function are undeveloped, then they must be stopped by the aux unless they want the whole ego to fall under its spell. e.g. Say it's an intense anger and aux Se is developed => channels anger through external sensory feedback by hitting the gym to blow off steam.
> 
> If it's a question of whether thinker dom/aux users have the same intensity + range of emotions than feelers, then it depends on the energetic level of the datum in the unconscious that would induce the emotion. e.g. Two people can look at the same movie scene and register completely different emotions (your example) with different intensities. As to what sort of contents trigger emotions depend much on what was internalized and deemed valuable by the person.
> 
> ...


 I'm discussing the object that users tend to feel that Feelers have more of and Thinkers less of. Whether we call it 'feelings,' 'emotions,' 'sentimentality,' and so on. I'm asking how a cognitive setup manages feelings to make Feelers and Thinkers appear different. Because, you see, many feel Thinkers are more rational because they seem to bypass emotions more easily, when really there's a rationality that comes with both societal (F) and systemic (T) approaches. Since cognitive functions aren't synonymous with emotions, I figure that our functions make us react to emotions differently from type to type. Basically, I'm trying to get a topic going on this to rid users of some bias between Feelers and Thinkers.

Between Feelers and Thinkers, Feelers may use emotions more aptly because the source of their logic (people) uses emotions very often as a form of communication, not because they are more emotional. That's what I want discussed.

I would assume that humans generally have the same range of emotions altogether (exceptions being those who suffer from certain conditions). I'm not quite talking about responses to stimuli as much as how the responses are perceived by others, giving them ideas of what being a Thinker or Feeler means.

A few questions though... 



> Are you asking how emotions are processed by the ego functions when they flood from the unconscious?


 Do emotions flood from the unconscious? The question may seem rudimentary, but I'm genuinely curious.



> Schindler's List did nothing for me despite the wonton death and Spielberg's plays on sentimentalism as the former is lost to Se desensitization from modern media culture and the latter a lack of Si nostalgia and frame of reference.


 Explain your Se desensitization, just so I understand. Is this a personal dilemma, or an ISTP factor?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Feeling types are probably more aware of their emotions and feelings and probably more comfortable operating from that perspective than thinking types, who probably view emotionalism and evaluations based on feeling judgments as being irrational. But the range of feeling expression of a Thinking type is probably more honest and pure. People with well differentiated feeling have a tendency to be somewhat plastic with their expression if they overdo it. Jung once called the Extraverted Feeling type the coldest person in the world at times and noted that the Introverted Feeling type may appear to not have any emotions at all. It comes from the fact that when the feeling function is well differentiated it has the potential to be calculated. Some might use the term 'fake' in its expression. 

In contrast the Feeling of a Thinking type is always raw. It sort jumps up and grabs them from behind and overwhelms them. It's always charged with emotion and always seemingly just on the verge of being out of control. Whenever you touch the feeling of a thinking type you're not sure if the person is going to snap at you or kiss you, or both, but you can be sure that it will be largely uncalculated in its expression. Von Franz used the analogy of a lioness who might lick you, knock you over, rub up next to you, or eat you. It just all depends on her mood and she's not being calculated or manipulative with her expression she just simply reacts to what is going on inside her, much like a dog or cat wags his tail when they are happy to see you (which is why pets are so endearing because we understand just how uncalculated and honest their behavior is. 

It's not that feeling types are never honest with their emotions just that because they have so much awareness and control of them they are rarely captured by them and thus their presentation can come off as cold or ritualistic or paint-by-numbers social graces like the person who just always says "i'm doing good and you?" even if she's just had the worst day ever. In contrast the thinking type in this situation might chew your head off over their bad day, but then perhaps be fine minutes later. They just are what they are in the moment.

To Jung emotions existed in what he called the endopsyche or the place where the functions actually direct information to, along with the subjective components of the functions, affects, invasions (involuntary flood of emotional material from the unconscious) and memories but only memories can really be consciously controlled or summoned.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Do emotions flood from the unconscious? The question may seem rudimentary, but I'm genuinely curious.


I'm treating basic emotions as a datum from the unconscious to which when it reaches a high enough energetic level, it becomes conscious as so must be processed by the ego functions. There's also an article on The 5 Levels of the Feeling Function: a Phenomenological Description which discusses how basic emotions develop into subtle shades as the feeling function is developed.



