# Cluelessness About The Operation of Emotions



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Again and again on PerC I see NTs say things that seem to suggest profound cluelessness about how emotions work. It's usually some variation of "that emotion is stupid/a waste of time," "people shouldn't feel this way," or "I just decide not to feel that."

Do human beings generally have enough control over their emotions to make any of these sensible? Emotional reactions happen fast and are largely automatic, instinctive. We can decide how to deal with them or whatever triggered them _after_ they've occurred, but we can't really stop them immediately or prevent feeling them spontaneously in the future. 

I wonder whether people confuse _distracting_ themselves (such that they are no longer consciously aware of their emotions) with actually ceasing to feel the emotion.

Emotions are information about how things affect us, information about attitudes of which we aren't necessarily consciously aware, attitudes that we may (wrongly) try to ignore. So they are useful, not "stupid," and outside of serious psychological problems and trauma, they don't usually take up the whole day or the whole consciousness, so they aren't a "waste of time." Perhaps instead of telling, I should ask: are *your* emotions typically so distracting that they prevent *you* from doing other things? Are you psychologically equipped to stop yourself from feeling anything beyond minor annoyance on the spot?

And saying that people shouldn't feel a certain way—such a pointless and judgey statement. Why shouldn't they? What harm does it cause? I guess it makes sense to someone who believes that people can just shut emotions off at will.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

I think as an NT I'm more inclined to stop and think "_is this emotion's response valid?_".

Say for example I see a shadow in an alley, walking at dawn. I get _scared_, so I'll evaluate the situation and chances are it's a cat.
A cat does not warrant a fight-or-flight emotion, so I dismiss the emotion at that point because it wasn't valid, keep walking.

What I'm trying to say is this: I can feel an emotion, but I don't have to act on it.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Eu_citzen said:


> I dismiss the emotion at that point because it wasn't valid, keep walking.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is this: I can feel an emotion, but I don't have to act on it.


Does being something worth acting on determine the "validity" of an emotion?


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)

No yeah I completely agree with this. 
Part of the reason is what exactly makes a type a certain type?
At what point does our internal processes become different enough to create MBTI judgments.
NTs might be more controlled by their emotions than they think.
So what makes an NT?


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

Nookie Monster said:


> Does being something worth acting on determine the "validity" of an emotion?


Define valid.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Panorama said:


> Define valid.


It was Eu's idea, not mine. The concept of emotional validity is meaningless to me.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

*There are useless emotions*
There are useful emotions
There are unpleasant emotions
There are enjoyable emotions
There are emotions that are timely
There are emotions that are untimely
There are emotions related to temperament
There are emotions related to mood
There are emotions related to serious problems (depression, certain mental illness)
There are emotions you foster with thinking (controllable unless neurotic?)
There are emotions that jump out: *warning!*
There are emotions that are 'motivational'

Why would anyone want to experience useless/unpleasant/untimely emotions IF they can be controlled?

I'm relatively good at controlling my emotions (but then I feel little anger/worry/guilt/shame naturally). I still experience useless emotions occasionally unfortunately (I'll have an anxiety attack _after_ an emergency situation is resolved -- very helpful...)

I'm more in touch with my thinking side (I prefer risk-calculation than fear). Being calm & positive generally is very important to me (I don't want to feel, spread or be around negativity). I've had experiences where I made a decision to simply be happy or told myself preemptively not to feel annoyed by X and then didn't feel annoyed once I came in contact with X. 

I don't like to be controlled emotionally (by manipulative or hurtful people) or catch 'emotional contagion' (people panicking or group-think of something untrue bc it feels whatever they want to feel), so I opt to control myself emotionally in such circumstances (where I can't walk away). To me this is integrity (choosing who/what I let in).

People are different. Emotions are complex, not all are enjoyable/useful, and they link into many other things. But yes, some people can control some of their emotions some of the time. Does that mean they should expect others to? Probably not. Presumably a person who could control a useless/negative emotion would already be doing so if that was an option.

Regarding it being NTs disregarding the value of emotions, while I've seen that myself, in my experience it's STs that are more stoic and have less tolerance for emotionality in others. If denying the value of emotions is one extreme, claiming all emotions have value and none can be controlled seems to be the other. Fortunately there is middle ground.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Emotion(s) are just sub-optimal or optimizing/pro-active reactions; with various degrees. I look at "emotions" in the way I look at humor. Observe a comedy club. Observe some specimens will laugh at a joke, other's will smirk, some will stare straight-faced, and think about it for a bit, then chuckle to themselves days later over it, then there are the few that just do not find it funny - then there are the few you can demonstrably tell are faking it. 

