# Why is Feeling judgement not serious as reasoning process?



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Lately I've noticed that in Socionics and MBTI descriptions, the capability of *feeling judgement(Fi/Fe)* in reasoning is not fully described as a thought process. Beyond its description as an emotional conveyor, serious thought has not been given into its reasoning ability. Feeling judgement is confined to emotions- group harmony, how a person feels about themselves.... What is not mentioned is that like the *logic judgement functions (Ti/Te)*, equivalently ethic based judgements Fi/Fe are able to recognize "facts" abstracting them reading their quality of their value cue. The leverage of feeling judgement over logic judgement is the ability to ascertain abstract emotional value cues, a sort of emotional energy metric, in the facts it considers for analysis. 

Fi/Fe sees "facts"??
If it is supposedly a capability for feeling judgement to ascertain "facts" then supposedly why can't people *feel* their way to rationality in areas demanding "logic" (Ti/Te), impersonal facts, the difficult parts of engineering perhaps? It leaves one wondering isn't it? Well Fe/Fi judgement can recognize those impersonal facts though its just that those "facts" usually emit no emotional cues hence it would make sense to switch to an impersonal framework for analysis. 

The contrast between logic and ethic judgement is the absents impersonal premises ethic judgement facts whilst logic lacks an "abstract" emotional cue element its own facts instead. The drawback to engagement in ethic judgement occurs when its unable to draw emotional cues from facts or poorly predicts the value of fact given emotionally high cues. Whereas with logic its advantage and disadvantage is the absents of emotional cues through its fact hounding exercise.

Feeling judgement is not emotion
http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-articles/128699-feeling-rational-function.html


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I think most people make a mistake at the stage of translating Jung's logic into conventional logic. The two aren't the same thing.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I think most people make a mistake at the stage of translating Jung's logic into conventional logic. The two aren't the same thing.


How on or off, if my random insight here?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

*bummer, I screwed up the thread title


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know how people who value Fe highly think but as an Fi subtype, it's just as simple as making evaluations of what I like/dislike. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Ti/Te don't follow the laws of formal logic either necessarily but in socionics I have a very poor understanding of those functions function so I won't try to explain them. 

And Fi evaluation can be very logical by the way. It may stem from a gut feeling of what I like/dislike, but it doesn't mean I can't apply logic to how I arrived at that conclusion. Let's say I dislike another person, I'll look at the traits (I suppose this would be Te) the person seems to exhibit and whether they line up with what I find to be desirable traits in other people. Then I find that most of the traits this person exhibits are traits I don't like, then the logical conclusion is of course that I do not like this person due to the traits exhibited.

It's no more complicated than that, really.


----------



## Lady Lullaby (Jun 7, 2010)

From the article you linked to:



> Feeling as a function is not so much emotional subjectivity (or emotions at all), but the ability to feel the essence of something, and quite objectively, as it is a manner of gathering information, and as Jung states, ”Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)


As well as this:


> intangible and sometimes difficult to explain.


Personally, for me, as an IEI, I can freely admit that my Te and Ti are less developed than my Fe and so Te and Ti users will very often be frustrated with my explanations and rationalizations for my decisions. But because I lead with Ni, I am very comfortable relying on what I 'feel', trusting my understanding of the 'essence' of something that leads me to my conclusions. I don't disregard the observations and conclusions of Te or Ti or Fi users. Their insights are all part of the information I gather. But when that information is put through my brain, my Ni and Fe filters will usually spit out a different conclusion than those with different preferences than mine. But as has been stated, describing the reasoning behind these conclusions is incredibly difficult to do without using language describing intangibles that so often frustrates Te/Ti and Se/Si preferring people.