> Explain your Se desensitization, just so I understand. Is this a personal dilemma, or an ISTP factor?


It's a desensitization to death from watching violence in the popular media. Since Se is the primary information intake for ISTP, it preserves the realism of the sensory content during the internalization. After a while, sensory experience (especially visual) coupled with the reductionism of Ti pares down the experience of say "death" to the mere concept of "death". It's a jaded experience indeed which is one reason why out of ennui that I've shifted towards Ni as a point of resonance.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

This isn't too relevant to actual type (emotions, nooo...that's not what the F functions are, fundamentally), although what @_LiquidLight_ was getting at with inferior F types being unpredictable, that has some correlation to repressed feeling in general. The extent to which people emotionally explode is something that should largely be kept out of type, frankly, because emotions are a separate element from the F functions, which are completely rational and not that different from thinking really (synthetic reasoning, such as a lot of philosophical reasoning, is very often a form of "F" reasoning), and most emotional responses from people are heavily in the realm of complexes and stuff unrelated to type. The dominant F types do have a tendency to be very well controlled in emotional expression, but this isn't a guarantee, and this does not mean that they are truly actually emotionally stable individuals (I know plenty of pretty emotionally turbulent and moody F dominants, but I guess the difference between them and the inferior F types would be that the dominant Fs tend to be much more predictable, while the inferior F types tend to just snap without knowing readily that it's coming on). Emotions are in the realm of the enneagram, not MBTI type (the F functions are rational exactly because they detach from emotions to work). Emotions back all of the functions, so it might be much more telling to focus on what people get emotional about (T, F, S, or N) instead of trying to stuff emotions into the realm of the F function, which they have a lot less influence over than people think they do. Actually, emotions in most ways are largely more an S thing at the core (in expression and just literal sensation/feeling), so some of the most raw expressions of emotion I would venture to guess would come from the inferior S types, especially the inferior Se types.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Unforgettable said:


> well, as an INTJ i can tell that expressing emotions is usually really difficult for me . i can't and i do not really depend on emotions generally and especially when making decisions as i know that logic is much more reliable than emotions. being surrounded by a lot of emotional extroverts who are expressing their emotions freely and expecting me to do the same is so uncomfortable for me and makes me easily misunderstood by them.


 Is it the overall expression of emotions that is usually difficult, or is it expressing your emotions when you don't feel it is warranted? Those emotional Extroverts, for instance, express themselves freely, but only about certain things. Things that are related to societal relevance, not so much what a Thinker might express themselves freely about. It wouldn't be simple for me to express my emotions around those who took most of their gratification in pursuits that strayed far from people and what people do. So, I'm not surprised you're misunderstood by some Feelers. You must be able to express your emotions comfortably at some points, right?

Anyone that depends on emotions when making decisions is acting rather irrationally. I'm sure no type does it by default unless it's out of habit. I agree that logic is much more reliable, whether through F or T.



> i understand and analyze them , then i automatically hide them. but if they do not make sense or tend to be obstacles for me especially in my career , i will have to and do get rid of them or ignore them (no matter how strong they could be or how hard ignoring them is) . I always take control of my emotions. and even the closest people to me might not notice them easily. they are obvious when i express them in some extreme conditions ,such as if someone i love is dying or traveling abroad or very ill or something dangerous will happen. usually when i want to express my emotions -which rarely happens BTW- i translate them into actions instead of saying them out loud as that is more effective and comfortable for me.
> mainly trying to manipulate me or my emotions especially by some (kind words, norms, mannerisms, blah) is totally and completely useless with me(i.e it never works).


 I've read there are some Enneatypes with a motivation to do that (subjugate their emotions in favor of something more convenient [5, 1, 8 or these as wings from adjacent types, like 6w5]). You say it's necessary for you to hide them because they don't make sense or present career obstacles. Since every type uses Thinking and Feeling on some level, I could imagine how your tertiary Fi doesn't make observing the aforementioned social tools (kind words, norms, etc...) too comfortably done, but you do naturally do it - in the process of actualizing your ideas. Since Feeling is a function that isn't, in of itself, an emotion or emotional, but an observer of societal tools (such as emotions), ignoring a useful tool of Feeling would make it more difficult to effectively consider how you'd apply your insights.