Somethings are just not funny to myself. This does not mean the joke was a waste of time to share; or I do not understand why it would be funny. Hell; that is funny to think about. I am just not laughing at it. Anyhow, it is known that both "_emotion/feelings/logic_" are improperly thrown around in the MBTI community by now, ironically - most commonly noticed among (NT), I just ignore it because of the prevalence/repetition of the error. You will be asking the same question(s) for decades on every generation; it is very evident they are incorrect. The source itself need(s) to be revised/tidied up for the general populace that are less skilled/knowledgeable in Typology, these terms and how to properly paraphrase original texts. I would not use Jung's originals to do that. This is why children(s) books of Bible's exist.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Dare said:


> I still experience useless emotions occasionally unfortunately (I'll have an anxiety attack _after_ an emergency situation is resolved -- very helpful...)


An anxiety attack is a sign that something is wrong _with you_, a sign you can then use to care for yourself. That's why it isn't useless. The external trigger may be gone, but that doesn't mean you are over it. Emotions don't come from nowhere, so obviously the situation wasn't fully resolved. Your mental state was part of the resolution.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Emotions are in most (but not all) cases a nuisance. I generally avoid people who are likely to respond in an emotional fashion. As for myself, I find it useful to acknowledge what I feel and why. At that point, I can put it aside and move on.



Eu_citzen said:


> I think as an NT I'm more inclined to stop and think "_is this emotion's response valid?_".
> 
> Say for example I see a shadow in an alley, walking at dawn. I get _scared_, so I'll evaluate the situation and chances are it's a cat.
> A cat does not warrant a fight-or-flight emotion, so I dismiss the emotion at that point because it wasn't valid, keep walking.
> ...


Funny enough, you give an example of where an emotional response is actually highly rational, unlike most times when people have emotional responses. What you describe is a survival mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. It could be a cat, or it could be a serial killer. People have a bad habit of rationalizing fears away when it is deleterious to do so.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Nookie Monster said:


> Again and again on PerC I see NTs say things that seem to suggest profound cluelessness about how emotions work. It's usually some variation of "that emotion is stupid/a waste of time," "people shouldn't feel this way," or "I just decide not to feel that."
> 
> Do human beings generally have enough control over their emotions to make any of these sensible? Emotional reactions happen fast and are largely automatic, instinctive. We can decide how to deal with them or whatever triggered them _after_ they've occurred, but we can't really stop them immediately or prevent feeling them spontaneously in the future.
> 
> I wonder whether people confuse _distracting_ themselves (such that they are no longer consciously aware of their emotions) with actually ceasing to feel the emotion.


First off, you have to group this in a better way, and NT is the wrong category. IxTP works, and IxTJ works, while the extraverted versions of at least the former typically are already more "feely" (or, genial, charming, whatever you want to call it).

From various conversations and personal experience: For Inf Fe, you probably get closest to all of your three statements, simply because feelings are the most distant there. In my opinion IxTJs are more on the "ignore" side, and we are more on the "genuinely nothing there" one. But either way, both could be claiming what you said. Yes, we not too seldom consider whatever feeling stupid/a waste of time, usually when the motivation behind it is considered, deemed irrelevant, and discarded. "People shouldn't feel this way" is the same thing, just projected on others -- considered, deemed irrelevant, and discarded. It's one of the ways T(i) can be really hurtful for F(i) types; I suppose most of us will have been there at some point.

And the last ... ehhh. Kinda. Sorta. Not really. Consider: You feel what you feel, true. But there's usually a reason, isn't there? If I come to the train station, and see the train leaving, I'm annoyed I because I just missed it. But there's hardly any point in being annoyed, because that changes nothing. So I stop caring about it, put it out of my mind ... which means the annoyance fades. Makes sense? There is _some_ amount of control. But not really like a steering wheel, more like pushing and prodding here and there and eventually, something somewhere changes course. Anything you can put out of your mind you get over, and the faster you can do that, the better you approximate "control" -- but the stronger the feeling, the worse it works: and here it's helpful that usually, our feelings aren't very strong. But in a strict sense, no, no one has direct control.


All that said, though, shouldn't you know this from yourself? I'm curious. How does it work for you?


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Nookie Monster said:


> An anxiety attack is a sign that something is wrong _with you_, a sign you can then use to care for yourself. That's why it isn't useless. The external trigger may be gone, but that doesn't mean you are over it. Emotions don't come from nowhere, so obviously the situation wasn't fully resolved. Your mental state was part of the resolution.


Withdrawing, if that's what you're recommending, is considered a maladaptive coping strategy in such circumstances.

Suggesting a full blown anxiety attack (shaking/hyperventilating etc) is helpful bc it's a "sign" (to go recover) ignores the obvious fact that there are more subtle signs that could indicate the same thing (feeling tired for example) while allowing the person to remain functional (as most people do -- not everyone experiences an anxiety attack after an emergency).

Emotions can come out of nowhere. I have a friend who has bad moods come over her inexplicably. People can feel 'generalized anxiety' (for seemingly no reason). 

The main point of my post was this: 1) There are useless emotions (worrying or shame for example) and 2. Some people can control some of their emotions some of the time.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

We are slaves to our weakest functions, especially to our inferior. 