Edit: I appreciated the thoughts on the topic shared in this article.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Lady Lullaby said:


> From the article you linked to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It would have been better had Jung invented words for "rationality", "irrationality", "thinking" and "feeling" himself since their definitions are far from what people expect. Expanding from the topic of viewing feeling, http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-articles/128699-feeling-rational-function.html , were feeling judgement is separate from "emotion" being value. I was faced with the dilemma of having to explain why feelers seem to like to prop up the emotions of others, how then could feeling be separate from emotion? I came up with the answer when I realised that when creating an emotionally friendly environment, people would have understood the value that stems from that behaviour which would be why they'd choose to do it. It conscious reasoning, but though when a person feels pressured to do so then that would not be within thinking or feeling reasoning.

And from this framework I've been trying to conceptualize an "unfeelingly" feeler type, possessing feeling judgement as a lead but seemingly having little interest in people. Before, I would think this was impossible unless the person was a thinker, but now I'm doubting otherwise. People can find value in art engaged in projects that have little to do with people and yet happen to not operate on "logic" reasoning, ie a+b=c is logical, a+b=d illogical (adopting impersonal axioms conforming to them), but a metric of "value" reasoning.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Feeling is rational because it isn't emotion - like all the functions, it has it's purpose in making meaning of non-meaning, this time, in the realm of emotion with reference to the ego. For instance, when someone says "I am lonely because I don't feel like I belong," this is a rational judgment because it is not an emotion - it takes an emotion "lonely" and makes meaning of it ("because I don't feel like I belong" - this is a completely rational explanation of the emotion - it's what, given life circumstances, self-knowledge, a sense of experiential norms and tradition, personal expectation, evaluation metrics, personal standards and standards outside oneself, etc. makes comprehensive meanings of these that help a person advance their understanding of themselves and the world, just in a way that isn't pure conceptual logic (although it does work with this - feeling always works with thinking insomuch as the thinking can support feeling conclusions) - someone who represses this will just have a distorted sense of evaluation and personal meaning - the experiential expectations that trigger their feelings often just get a bit distorted in the process of rationalizing the feelings into conclusions through projections and all that stuff near the person's unconscious - they only roughly manage to capture the person's conscious identity and often might seem "other" to the person - like feelings are only something "other people" make a big deal about, when in fact, it is probably on some level the inferior feeling types that overreact to their own feeling conclusions.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@JungyesMBTIno I was reading this article by ladylullaby and it pretty much flew over my head, who knows maybe its because I need to sleep at the moment, but it made me think about how you'd use Jung actually words and imagery to conceptualize rationality as you've done. I know that its easy to frame it in a way you understand as Ni normally does personalizing conceptions but how would you re-explain rationality/irrationality with Jung's actual imagery
Jung’s Definitions of Rational and Irrational | outlawpsych.com


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Lady Lullaby said:


> Personally, for me, as an IEI, I can freely admit that my Te and Ti are less developed than my Fe and so Te and Ti users will very often be frustrated with my explanations and rationalizations for my decisions. But because I lead with Ni, I am very comfortable relying on what I 'feel', trusting my understanding of the 'essence' of something that leads me to my conclusions. I don't disregard the observations and conclusions of Te or Ti or Fi users. Their insights are all part of the information I gather. But when that information is put through my brain, my Ni and Fe filters will usually spit out a different conclusion than those with different preferences than mine. But as has been stated, describing the reasoning behind these conclusions is incredibly difficult to do without using language describing intangibles that so often frustrates Te/Ti and Se/Si preferring people.
> 
> Edit: I appreciated the thoughts on the topic shared in this article.


Do you have some real life examples of how you frustrate the ST people with your language in your reasoning?

Btw that link is great, best explanation that I ever saw about how Jung saw things about rationality/irrationality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> It would have been better had Jung invented words for "rationality", "irrationality", "thinking" and "feeling" himself since their definitions are far from what people expect. Expanding from the topic of viewing feeling, http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-articles/128699-feeling-rational-function.html , were feeling judgement is separate from "emotion" being value. I was faced with the dilemma of having to explain why feelers seem to like to prop up the emotions of others, how then could feeling be separate from emotion? I came up with the answer when I realised that when creating an emotionally friendly environment, people would have understood the value that stems from that behaviour which would be why they'd choose to do it. It conscious reasoning, but though when a person feels pressured to do so then that would not be within thinking or feeling reasoning.