Similarly, as an INFJ, if I ignored a tool of Thinking, a temperament that observes systemic tools such as functionability and effectivity, then my plans would basically self-destruct and backfire. Fi works similarly for you. Therefore, my questions are why do you see emotions as making no sense to you at times? Why do they interfere with your career? What influenced you to feel this way? Irrational uses of emotions are never good, but they have rational uses. Your use of emotions, when you're not ignoring them, may be fine.

Sorry if I'm getting too deep in it. My bro is a 6w5 and doesn't like talking about his feelings much, so I could understand if you don't want to disclose much.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, emotions in most ways are largely more an S thing at the core (in expression and just literal sensation/feeling), so some of the most raw expressions of emotion I would venture to guess would come from the inferior S types, especially the inferior Se types.


I'd definitely be interested the variations in physiological responses to different types of emotions across types. e.g. physical pain to the heart/chest area when a severe blow is dealt, various forms of euphoria from jubilation, a oneness with another individual or the world. Basically, the highest of highs and lowest of lows of physical intensity with respect to the S function.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Feeling types are probably more aware of their emotions and feelings and probably more comfortable operating from that perspective than thinking types, who probably view emotionalism and evaluations based on feeling judgments as being irrational.


 Bear with my need to debate, dude. lol

I don't believe, at least yet, that Feelers are more aware of their emotions than Thinkers or vice versa. Feelers are more comfortable operating from a perspective of observing people and what they do to understand one another. But we're all comfortable in operating with emotions since we humans do it all the time. Operating with emotions is like operating with cognitive functions. It's possible that Thinkers have difficulty seeing emotions as functionable because of its repute of being excessive and irrational, but emotion and feeling are exceedingly functionable. As functionable as laws and formulas. Because they are consistent (where it counts, not on a superficial level). Such is how Thinking and Feeling are temperaments at all. They both are forms of order that are capable of being observed. Neither are solely dependent on emotions. Rather, emotions are a useful tool of both. Emotions are a part of T and F order in that they are utilized.



> But the range of feeling expression of a Thinking type is probably more honest and pure. People with well differentiated feeling have a tendency to be somewhat plastic with their expression if they overdo it. Jung once called the Extraverted Feeling type the coldest person in the world at times and noted that the Introverted Feeling type may appear to not have any emotions at all. It comes from the fact that when the feeling function is well differentiated it has the potential to be calculated. Some might use the term 'fake' in its expression.


 Hm... That's quite an inductive statement there. I'm cautious to believe that. You're saying their range of feeling expression is more honest and pure, overall, in regard to their Feeling, or in regard to their feelings/emotions? I just feel as if the nature of one's emotions doesn't depend on one's cognitive functions. What does depend on one's functions is his/her approach to judging and perceiving. An ESTJ, for instance, I could see being more responsive according to what's going on, but it's not because of emotions or how they react to their emotions. It's because they observe Te, which is systemic order that is based on the functionability of external resources. An ESTJ's Si then builds off of that order. I believe that what their functions prioritize is what makes them austere. Pi types (Ni, Si doms) and Je types (Te, Fe doms) are inclined to be more demanding than Pe types (Se, Ne doms) and Ji types (Fi, Ti doms).

I agree with Jung's take on Extroverted/Introverted Feeling coming off those ways.




> *In contrast the Feeling of a Thinking type is always raw. It sort jumps up and grabs them from behind and overwhelms them. It's always charged with emotion and always seemingly just on the verge of being out of control. *Whenever you touch the feeling of a thinking type you're not sure if the person is going to snap at you or kiss you, or both, but you can be sure that it will be largely uncalculated in its expression. Von Franz used the analogy of a lioness who might lick you, knock you over, rub up next to you, or eat you. It just all depends on her mood and she's not being calculated or manipulative with her expression she just simply reacts to what is going on inside her, much like a dog or cat wags his tail when they are happy to see you (which is why pets are so endearing because we understand just how uncalculated and honest their behavior is.
> 
> It's not that feeling types are never honest with their emotions just that because they have so much awareness and control of them they are rarely captured by them and thus their presentation can come off as cold or ritualistic or paint-by-numbers social graces like the person who just always says "i'm doing good and you?" even if she's just had the worst day ever. In contrast the thinking type in this situation might chew your head off over their bad day, but then perhaps be fine minutes later. They just are what they are in the moment.