This is why ISTP and INTP are so irrational. They just _look_ impersonal, but they are all about Fe. A guy like Kant spent his whole life trying to create a system to explain morality, because his inner, unconscious motivation was so Fe.

Lol to NTs being clueless about emotions. The worst slave is always the slave who doesn't notice how his master influences him.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Nookie Monster said:


> Does being something worth acting on determine the "validity" of an emotion?


Nope. Or maybe. Possibly? I suppose it is up to the individual to decide.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

PiT said:


> Emotions are in most (but not all) cases a nuisance. I generally avoid people who are likely to respond in an emotional fashion. As for myself, I find it useful to acknowledge what I feel and why. At that point, I can put it aside and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny enough, you give an example of where an emotional response is actually highly rational, unlike most times when people have emotional responses. What you describe is a survival mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. It could be a cat, or it could be a serial killer. People have a bad habit of rationalizing fears away when it is deleterious to do so.


Yes, that was kind of the idea. The situation and emotion is reasonable.
However, simply by assessing the situation before acting out (or not) on the emotion is what I define as rational.


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

Aiwass said:


> The worst slave is always the slave who doesn't notice how his master influences him.


Those who get hysterical over the smallest things are our true masters. Especially the pretty ones.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Northern Lights said:


> First off, you have to group this in a better way, and NT is the wrong category.


There is no "wrong category." The thread is based on personal observation, so whatever I've observed is the "right" way to put it.



> But there's hardly any point in being annoyed, because that changes nothing.


*No* emotion changes *any* external circumstances. If change is the standard by which you judge emotions, none of them will ever measure up. 

Let me turn this around on you: Your judging emotions as pointless changes nothing. You will still feel them, and you can handle them without making that judgment. So there's hardly any point in your judging them that way. What do you think?



> So I stop caring about it, put it out of my mind ... which means the annoyance fades. Makes sense? There is _some_ amount of control. But not really like a steering wheel, more like pushing and prodding here and there and eventually, something somewhere changes course. Anything you can put out of your mind you get over, and the faster you can do that, the better you approximate "control" -- but the stronger the feeling, the worse it works: and here it's helpful that usually, our feelings aren't very strong. But in a strict sense, no, no one has direct control.


Yes, it makes sense. Sounds like what I suggested in the OP: distraction rather than the direct manipulation of emotions implied by "I just decide not to feel that."



Dare said:


> Withdrawing, if that's what you're recommending, is considered a maladaptive coping strategy in such circumstances.


I didn't recommend anything at all. 



> Suggesting a full blown anxiety attack (shaking/hyperventilating etc) is helpful bc it's a "sign" (to go recover) ignores the obvious fact that there are more subtle signs that could indicate the same thing (feeling tired for example) while allowing the person to remain functional (as most people do -- not everyone experiences an anxiety attack after an emergency).


I ignored nothing. Having an anxiety attack and merely feeling tired represent two different states of being. One cannot replace the other. Anxiety is an emotion and tiredness is not. The intensity of a symptom is also informative. 

If you had really been _just_ tired, then you would have only _felt_ tired. It doesn't matter what you _could_ have felt or what _other people_ feel. You felt whatever *you* _needed_ to feel in *your* particular circumstance, and it was obviously more serious than tiredness. That's part of the usefulness of emotions: they are *personalized* information. Your body isn't going to adhere to your ideas about the most efficient or least bothersome symptoms, so what is the point of such standards? I would not call anxiety attacks "helpful," but do we at least agree that they provide useful information?



> Emotions can come out of nowhere. I have a friend who has bad moods come over her inexplicably. People can feel 'generalized anxiety' (for seemingly no reason).


Well, we disagree on that. Everything from seemingly random emotions to mental illnesses have some trigger and represent something that is wrong. Your own experience with the anxiety attack demonstrates that the reaction and the trigger may be separated in time, and they can be separated by much longer periods of time or simply not be noticed for a long time. Or ignored until they get serious. Probably especially by people who believe that emotions come from nowhere, potentially causing the belief to become self-fulfilling—the emotional reaction seeming random because no attempt is made to find its cause, or ignored for so long that the trigger is forgotten.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

I was operating under the assumption you were trying to group types with nearly identical thoughts on feelings, hence the categories. If you weren't, my bad. Anyway,



Bonereaper Benty said:


> *No* emotion changes *any* external circumstances. If change is the standard by which you judge emotions, none of them will ever measure up.


Exactly. Which is why emotions are mostly useless, but of course everyone likes to feel good, so you keep them around for the good times.



Bonereaper Benty said:


> Let me turn this around on you: Your judging emotions as pointless changes nothing. You will still feel them, and you can handle them without making that judgment. So there's hardly any point in your judging them that way. What do you think?


That I was making a factual statement, not a judgement. A subjective one, sure, but the entire point here is the subjectiveness. If I wouldn't be me I wouldn't say that emotions are mostly useless, but I am, so I do. There's just, in the literal sense, nothing I really _use_ them for -- nothing that I couldn't do if I didn't have them.