You over-complicate things. With regards to a socionics extraverted ethics user attending to the emotional atmosphere, there is obvious feeling judgement involved because there is an activate choice of improving and maintaining the atmosphere, and the ethical user furthermore has made a value judgement that maintaining this atmosphere is a positive thing to do. 



> And from this framework I've been trying to conceptualize an "unfeelingly" feeler type, possessing feeling judgement as a lead but seemingly having little interest in people. Before, I would think this was impossible unless the person was a thinker, but now I'm doubting otherwise. People can find value in art engaged in projects that have little to do with people and yet happen to not operate on "logic" reasoning, ie a+b=c is logical, a+b=d illogical (adopting impersonal axioms conforming to them), but a metric of "value" reasoning.


It's a false misconception that feelers must by definition have an interest in people or for the matter appear as emotional in my opinion. Again, it is a way of evaluating various impressions like the example I offered about the person I didn't dislike. The reason why Jung most likely labelled it "feeling" to begin with is because feeling judgement stems from a more esoteric nature of simply "feeling" the essence of something and evaluating where you stand in relation to this essence. Fe does this externally and Fi internally. 

An "essence" can for example be a strong sense of liking or disliking something, and feelers are simply more naturally attuned to these kind of impressions than thinkers are.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> You over-complicate things. With regards to a socionics extraverted ethics user attending to the emotional atmosphere, there is obvious feeling judgement involved because there is an activate choice of improving and maintaining the atmosphere, and the ethical user furthermore has made a value judgement that maintaining this atmosphere is a positive thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've drifted from the "regular" Socionics getting rid of bits that don't make sense, the quadra value, information metabolisms... (the outward dichotomies). Which is not surprising since I don't see ideological consistency, which is inline with Ni's reluctance to view abstract information with objectivity and lack of utility in the objective facts. In addition being an "Se" reasoning type the broad generalizations fail to conform reality which brings doubt, I pretty much feel the same way @itsme45 did in that argument on Socionics's framework with @Kanerou. The cognitive oriented elements are the only ones with utility and they are incompatible with the descriptions (the outward dichotomies). 

It turns out that I'm an "evolutionary" reasoner, so in order to understand something I need to drive it to the utmost complexity collecting as much information as possible. Only afterwards will I start to process it, analyzing it looking for the facts to sort the contradictions finally generating a conclusion. 



Boolean11 said:


> I found this post helpful in explaining some of the convolution behind the analytic and evolutionary difference
> Some unsorted personal reflections on this extremely interesting material ...
> 
> I think I am now slowly beginning to understand why there is still so much confusion about some of the important aspects of the differences between for example LIIs and ILIs. We might have a serious problem of mutual understanding here, and we might need to discuss more what these things should appropriately be called and how they should be correctly described.
> ...


----------



## Lady Lullaby (Jun 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Do you have some real life examples of how you frustrate the ST people with your language in your reasoning?
> 
> Btw that link is great, best explanation that I ever saw about how Jung saw things about rationality/irrationality.



I'm glad you enjoyed the link too!

I just meant that my vocabulary is usually favoring my own imagined visual aids  and because that isn't a concrete, universally understood idea of any subject matter, STs can at times just raise their eyebrows and not know where to begin to ask for clarification. I don't 'go there' all the time. I can make ST conversation, but after 5 minutes and I begin experiencing a drive for self-inflicted wounding to get out of the situation LOL! (Maybe I'm exaggerating.....)

Any ST can visit my latest blog entry and report back if it was frustrating to listen to. :laughing: Just keep reminding yourself - 'She's an INFJ, she's a Type 2.' ha!


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

I guess it shouldn't be too different from MBTI.

Judging functions put meanings to what is processed. Feeling is personalized logic, and Thinking is depersonalized logic. The difference in the demeanor is more in what the functions make use of.