 Wait, emotions or Feeling? If you mean Feeling, then are you saying that Thinking does something similar for Feeling types? That could be misinterpreted. The rest of your paragraph seems to approach bipolarity. I believe Thinking types can assert as much self-control upon their emotions as anyone else. I feel it's more possible their emotions react to stimuli from a differing angle. Like a symbolism of humanity and good will may make a Feeler feel pleasant while a symbolism of success in planning and fundamentals may make a Thinker feel pleasant. I want to separate emotions from Feeling for the most part since they aren't the same thing.



> To Jung emotions existed in what he called the endopsyche or the place where the functions actually direct information to, along with the subjective components of the functions, affects, invasions (involuntary flood of emotional material from the unconscious) and memories but only memories can really be consciously controlled or summoned.


 This is interesting. I'll look into it.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This isn't too relevant to actual type (emotions, nooo...that's not what the F functions are, fundamentally), although what @_LiquidLight_ was getting at with inferior F types being unpredictable, that has some correlation to repressed feeling in general. The extent to which people emotionally explode is something that should largely be kept out of type, frankly, because emotions are a separate element from the F functions, which are completely rational and not that different from thinking really (synthetic reasoning, such as a lot of philosophical reasoning, is very often a form of "F" reasoning), and most emotional responses from people are heavily in the realm of complexes and stuff unrelated to type. The dominant F types do have a tendency to be very well controlled in emotional expression, but this isn't a guarantee, and this does not mean that they are truly actually emotionally stable individuals


 I concur.



> (I know plenty of pretty emotionally turbulent and moody F dominants, but I guess the difference between them and the inferior F types would be that the dominant Fs tend to be much more predictable, while the inferior F types tend to just snap without knowing readily that it's coming on).


 Do they truly just snap? I know how my INTJ dad can be, but they don't just...randomly go off and not recollect it building up, right? My dad can be dramatic and blow steam, but he probably has his reasons for it. Unless you're saying that it's unpredictable from the perspective of an uninformed (of Jungian/MBTI) Feeler, or random oblivious person.



> Emotions are in the realm of the enneagram, not MBTI type (the F functions are rational exactly because they detach from emotions to work). Emotions back all of the functions, so it might be much more telling to focus on what people get emotional about (T, F, S, or N) instead of trying to stuff emotions into the realm of the F function, which they have a lot less influence over than people think they do. Actually, emotions in most ways are largely more an S thing at the core (in expression and just literal sensation/feeling), so some of the most raw expressions of emotion I would venture to guess would come from the inferior S types, especially the inferior Se types.


 Also agreed, but emotions can be taken in as data as much as anything else, can they not? The tools that people use on social and functional levels can all make up what Feeling and Thinking observe for order/value, right? I want to see if I can confirm this. Feeling definitely isn't interchangeable with emotions/feelings, but it makes use of them, and Thinking seems to do, or be capable of doing, the same. Just for the fact that emotions can be utilized to contribute to a systemized whole based on T and/or F values. And without emotions, much of the systems we follow would be pointless or mean something totally, totally different than what we know today.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I should point out that all of my arguments come from a Jungian analytical perspective so it might inappropriate to try and relate my arguments back to MBTI because there are some fundamental differences there. Feeling isn't emotions themselves but rather a way of organizing and judging them. Literally, the feeling function's job is to evaluate our emotions, the only question is by which standard are they evaluated against? One that is externally derived or Fe or one that is internally held or Fi. Feeling function basically tells us whether or not we like something on the most primitive level.

Jung is quite clear in PT that the feeling of thinking types will be archaic which is his term for functioning on a very primitive basic level in terms of its adaptability to conscious life. He spends actually considerable time on the Thinking types with regard to just what it can look like for a person who has a poor ability to rationalize their emotional content can look like. Its that the person doesn't have the full range of emotions and feeling just that their ability to properly rationalize and judge them is poorly adapted. 



