emotions and rationality

[DarkLink]

Hello, I am new to this forum and to typing in general, so pardon my poor use of terms or lack therefore of!

My problem is this-

I used to be and feel like a very caring person towards people, always shifting to whom I thought was 'right'. I would do this independently of what others thought, even if it put me in the social minority (which it often did). I would have called myself an emotionally understanding person.

I often read that INTP's have a hard time being 'emotional' or understanding it in others. I dont understand these statements because, for me, I can 100% understand someones emotion as long as its got a solid rational rooting. I also consider, when I am not 100% convinced of the basis of the 'emotion', that for someone to be emotional, they must certainly deem it rational themselves- right?
Surely from an objective stance- all subjective emotion (the only kind of emotion) is grounded in rationality?
I feel I am emotional in this respect- I care for those who rationally need to be cared about, I dislike those who are rationally flawed.
Or am I just being an overly logical INTP who doesnt really get 'emotion'... help..? In my eyes, everyone is a realist (how could one not be) but only in the subjective sense.

probs overanalyzing....

 

[Reality is Optional]

When it comes to emotional issues, INTP's usually aren't the best people to go to. Not because we don't understand, but rather because we give people logical answers rather that the emotional response that they want to hear. I didn't understand the statement of INTP's not understanding emotional issues either until I read it this way; anything we see that's illogical, we disregard it. At least in my experience. Everyone has types that are developed differently. Though our emotions may be rational because we have a tight reign on them, other types can act much more irrationally then us because they are emotionally underdeveloped. As for having a hard time being emotional, I've been called "emotionally constipated" by a few people I know. INTP's just don't express emotions freely like other types, so that's probably what it meant. I hope I helped you a little bit; I tend to be scatter-brained from time to time.

 

[DarkLink]

Yes thank you this helped clear up the thoughts!
scatter brained? yes me too, all the time! I put things down and quickly forget where I put them, usually when insignificant to the next task in mind.

Surely in the sense that we have logical understanding of emotions when others don't, we should be the best to give structural advice (though we need to be careful in how we express that advice)?
actually, probably not, which type can give logical advice and do it in an emotionally understanding way at the same time?


I have also been labelled similarly by my GF and family as unemotional/cold/harsh/unsentimental etc etc

 

[Reality is Optional]

Yes thank you this helped clear up the thoughts!
scatter brained? yes me too, all the time! I put things down and quickly forget where I put them, usually when insignificant to the next task in mind.

Surely in the sense that we have logical understanding of emotions when others don't, we should be the best to give structural advice (though we need to be careful in how we express that advice)?
actually, probably not, which type can give logical advice and do it in an emotionally understanding way at the same time?


I have also been labelled similarly by my GF and family as unemotional/cold/harsh/unsentimental etc etc

Yes, we could be really good at advice, if the listener doesn't get offended easily. I really don't know which type would be best at giving advice on an emotional level, but I would think it would be either INFP, ENFP, or INFJ: INFP because they can empathize and see things from other people's point of view, ENFP because they're centered around people, empathize and can see things from other people's point of view (if you can hold their attention for long enough), and INFJ because they can be very understanding when you explain things to them. Like I said, this is all guess work, so I might be wrong. I don't know about ISFPs, or ESFPs, and I don't think ESFJs or ISFJs will be very understanding unless they've been in your position. Now that I think about it, ENFJs could act very warm and affirming when it comes to emotions, but I don't know if they really understand. Again, I am just making assumptions.

 

[Goku]

I think your problem is that your devotion to logic supersedes your loyalty to friends. A good friend has your back no matter what, even if he starts a fight and it's a 10 vs. 1 situation, and there's no way you're not getting your ass kicked, and getting involved is illogical, you get your friend's back.

The way you describe it, you flip flop to whoever happens to be right, but never build solid friendships because you're always alienating someone.

Your objectivity is a good trait overall, but you need to know when to reign it in... for example, if your girlfriend/wife is acting illogical, do you stand up for her or the other person? I am assuming the correct answer is that you always stand up for your significant other.

This might be difficult for a 100% logical person to understand.

 

[The Void]

I think your problem is that your devotion to logic supersedes your loyalty to friends. A good friend has your back no matter what, even if he starts a fight and it's a 10 vs. 1 situation, and there's no way you're not getting your ass kicked, and getting involved is illogical, you get your friend's back.

The way you describe it, you flip flop to whoever happens to be right, but never build solid friendships because you're always alienating someone.