*Edit:* Actually, that's not entirely true. I generally try not to, but once or twice, I have used them as a tool, either to attack or to defend. Because of the mismatch in value -- a lot more people regard personal feelings as quite valuable than disregard them -- I can capitalise on that, and give something of little value to me that is valued a lot in society. It makes people sympathetic to hear I had a bad day, even if I don't really care, and if I tell people they made me feel bad, even if I don't really care, _they_ will feel bad, which in turn can be useful for other things.

So I have to revise my stance, you're right, they can be useful -- but I don't think that is a particularly good thing. It's manipulation, and it's precisely why I'm sceptical about emotional decisions.


At any rate, I think we fundamentally disagree about how we work. Which is perhaps surprising, or maybe not. Either way: I don't consider what I describe as "distracting" myself, and find there is no such thing as "unconscious feelings". I may have to think quite long about what I feel if I want to know, but the simple existence of _something_ (or absence, as the case may be) was never in doubt. So if I don't feel it, it's not there, and I don't feel it after I managed to put this thing out of my mind.

And really, how else would it work? Clearly, there has to be some way that feelings go away, as you don't feel annoyed about everything that ever made you annoyed. It fades. And the speed at which it does is what matters here -- as I said, the faster that works for you, the better you approximate control. (And that's leaving aside the other kind of control, namely, what you do with the feelings, of which there is absolute control; what I feel and what I do typically have only accidental correlations -- I don't think you meant that.)


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Bonereaper Benty said:


> Having an anxiety attack and merely feeling tired represent two different states of being. One cannot replace the other. Anxiety is an emotion and tiredness is not.


False. An anxiety attack encompasses physical components too, things like physical shaking. But, as I hinted at previously, this focusing on one thing I mentioned off-handedly while ignoring everything else I wrote (and your original questions/point) is going off topic for me. I'm still waiting to hear how emotions like worry and shame are useful.



> I would not call anxiety attacks "helpful," but do we at least agree that they provide useful information?


Only if you're the psychiatrist with the DSM-5 open before you (anxiety attacks may constitute a _disorder_). I put the way-delayed anxiety attack I experienced right up there with menstrual cramps and the associated 'blues' in terms of "useful information" (which is to say: not only useless, but impairing healthy/normal functioning).



> Everything from seemingly random emotions to mental illnesses have some trigger and represent something that is wrong.


False. Some emotions are positive (don't represent anything wrong). Some emotions like worry or anxiety may be unrelated to reality (don't know if something is wrong or not). Some emotions are brought on by (controlled) thinking, not a trigger. If I think about something, I can bring on related emotions: I wonder how I did on that exam? (---> anxiety). I recall that person I felt X towards (---> X emotion). I imagine how it's going to be at the beach this summer (---> joy, anticipation). Since this is universal (everyone can do this), it's fair to say that, at least in this sense, everyone can control their emotions.



> Probably especially by people who believe that emotions come from nowhere, potentially causing the belief to become self-fulfilling—the emotional reaction seeming random because no attempt is made to find its cause, or ignored for so long that the trigger is forgotten.


I'm of the understanding that body chemistry can be responsible for certain emotions (depression for example), not simply triggers. As I said in my first post, emotions are a complex topic and cover a wide array of interrelated topics (read 'emotions' on wiki for the most basic info). I have a relatively calm-happy temperament as my baseline/background emotion that I experience most of the time (this is not a triggered "emotional reaction"). I can go to an emotion like serenity or joy simply by choosing to do so. I suspect I have better emotional control than the average person (not repression). I find the subjective experiences of other 'thinkers' here interesting.

The idea that emotions (generally) are always useful and cannot be controlled (by anyone, anytime) is factually incorrect.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

So much false info...

Emotions are felt through the body, without the body there would be no emotions. Heart rate, pulse, breath, skin conductance, moisture, stomach sensitivity etc...

Only psychopaths are born without fear so they cant experience "anxiety", only irritability and anger. The people that dismiss emotions and want to be emotionless are sociopaths (ExTx) and shizoids (IxTx).

Emotions are our primary intelligence that lets us know how we impact the environment and how it impacts us. This needs to be so, otherwise we would not be social animals and we would not develop regulatory systems that allow us to have control, thrive and give us higher consciousness.

Having emotions and knowing how to regulate them is not the same as having no emotions! Having too much or too little emotions and/or regulations is fucking hell! This is the main reason we are so immoral and destructive towards each other.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

Many people have responded already, and I would echo what a lot have already said.

I disagree that NTs do not think there are any point to emotions, or that they don't have or value them. They can often be very strong. I have strong emotional responses in certain situations, though it is rare to elicit them, and they are with only people I am very close to or situations that I am closely tied to. I can also have an emotional reaction, and it can be useful because it is rare enough that it highlights a sentiment or connection I may have to someone or something that I may either not have been totally consciously aware or or may have downplayed. However, harping on an emotional response often is detrimental to an outcome, and we see that and place value on that. Even as the OP said, however, I really just don't get emotional very easily, which is different. 