> ...But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character...
> ...Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated—it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favor of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.
> 
> The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated—they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer—all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand—in defense, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, cross-grained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse


For the introverted thinking type he writes


> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them.


In both cases he is talking about a Feeling function that is poorly adapted and thus the person's emotional content takes on something of a sinister or poor character. Because thinking stands in opposition to feeling, the thinking type will try, at all costs to repress their Feeling evaluations in favor of their more comfortable ideas of concept and logic. A thinking type may very well say "I'm not an emotional person" but he's really saying this to convince himself of this and further repress his Feeling function's ability to properly evaluate feeling-tones. But the more you repress something the more the shadow goes to war with you and so when emotions do erupt in these types without a well assimilated and functional Feeling function the only thing you will get will be a lot of raw, un-judged, unfiltered emotion, hence Von Franz's analogy about the lioness.


----------



## Unforgettable (Aug 3, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Is it the overall expression of emotions that is usually difficult, or is it expressing your emotions when you don't feel it is warranted? Those emotional Extroverts, for instance, express themselves freely, but only about certain things. Things that are related to societal relevance, not so much what a Thinker might express themselves freely about. It wouldn't be simple for me to express my emotions around those who took most of their gratification in pursuits that strayed far from people and what people do. So, I'm not surprised you're misunderstood by some Feelers. You must be able to express your emotions comfortably at some points, right?
> 
> Anyone that depends on emotions when making decisions is acting rather irrationally. I'm sure no type does it by default unless it's out of habit. I agree that logic is much more reliable, whether through F or T.
> 
> ...


ok , my enneagram type is 6. first of all, i don't hide my emotions when they don't make sense or represent career obstacles . i always hide them anyway (even if they do make sense or don't represent obstacles) as i don't usually feel comfortable enough to express them . but as i said i get rid of them or at least ignore them if they tend to be obstacles (i.e in this case i don't just hide them) .emotions sometimes make no sense for me when they come for no good reason. sometimes they interfere with my career when i have no time for them and that is when i have to get rid of them. it is my nature that influenced me to feel and be this way ,i do not do what "feels" right but i do what "is" right . i do what i am "supposed" to do, not what i "want" to do . that is who i am. i kinda like it and i do not feel bad about it.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Feeling doesn't mean emotions, or, particularly, emotional control. Feeling is a system of objective or subjective understanding of people.

Fe = people as an external system. It appears more subjective as it does things like put things into people-made categories, such as 'friend' or 'acquaintance'. It uses the objective systems that relate to people, such as 'a smile = happy', 'tears = sad' or something like that.

Fi = the self in relation to others. It uses the subjective system of people created by itself. It builds up knowledge of categories and places people into them, such as 'good and bad'. It's not good and bad by law, but by the principles that go with it ('murder is wrong because it hurts others, imagine how I'd feel if my friend was murdered').

Whereas Thinking is 'logic', based on systems that do not involve people directly, such as laws or philosophies.

Something like that, anyway. Debate it if you like.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm surprised how everyone here takes the functions seriously. Its just a theoretical construct without measurable data to back it up. To put this level of confidence in the theory before seeing actual quantifiable evidence.....its....I' trying to not call it dumb, but it is. No, Jung's work doesn't deliver any measured evidence that can be taken seriously, it is why the MBTI theory is so lacking and easily dismissed.

I'm sure the above is thinking on my part, however I consider myself a feeler for the simple reason that I'm well aware of what goes on in me and others feeling-wise and can use it. I think it is called having reasonably high EQ.

The whole F vs T debate and how things are processed differently as if we weren't the same species is strange.

Its true, there is a difference, but the question is: How do you measure and find what it is? Can you do that? If so I'll listen, if not then it remains something interesting to ponder but not something to assert.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens 

This whole thing Is not very convincing, maybe its a fun thou.....its also getting rather annoying to watch.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Its true, there is a difference, bot the question is: How do you measure and find what it is? Can you do that? If so I'll listen, if not then it remain something interesting to ponder but not something to assert.