Your objectivity is a good trait overall, but you need to know when to reign it in... for example, if your girlfriend/wife is acting illogical, do you stand up for her or the other person? I am assuming the correct answer is that you always stand up for your significant other.

This might be difficult for a 100% logical person to understand.

All I can understand is that it is the work of the hard-wirings of the unconscious mind
to make one act in that ways to support the significant other to increase the union between the couple to increase the chance for breeding i.e for survival of your genes following the rule of survival of your species.
It is all about evolution. I dont undertsand emotions other than primitive survivalist mechanisms hardcoded within the controlling unconscious mind

I train everyday to gain some control over this unconscious mind, or atleast get more aware of the unconscious processes.

 

[Duxwing]

I think your problem is that your devotion to logic supersedes your loyalty to friends. A good friend has your back no matter what, even if he starts a fight and it's a 10 vs. 1 situation, and there's no way you're not getting your ass kicked, and getting involved is illogical, you get your friend's back.

If your friend would leave you because you refuse to futilely be injured, then you need a less egotistical friend.

The way you describe it, you flip flop to whoever happens to be right, but never build solid friendships because you're always alienating someone.

Your objectivity is a good trait overall, but you need to know when to reign it in... for example, if your girlfriend/wife is acting illogical, do you stand up for her or the other person? I am assuming the correct answer is that you always stand up for your significant other.

If your significant other would leave you because you refuse to act against your conscience lest her being proven wrong make her experience abandonment or ego-pain, then you need a different significant other.

This might be difficult for a 100% logical person to understand.

Healthy relationships depend on acceptance and trust. If I were being jumped by a gang of ten, then I would tell my friend to run for help and safety because I want people in general to avoid needless harm and because I trust him to notify the emergency services. If my girlfriend were to disagree with me in an argument, then I would debate her with the same honor and fervor with which I would debate anyone else because I accept her whether she agrees with me or not and because I trust her to love me even when we disagree.

@Void Evolution has no goal (in this case: passing on progeny); it instead occurs as a logical consequence of several conditions and the extreme sampling bias of sampling only extant species.

-Duxwing

 

[Goku]

If your friend would leave you because you refuse to futilely be injured, then you need a less egotistical friend.



If your significant other would leave you because you refuse to act against your conscience lest her being proven wrong make her experience abandonment or ego-pain, then you need a different significant other.



Healthy relationships depend on acceptance and trust. If I were being jumped by a gang of ten, then I would tell my friend to run for help and safety because I want people in general to avoid needless harm and because I trust him to notify the emergency services. If my girlfriend were to disagree with me in an argument, then I would debate her with the same honor and fervor with which I would debate anyone else because I accept her whether she agrees with me or not and because I trust her to love me even when we disagree.

-Duxwing

what if your girlfriend were debating with someone else?

 

[redbaron]

what if your girlfriend were debating with someone else?

More often than not I'd disagree with both of them and offer a third perspective. I'll probably never agree with my partner in that situation just for the sake of agreeing and I don't think she'd want me to either.

Almost everyone possesses a slightly different point of view in some way. If someone gets annoyed because someone disagrees with them, well I don't really care unless it's for some totally pointless reason. Like when people are combative just because they want to waste somebody's time. In that case annoyance is understandable, although I think people who are pathetic enough to do that are in the relative minority.

 

[The Void]

@Void Evolution has no goal (in this case: passing on progeny); it instead occurs as a logical consequence of several conditions and the extreme sampling bias of sampling only extant species.

-Duxwing

I didnt mean it has any goal.
Nothing has any goal.
Only nothing. The Void.

 

[Ada]

I didnt mean it has any goal.
Nothing has any goal.
Only nothing. The Void.

function theworld():void

-rolls-

Hum. Well, what I came here to say was: rationality is based off emotion (rather than the inverse). I'm sure this has been covered by one of the smorgasbord of threads here, but reiteration.

Because fundamentally, rationality implies a 'best possible outcome'. And so we have the emotional aspect of what is 'best'. Pursue the reasoning and you'll find yourself stuck against the wall of emotion (again).

So the rationality in understanding emotion depends on what emotion you begin your chain of reasoning with. Without ascertaining which your target is experiencing: redundant conclusion.

Perhaps your problem is less of an understanding, but how to react to the understanding?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

what if your girlfriend were debating with someone else?

I tend to bring reason into the argument and correct people I am close to, I try to explain to them and help them understand their perspectives because I care for them. I think it is more important to show faults in reasoning to someone you deem worthy. Even if this is in public, I don't embarass them, just balance the discussion.