I am not trying to be demeaning, but if someone directly approaches me with criticism, I take it, and see how I can change. Others I have seen hear the same thing and start crying and then get angry and the person who approached them. I just don't really have the same emotional response. I got told I likely had a brain tumor, thought about it for a few minutes, then went back to work from my lunch break since they said they were re-confirming, and didn't spend any time getting really upset because there was a chance that the scan could be wrong, and just kept on with work for the next week. Perhaps others would similarly not cry or be upset about it, but I mean, it just rationally did not make sense to get upset until that chance the scans were wrong came back, so I just kind of shrugged my shoulders and went about my day. I told my INTP boyfriend and he asked what we would do if it was positive, told me he would go to the research hospital with me and ask for work early for treatment, said he loved me, hugged me, and then we grilled dinner on the patio. No tears or anything. So, when NTs say they just don't really understand why all the drama and emotions etc, I think it often just truly baffles us because rationally we don't see it making a lot of sense, not as a "we are better than you", but because we don't operate in the same way and it seems logical (to us) the way we work. My friend when a previous thing happened was like "You need to get angry and cry and rage and let it all out," but I was like "Seriously, I have nothing to let out. When I have something to address I will make a plan and get what I need, and that will soothe my psyche. But emotional outbursts will stress me out more." Does that make any sense? 

That said, I think the common theme (not to talk for all NTs, but being one and knowing many) is that we truly value not making decisions, especially for a group, based on emotion, especially upon emotional reactions. This is apparent in our exchanges with people, and at a wider level, in our view on society. This is I think very often misconstrued in our romantic relationships when people get hurt feelings - they feel dismissed if we don't think that a decision or outcome of an argument should be made based on an unsupportable emotional response. We aren't saying you can't feel it (though early on in our development we may have much less tolerance for emotional outbursts and lability, especially if dealing with undeveloped Fi users who try to bully us into "feeling"), but that the outcome of a decision shouldn't be based on people's feelings which in a discussion means the tilt is more subjective with one person and objective with the other. It is hard to negotiate that, admittedly, without stepping on emotional toes, and we have to be careful about not letting people have a right to their emotional responses and reactions. 

At any rate, I think the original supposition, as it often does with ENTPs (me) or NTs (in general) comes from a personal, experiential genesis and is blanket applied to a population without due process, so to speak.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Senah said:


> So, when NTs say they just don't really understand why all the drama and emotions etc, I think it often just truly baffles us because rationally we don't see it making a lot of sense, not as a "we are better than you", but because we don't operate in the same way and it seems logical (to us) the way we work. My friend when a previous thing happened was like "You need to get angry and cry and rage and let it all out," but I was like "Seriously, I have nothing to let out. When I have something to address I will make a plan and get what I need, and that will soothe my psyche. But emotional outbursts will stress me out more." Does that make any sense?


For any TP, it will and does. (I maintain that that is the two letter combo you want.) I can basically sign your entire post.

I suspect we've all been there -- people just baffled at how much we _don't_ react. The next step then always is supposing we must somehow be hiding or suppressing something, and the point where it gets obnoxious is when they then won't take no for an answer, and try to find something that's fundamentally just not there. Bully us into feeling, indeed.


And of course that can be a disadvantage, every mature TP will agree there -- it's about having to learn how not to accidentally be a jerk, for instance, because the first (Ti) impulse always is to extrapolate the self on others, which is precisely where the second quote from the OP comes from. ISTPs probably have the worst of it, as far as my experience goes -- the number of times I've inadvertently hurt someone because I just never imagined it _could_ be hurtful ... well. Exactly as you pointed out, I shrug and go 'let's talk about it' when you come into my office and throw all 500 ways of how whatever I just delivered sucks at me. But that doesn't mean it's fair (to say nothing about helpful or productive) to expect everyone to react that way.

And it doesn't help that the problem that may arise, especially with FPs, is not a misunderstanding, but understanding perfectly -- in a certain way, if your feelings are entirely tied up with your idea of self, then going 'let's take feelings out of this pls' can't feel like anything _but_ invalidating. And arguing in that case that this was not your intention goes nowhere, because the reaction itself is a feeling, so you're chasing circles.

Ultimately, I have to say that it's very rare I encounter this, however. Most people are able to behave rationally most of the time. And the other times ... well, live and let live. Not everything in the world has to 'make sense'.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> For any TP, it will and does. (I maintain that that is the two letter combo you want.) I can basically sign your entire post.
> 
> I suspect we've all been there -- people just baffled at how much we _don't_ react. The next step then always is supposing we must somehow be hiding or suppressing something, and the point where it gets obnoxious is when they then won't take no for an answer, and try to find something that's fundamentally just not there. Bully us into feeling, indeed.