Feeling takes advantage of the ways in which people usefully communicate the fostering of the group. The universal language of of smiling, frowning, tone of voice and such is one element that Feeling utilizes. Logically, such actions are useful in gaining someone's trust and cooperation, enabling one to contribute to group order. It's not emotional, but takes advantage of emotions as a useful tool.

Thinking relies on the logic of consequence to foster a group. It is not primarily based on replicating gestures of interpersonal appeal, like Feeling is. Logically, tactics, observation, relativity and reasoning are useful in proving one's reliability, also enabling one to contribute to group order. It is also not emotional, but it, too, commands emotions as a useful tool (to get a point across, be taken seriously, reduce competition, etc...).

They have got a survival-like quality to them. Both can logically use emotions, but the "serious" contrast of Thinking logic is in its method of organizing its group/world, just as the 'empathetic' contrast of Feeling logic is in its method of organizing its group/world.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Hum..... I'm not clever enough to follow this discussion, but I've noticed that some Fe-doms seems strangely "rational" in personal matters (a lot more than me and I'm supposed to be an INTp).
E.g. when my ESFj best friend got together with her boyfriend, she said it would be a good arrangement because they work together and thus they can talk about what happened at work. Also, it means that they have similar interests. She never said anything about being in love etc. When he broke up with her, she was confused and couldn't believe she had misjudged him, because she thought it should work out due to the same reasons I quoted above. (She was majorly hurt about how he could be so "mean" and planned to stab him in the back with a knife. She did complain that he said he didn't love her anymore, but still the main focus was on 'it should have worked out because .....').

My ENFj boss says her second husband is better for her than her first one because he gets her out of the house. .... and now watch this: another colleague was talking (NOT complaining) abour her husband and ENFj says maybe she should get a better husband who is funnier (or something like that). LOL LOL LOL, how sensitive! Coz you go around recommending to married people who aren't even majorly unhappy that they should get a new husband. 

WTF? Maybe that's just their inferior Ti working together with Fe in strange ways? 
Anyway, this sounds majorly weird to me because I thought finding a partner is about being in love or liking them. Of course, you need to be compatible, but the way my best friend talks about it sounds like she's got a very "logical" check-list.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Hum..... I'm not clever enough to follow this discussion, but I've noticed that some Fe-doms seems strangely "rational" in personal matters (a lot more than me and I'm supposed to be an INTp).
> E.g. when my ESFj best friend got together with her boyfriend, she said it would be a good arrangement because they work together and thus they can talk about what happened at work. Also, it means that they have similar interests. She never said anything about being in love etc. When he broke up with her, she was confused and couldn't believe she had misjudged him, because she thought it should work out due to the same reasons I quoted above. (She was majorly hurt about how he could be so "mean" and planned to stab him in the back with a knife. She did complain that he said he didn't love her anymore, but still the main focus was on 'it should have worked out because .....').
> 
> My ENFj boss says her second husband is better for her than her first one because he gets her out of the house. .... and now watch this: another colleague was talking (NOT complaining) abour her husband and ENFj says maybe she should get a better husband who is funnier (or something like that). LOL LOL LOL, how sensitive! Coz you go around recommending to married people who aren't even majorly unhappy that they should get a new husband.
> ...


Weelllll....I can at least see where the ESFj is coming from, and see the plan to stab him in the back with a knife? That's her way of saying "I'm hurt he doesn't love me" without her saying it, in her own temporarily insane way. 

But she's being practical, she has life experience, and she knows LTRs are about more than "feelings." Feelings ARE VERY IMPORTANT (if she didn't think so, there's no way she'd even entertain the possibility of stabbing a man with a knife because he left her, that should be a glaring neon sign to you just how much importance she places on feelings above logic, or maybe that's hard for you to read as an Fe rejecting type???) ...but Feeling types, in general, we learn maybe more quickly (?) that there's a certain formula to relationships, you can't just be with someone because they're hot or they make you feel happy, you have to share common interests or values, and mature Feeling types know this.