Anyway, what do you gain by agreeing for the sake of showing support for your partner? You create false confidence and empower false assumptions. If you let it pass in small things you could let it pass in important matters.

I didnt mean it has any goal.
Nothing has any goal.
Only nothing. The Void.

Increment post counter +1. Everything has a relative goal and nothing has. There is no true void for you as long as you; do, are, feel, think.

 

[The Void]

The only way to attain perfect void is end of consciousness.
But until then, I ...........................I dont have anything to say......

 

[Goku]

Hello, I am new to this forum and to typing in general, so pardon my poor use of terms or lack therefore of!

My problem is this-

I used to be and feel like a very caring person towards people, always shifting to whom I thought was 'right'. I would do this independently of what others thought, even if it put me in the social minority (which it often did). I would have called myself an emotionally understanding person.

I often read that INTP's have a hard time being 'emotional' or understanding it in others. I dont understand these statements because, for me, I can 100% understand someones emotion as long as its got a solid rational rooting. I also consider, when I am not 100% convinced of the basis of the 'emotion', that for someone to be emotional, they must certainly deem it rational themselves- right?
Surely from an objective stance- all subjective emotion (the only kind of emotion) is grounded in rationality?
I feel I am emotional in this respect- I care for those who rationally need to be cared about, I dislike those who are rationally flawed.
Or am I just being an overly logical INTP who doesnt really get 'emotion'... help..? In my eyes, everyone is a realist (how could one not be) but only in the subjective sense.

probs overanalyzing....

You confuse being emotional with "having feelings"
Your caring for a person doesn't make you emotional
Being emotional has to do with experiencing your feelings as they come, instead of denying them

Do you think it's a coincidence that you have not mentioned once how you feel about this situation?

 

[WALKYRIA]

Your objectivity is a good trait overall, but you need to know when to reign it in... for example, if your girlfriend/wife is acting illogical, do you stand up for her or the other person? I am assuming the correct answer is that you always stand up for your significant other.

This is a good point.... if my girlfriend is telling bullshit or acting dumb. I'll just make her understand it in a smooth way( this emplies that she has some intuition in her functions !) or I'll force her to shut up or to stop. Use force if necessary.( I'm sorry but you are responsible of your girl as much as you are responisble of yourself !); and there are little chances I end up with a dumb-illogical girlfriend anyways.

I'm sorry but..
Truth and logical consistency many time is >>>> friendship.
(Yeah i'm selfish I know...)

I've never fought in my life..I mean, never ever !
I dont know for what reason I could fight--besides kids and maybe wife!-.... When stupid emotional friends get caught in a fight; well I always keep my calm and get in the center of the fight and try to calm down and coldly give arguments on why they should stop fighting. I try to mentally disarm them.
I always blame it on the stupid friends afterwards... I mean if they are my friend they should be at least smarter than the average joe, nope? or atleast wise enough to not search a fight, nope?

Rationality seems to only work when all the rules are logically sound and explained... (thus almost only in theory, rarely in relationships(since it's a confrontation of subjets; subjective logic vs subjective logic !).

I would eventually take risk and fight for a girlfriend if I'm enamored with her( because love= irrational; and because a great looking sweet girl is my kryptonite!) and because she's the future mother of my kids... But even then I'll real time wager; pros vs cons;..Etc
I'll fight to death for my kids, sure, I gues that is the only exception.
I think it's all about: when are you ready to act irrationally and take risks? when is it worthy?

I love to act irrationaly though( I'll do it on purpose for the fun of it !), being silly, doing crazy things... but it's only because I know I can; well yeah I have something special within... my lovely Ti-Ne combiantion that protects me in the real world against bullies and dangers.(but gets almost neutralized in irrational microcosms such as schools, work environements, relationships, family..Etc !)

 

[Brontosaurie]

The only way to attain perfect void is end of consciousness.
But until then, I ...........................I dont have anything to say......

funny idea to entertain but why would you want to embrace it exclusively? no way of being sure.

 

[Dragonmagicgeek]

Hmm... interesting. So, emotions are an involuntary response to a set of stimuli, including personal dependence on someone/thing, while rationality is using those emotions as a basis for thought and actions? I would add social norms and ethics as factors, and perhaps note that empathy seems to in some cases be an emotional response to the thought, 'I wouldn't want that happening to me.' Similarly, I have found myself, faced with a situation, deciding what emotion I should be feeling and simulating its effects on my thought process. These 'self-conscious emotions' never seem quite as powerful as the natural alternative.
These are my personal experiences, though I may be misinterpreting certain data. I welcome corrections and other input to add to my theories.