Interesting - I can see that. My father is an ISTP, and he has the same issue. Honestly I know the least about the S demographic in general, but what you say makes a lot of sense.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

I don't know, like, I feel emotions constantly, as do the lot of you. I can feel deeply, and harbor strong affect/ation for things, as well as display clear distress over less than favorable situations. As an NT, I can only really attest to having Feeling play less of a role in my decision making process. I tend to establish that function as something separate from my emotions/affect.

Emotions and affect could have roots in collective and/or personal ethical values/stances but I don't think it would be helpful to conflate the two (not saying any of you had, but just outlining this to try and disambiguate my views). If I think my emotional responses are inappropriate given the situation, I just set them aside and decide on things using other criteria.

It's less a case of me choosing to not feel, because I feel things all the time. I just rank them lower in relative importance for most situations.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Bonereaper Benty said:


> I wonder whether people confuse _distracting_ themselves (such that they are no longer consciously aware of their emotions) with actually ceasing to feel the emotion.


Very likely, or many NTs (or wannabe NTs) are in denial of their emotions. I'm honestly very confused with my own emotions at times, but it also boggles my mind that people pretend they don't have any or suggest that some people have more than others. Emotions are just a way of gauging an organism's homeostasis, and you can't stop emoting any more than you can stop thinking - they work together. Appropriate expression of those emotions are something entirely different. 



Bonereaper Benty said:


> Emotions are information about how things affect us, information about attitudes of which we aren't necessarily consciously aware, attitudes that we may (wrongly) try to ignore. So they are useful, not "stupid," and outside of serious psychological problems and trauma, they don't usually take up the whole day or the whole consciousness, so they aren't a "waste of time." Perhaps instead of telling, I should ask: are *your* emotions typically so distracting that they prevent *you* from doing other things? Are you psychologically equipped to stop yourself from feeling anything beyond minor annoyance on the spot?


OMG. We're on the same wave length. 

I believe what differentiates an NT, or really any Thinker from a Feeler, is how intent you are in seeing if the reason for the emotion is valid, and if not, choosing to ignore it. For instance, where my ESFP sister is teased, the only thing she can focus on is that she doesn't like it and it's wrong that it keeps happening, regardless of the content or reason for it. Same kind of teasing to me, and I tend to acknowledge that there's truth in it, and so choose not to show my annoyance (unless it gets to the point that I can't concentrate or I've already stopped the behavior that triggered it).


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> Very likely, or many NTs (or wannabe NTs) are in denial of their emotions. I'm honestly very confused with my own emotions at times, but it also boggles my mind that people pretend they don't have any or suggest that some people have more than others.


I'm not sure how you can walk among people and not claim that the span of emotions differs massively. Are you seriously suggesting everyone experiences emotions on the level of someone who bursts into tears upon seeing a hurt animal, but some people just don't _express_ them? 

That strikes me as a thesis so far removed from intuitive sense (small caps, no pun intended) that it requires further arguments.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> I'm not sure how you can walk among people and not claim that the span of emotions differs massively. Are you seriously suggesting everyone experiences emotions on the level of someone who bursts into tears upon seeing a hurt animal, but some people just don't _express_ them?
> 
> That strikes me as a thesis so far removed from intuitive sense (small caps, no pun intended) that it requires further arguments.


But did I say that? I'm not entirely sure where you got that from. To be clear, I'm not saying that emotions don't vary widely, or that people don't feel them differently or not at all. I was replying to a common stereotype, and because of that was thinking of extreme examples. For instance, where people tend to drift into the...

_I don't feel anything, ever. I'm an impenetrable wall of logic_ trope. 

Emotions are a bunch of chemicals, they don't need to be over-complicated or assigned to type. Especially since different types can experience the same emotions but express them differently. Again, I'm *not* saying everyone experiences them to the same degree or as often, what I am saying is that emotions are a fairly constant state. 

Perhaps we have different definitions of what emotions even are though. 

I think most people see them as extremes, like bursts of anger or an exceptionally melancholy teenager. But I include anything having to do with your mind's current state, like contentment, interest, or being distrustful. Generally speaking, you're _reactions_ to stimulus or your own thoughts.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> But did I say that? I'm not entirely sure where you got that from.


Well, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have responded :wink-new:
In the part that I quoted you were disbelieving that people would "suggest that some people have more [emotions] than others".

If you're not saying that, I'm not quite sure what you did mean to say, but feel free to disregard the post, then. That "zero emotions" is obviously silly I don't think anyone contested.


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

Every time I see a so-called "NT" throwing stones on Feeling, or trying to rationalize Feeling, I think to myself_ "Jeez, this guy's got a long-long-long way to go..."_ and I also think to myself that the person in question is probably in the 15-25 year range as youth are usually not that well balanced, they jump from one extreme to another.

Every NT uses Feeling all the time, they just don't know it. An NT might not value Feeling, so they push it aside to the darkness of the unconscious. 

In a sense, the more you value Thinking and disapprove of Feeling, the more Feeling will be unconscious and behave like a primitive or inferior function, giving rise to various complexes and making you a target for Feeling-based manipulation by those who are more comfortable using Feeling (cf. Psychological Types ch. 10, C.Jung).