I too have gotten angry at a person for exiting my life because I thought certain from the time they spent with me and the common interests we shared that _obviously _this was a formula that worked realistically. Incidentally in Socionics I type myself as ISFp, which is an Fe type in Socionics just like ExFj, though I'm VERY VERY Fi in Jung.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@fourtines and @FlaviaGemina, I also get the feeling that it could part be because of quadra values? I can see where those Fe types are coming from but as a socionics Fi type ultimately, what matters are not the practical arrangements of a relationship necessarily but how you feel about the person. Otherwise you could marry someone you don't love because you click in the practical areas.

Personally, maybe it's just because I'm Ne creative but I see the practical areas mostly falling into place if you first of all love each other and you are absolutely certain you want to be with this person.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LeaT said:


> @_fourtines_ and @_FlaviaGemina_, I also get the feeling that it could part be because of quadra values? I can see where those Fe types are coming from but as a socionics Fi type ultimately, what matters are not the practical arrangements of a relationship necessarily but how you feel about the person. Otherwise you could marry someone you don't love because you click in the practical areas.
> 
> Personally, maybe it's just because I'm Ne creative but I see the practical areas mostly falling into place if you first of all love each other and you are absolutely certain you want to be with this person.


Ahhh...but see that's what you're not getting. We DO _genuinely love those people_, the people who do the "right" things, like spend more time with us, motivate us to get our work done on time, have a better sense of humor, who are as excited about 80s music or horror movies as we are....

And we're devastated because we think that these relationships will naturally work by not only force of feeling but by force of common sense and practicality. 

It probably is a quadra thing. It makes me seem very pragmatic, which I am. And I've noticed that the last two men I've really loved and stayed hung up on (rather than having a passing crush, fancy, or sexual fling) ALSO are constantly questioning things like "do we have enough in common? does this make sense in the real world?" and type themselves as SJs.

I don't know if this is a characteristic of a particular quadra, which one would it be?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> @_fourtines_ and @_FlaviaGemina_, I also get the feeling that it could part be because of quadra values? I can see where those Fe types are coming from but as a socionics Fi type ultimately, what matters are not the practical arrangements of a relationship necessarily but how you feel about the person. Otherwise you could marry someone you don't love because you click in the practical areas.
> 
> Personally, maybe it's just because I'm Ne creative but I see the practical areas mostly falling into place if you first of all love each other and you are absolutely certain you want to be with this person.


I wouldn't say it's Fi/Fe-related, at the least. As I mentioned on the other forum, I also keep practical concerns in mind when thinking about a mate. Choosing someone to share my life with is a big thing to me. We need not just chemistry and similar interests but also sufficiently common values and goals. I want a man with a decent job, and I don't do "aspiring starving artist". I don't need to be rich, but I do want to be taken care of. I also want to find him attractive, of course. I am aware that beauty fades and money can go away, so obviously, I need to love the guy. And I would like to have a strong connection. All of this is a package deal.

@_fourtines_ Ironic that you should mention that. I'm also SJ (and possibly E6-sp).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I wouldn't say it's Fi/Fe-related, at the least. As I mentioned on the other forum, I also keep practical concerns in mind when thinking about a mate. Choosing someone to share my life with is a big thing to me. We need not just chemistry and similar interests but also sufficiently common values and goals. I want a man with a decent job, and I don't do "aspiring starving artist". I don't need to be rich, but I do want to be taken care of. I also want to find him attractive, of course. I am aware that beauty fades and money can go away, so obviously, I need to love the guy. And I would like to have a strong connection. All of this is a package deal.
> 
> @_fourtines_ Ironic that you should mention that. I'm also SJ (and possibly E6-sp).


I can understand that, but what I meant is that as an Ne creative, I am perhaps a bit more willing to cut such corners because as I said, I see more practical concerns (job etc.) to be things that can fall into place later. I'll be very supportive and encouraging in order to materially succeed though.

I am not saying materialism is not important to me, but I find it to be of overall less value compared to personal chemistry.


----------