This of course is the underlying problem with Myers-Briggs and similar typologies in general. Attempting to concretize those things that are inherently unquantifiable.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Re: OP

I wouldn't say that I'm really uncomfortable with my _own _emotions, but more when I'm put under the gun by others to express them in a way that they aren't really designed to be expressed. For example - I am irritated when others become antsy with my being "difficult to read" because it's placing an expectation to show _obvious _signs of emotion when in fact I may (or may not!) be actually feeling a certain way that is deeper - more complex - than just "happy," "angry," or "surprised." I don't feel uncomfortable changing the way I express my feeling because I'm uncomfortable with the feeling itself, but quite the opposite - because I'm comfortable with it the way it is. Why shouldn't I be licensed to feel the way I do? Who has the right to change how and when I express it? And, here's a big one, why does "everyone else feeling a certain way" about something necessitate that I feel the same?

To return to more conceptual concerns, I think the individualist nature of both introverted judging functions leads to these sorts of conclusions: "this is the way I ___ it." I used to agree with Beebe's claims that the puer/puella functions are "sporadic," but lately I've been thinking more that it's about dosage than randomness. I like a bit of ethical input here and there,and even advice with it now and then. After awhile, though, it's excessive and different modes of judgment seem more important. With Fe, it's either ignorance or a total pressure point - I can handle it when it leaves me alone, but I feel incredibly burdened when it directs attention onto me. Either in its expectations, or in its assumption that I am "with it" on an issue. I notice similar patterns with INFJ and Te - they're fine with it as long as it's not imposed on or expected of them. 

In a nutshell, the chickens always come home to the coop, and things always return to Te - with Fi, this can be at best a complementary functional sensation; whereas with Fe, it's at best something I just ignore. And, at worst, something I know I can't live up to because it is innately contrary to my default.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Here's my two cents:

If you ask me what I _feel_ about something, most times I will say "nothing", and that is true.

But I _do _have feelings. Things like movies and music can activate them to a marked, unusual intensity, such that I may cry while consuming whatever particular medium. I don't know if I have less or more feelings than anyone else, because I have only ever been me, but I can tell you that most times I feel either neutral or a bit anxious.

So, while I am not a psychopath void of all emotion, I am not _usually_ "emotional".

But, just as an atheist can be as or more moral than a believer, this general lack of noticeable feeling does not mean I am callous, cruel, robotic, or what have you. Although, I suppose I sometimes can seem to be any of those things.

I can deal in emotions and I can understand them, but I most often am a bit fearful/not confident. I will do my best to be nice to people I deal with, but if I have to put on my interested, polite, excited social persona I am worn out very quickly and would much rather stare at a wall by myself (I am dead serious here).

Does that make sense? I can be emotional, but I would say I'm not usually, and dealing in/with emotions is a point of anxiety for me (they wear me out when utilized directly, and for another thing I will often fear they'll overwhelm me if tapped into and drive me to severe distress somehow).


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

Generally speaking I don't suppress my emotions so much as I don't display them until I've had a chance to think about them. One of the most annoying things (especially on INTJf) is the people who act as though they don't have empathy or emotions. To me this mostly seems like posturing.



> Actually, emotions in most ways are largely more an S thing at the core (in expression and just literal sensation/feeling), so some of the most raw expressions of emotion I would venture to guess would come from the inferior S types, especially the inferior Se types.


I wouldn't be surprised, I find that when I'm taking part in some activity that takes a reasonable amount of concentration I tend to react quicker emotionally. Generally speaking, the emotion I display most often (not the one I _feel _most often) is irritation or fiery rage.


----------



## Randroth (Nov 25, 2010)

From Lenore Thompson:



> Neuroscience has shown us that no individual makes choices apart from a clear-cut sense of emotional value. People who have brain damage that's severed the neurological connections normally made between emotion and reason don't become focused and unemotional like Vulcans. They become upset and confused, utterly trapped by environmental conditions, unable to make a decision of their own.
> 
> Moreover, if types who prefer Intuition and Thinking had no emotional awareness, they wouldn't get embarrassed or ashamed; they wouldn't register disgust or react angrily to violations of justice or property. They'd have no loyalty to others; they'd lie easily when the truth got in the way of meeting a rational goal. None of this is true of any type. Emotions are fundamentally human, not the prerogative of one function or another.
> 
> ...


----------