In your personality, what you want to strive for is Ma'at, or Yen, or the golden middle road, not extremes in one end or the other.



Blunt Trauma Benty said:


> Again and again on PerC I see NTs say things that seem to suggest profound cluelessness about how emotions work.


Nah, every humanbeing uses emotions all the time. All our decisions are based on emotions. Emotion is not the same thing as Feeling (Jungian). Are you sure the NT's that you're referring to are not talking about the feeling function?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I'm not even sure at this point where people coming into this forum are getting their information about the feeling function, such that it would convince them feelings are synonymous with emotions.

Emotions happen, but feelings are a _decision._ How you feel about something is a determination you make based on either a subjective set of criteria in the case of introverted feeling, or an objective set of criteria in the case of extraverted feeling.

*Feelers also suppress and ignore their emotions whenever those emotions contradict their value systems.*

Let me repeat that.

*Feelers also suppress and ignore their emotions whenever those emotions contradict their value systems.*

They are _no different_ from thinkers in this aspect. Simply, the only difference is what criteria are involved in making the decision to act on an emotion or not. If a thinker experiences some emotion, and it is perfectly in line with their criteria for when it is appropriate to act on it, they will. If a feeler experiences some emotion, and it is perfectly in line with their criteria for when it is appropriate to act on it, they will.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

There must be an infinite amount of attempts to separate "emotions" and "feelings" @Abraxas. Notably, your "emotions happen, but feelings are a decision" isn't what's often proposed -- emotions as bodily, involuntarily reactions, feelings as (equally involuntarily) follow-up in the brain -- either. And given that there can be feelings without emotions, in the aforementioned definition, this, too, has issues. As far as I'm aware, there is no full consensus even in science.

Anyway (also for that reason), there is no good reason to separate them in everyday talk, and even threads such as this, when it's clear what is meant. Conversely, it very much is relevant to be precise in terms of quantity, because that is where the actual difference is. "Emotions happen", yes -- but the scale matters! That's where all the information is. "Everyone experiences emotions/feelings" (or "Feelers also ...") is equal parts true and pointless, it yields no insight.




TB_Wisdom said:


> In a sense, the more you value Thinking and disapprove of Feeling, the more Feeling will be unconscious and behave like a primitive or inferior function, giving rise to various complexes and making you a target for Feeling-based manipulation by those who are more comfortable using Feeling (cf. Psychological Types ch. 10, C.Jung).


I can't confirm this, and in fact, would propose the opposite. People who aren't in touch with their feelings will have an easier time to resist -- either because they weren't even aware there _was_ an attempt of manipulation and they "should have done something" (happens all the time to me), or because whatever is felt is discarded, precisely because there is no shortcut, feeling-->action, but always a check in-between.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Northern Lights said:


> There must be an infinite amount of attempts to separate "emotions" and "feelings" @*Abraxas*. Notably, your "emotions happen, but feelings are a decision" isn't what's often proposed -- emotions as bodily, involuntarily reactions, feelings as (equally involuntarily) follow-up in the brain -- either. And given that there can be feelings without emotions, in the aforementioned definition, this, too, has issues. As far as I'm aware, there is no full consensus even in science.
> 
> Anyway (also for that reason), there is no good reason to separate them in everyday talk, and even threads such as this, when it's clear what is meant. Conversely, it very much is relevant to be precise in terms of quantity, because that is where the actual difference is. "Emotions happen", yes -- but the scale matters! That's where all the information is. "Everyone experiences emotions/feelings" (or "Feelers also ...") is equal parts true and pointless, it yields no insight.


The distinctions I gave are far from "useless"; perhaps they seem useless to you. They were, however, perfectly clear and valuable to anyone that understands them and can apply them. The distinction between emotions and feelings is provided by Jung himself, and expounded upon by MBTI at length. The criteria is judgment. If the emotions "felt" by a subject provide a basis upon which to make a *conscious decision*, and this is habitually the case, as opposed to their influence being _unconscious_ to the subject and lacking conscious intention, then the subject is categorically a "feeler" type.

Furthermore, the insights yielded by the revelation that "everyone experiences emotions/feelings" and making comparisons of the sort "feelers also" is revealed through the contrast being made. Again, these are useful because they clarify the distinction in people's minds so that they can better divide people into different categories and make accurate predictions. If people have misconceptions about how functions operate and what the differences between types actually entails, they will inaccurately judge people and draw false conclusions.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not even sure at this point where people coming into this forum are getting their information about the feeling function, such that it would convince them feelings are synonymous with emotions.
> 
> Emotions happen, but feelings are a _decision._ How you feel about something is a determination you make based on either a subjective set of criteria in the case of introverted feeling, or an objective set of criteria in the case of extraverted feeling.
> 
> ...


Would you mind to expand on what criteria it is that's involved?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Eu_citzen said:


> Would you mind to expand on what criteria it is that's involved?


In the case of extraverted feeling, the criteria are social constructs and cultural norms. For example, being asked to evaluate a painting in an art gallery, you may find it distasteful and hate it (emotion), but the cultural expectation is to say something positive and encouraging, and you value that higher than your own emotion so you give that reply instead of the personal one. In the case of introverted feeling, the criteria are the opposite, and so the resulting example (the art gallery scenario) would be the precise opposite, with the person recoiling from and perhaps even being aggressive toward social expectations, choosing instead to give their personal opinion as clearly and forcefully as possible.

It is important to note that it does not matter whether the decision to side with culturally normative values and group expectations is a matter of emotion or a matter of logic. Jung, and MBTI, makes no distinction here regarding that. It is beyond the scope of the theory and open to academic dispute.

Let me make it clear (this doesn't necessarily apply to you, but it needs to be said) I did not come into this thread to engage in an open debate about the validity of MBTI and it's assumptions. I'm simply clarifying the terms used by the model for people who seem have been misinformed about them. For what it's worth. I have absolutely no interest in defending the assumptions of the MBTI system and will ignore any attempt to draw me into a semantic debate about factually correct information regarding the descriptions that MBTI has published and made clear. Again, I could care less if they are true or false in reality. My only concern is that everyone is on the same page first, and then they can do debate whatever they want.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Abraxas said:


> In the case of extraverted feeling, the criteria are social constructs and cultural norms. For example, being asked to evaluate a painting in an art gallery, you may find it distasteful and hate it (emotion), but the cultural expectation is to say something positive and encouraging, and you value that higher than your own emotion so you give that reply instead of the personal one. In the case of introverted feeling, the criteria are the opposite, and so the resulting example (the art gallery scenario) would be the precise opposite, with the person recoiling from and perhaps even being aggressive toward social expectations, choosing instead to give their personal opinion as clearly and forcefully as possible.


Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm not one to advertise my feelings, but that in no way means I don't have them. I just tend to look at everyday life through the lens of "problem solving" first, push them aside for the moment, and then feel them later (if at all). 

Speaking from experience, I have to be pushed into a corner before I will consciously act on, or express my emotions. I am quite certain that I subconsciously act upon them on a regular basis. I'm the kind of person who doesn't panic easily. I generally keep a cool head when things are going wrong, and wind up deflating like a balloon when the adrenaline wears off. 

I tend to make my decisions on intuition, or thought, before I consider how I feel about them. Once again, I often don't consider how I feel about them until after the fact. Sometimes I have regrets, most times I don't. 

Emotions aren't confusing to me; I often think they are inconvenient. They can get in the way and cloud my judgment, cause me to feel like I'm going off course somehow. In some cases, it has turned out to be a good thing, others, not so much. Other factors come to mind: I'm male, and I have been socially conditioned to be as unemotional as possible, and I am a Enneagram type 5, so my motivating fear is being overwhelmed, and emotions tend to be overwhelming for me, so again, wherever possible, I try to box them up, push them aside, keep them in the basement. This would seem to dovetail with my NT functions as well, although, having reached middle age, I think my tertiary Fe does cause me to pause and consider how my actions might affect others, it still doesn't mean I like to wallow around in my own emotional pool.

I've sort of allowed myself to ramble here, I hope it makes sense to others.


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> I can't confirm this, [...]


But I can confirm this. Read Carl Jungs _Psychological Types_, Chapter X, page 385 (in edition Collective Works of C.G.Jung Vol. 6), verses (if you can call the numeric references in the book as verses).

Quote verse 635.
"In his personal relations he is taciturn or else throws himself on people who cannot understand him, and for him this is one more proof of the abysmal stupidity of man. If for once he is understood, he easily succumbs to the credulous overestimation of his prowess. Ambitious women have only to know how to take advantage of his cluelessness in practical matters to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Often he is gauche in his behaviour, painfully anxious to escape notice, or else remarkably unconcerned and childishly naïve. [...]"

Quote verse 638
"[...] The counterbalancing function of feeling, intuition and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone. [...] They all serve as a defence against "magical" influences - and among them is a vague fear of the feminine sex."


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

TB_Wisdom said:


> ~snip


Admittedly, the "ambitious women" line made me giggle. If that is a surefire way to attract them, perhaps I do have to the book after all. Anyway, I was of course talking about personal experience and observation. Does your experience, then, line up with Jung's theory?

I'm quite inclined to raise my theory against his -- possibly it's also to be kept in mind that Jung _was_ a psychiatrist, and mostly treating actually ill people.

*Edit:* Unless you want to want to separate feeling and F-Feeling (and same for thinking) as well, that is, in which case we have no argument, because that's not what I was talking about (see below).


@Abraxas : Except, that's not really what the thread was about, no? The only way types were mentioned in the OP at all was a generic "I've seen NTs ...", and functions weren't referenced at all. I still see no real point (I did not say useless) -- the discussion was about what you and I colloquially mean when we say "emotions" or "feelings" (which has only indirectly to do with T/F functions), and I'm pretty sure everyone understood it that way.


----------

