Joined
·
8,229 Posts
This is pretty disorganized. If you don't like the sort of thing, you have fair warning.
--------------------------------
I always thought a good way to describe F was the usage of the emotion center of the brain.
But apparently, it doesn't matter if we use the logical part of our brain more than the emotion center of the brain, as an F, and it only matters that rational considerations are focusing more on the emotions rather than the logic.
How does that make sense?
Is it based on how much we experience emotions vs logic. The whole pleasantville color vs non color, or the whole star trek vulcan vs human thing.
Or is it simply what we focus on FIRST?
I'm just unclear her.
It could be what we experience most.
What we focus on most.
What we focus on FIRST.
What we focus on LAST.
I could be F in one of these and T in another.
So the descriptions of F and T, really have to be SPECIFIC, to an exact thinking pattern, otherwise they just seem ambiguous and meaningless.
Someone could have a very small emotion, and base their entire life around that one emotion, but use logic the entire time.
Someone could use logic most of the time, but any time an emotion comes up, then stop being logical, however, emotions powerful enough to have awareness only come up once in a while.
Of course, the brain scans that show Fi and Fe in opposite hemispheres, make the definition seem something else altogether.
People start saying things like "humane values."
Well, what if someone considered rocks humane?
What if someone considers logic a personal extension of themselves, akin to a religious spirit?
My contention is that there is no definition of F and T that can be called "humane" that can be agreed upon.
Unless people agree on "what is humane."
These are two very different definitions of T and F, but both have serious problems in my mind.
They seem to be culturally dependent, in where what most people consider F to be ends up being it, or we have to try and figure out what Jung or MBTI thought F was. But did they ever really explain it enough?
Where are the lines? Did they talk about people treating rocks as spirits, or logic as if it was its own entity?
Everyone must admit, I think, that there are some things in life that are rational processes that are neither F nor T in the way we define them.
And they are in the middle.
It seems to be a cultural thing as well as a brain thing.
Where in the brain, seems to be a cultural thing.
Idk, enlighten me please.
--------------------------------
I always thought a good way to describe F was the usage of the emotion center of the brain.
But apparently, it doesn't matter if we use the logical part of our brain more than the emotion center of the brain, as an F, and it only matters that rational considerations are focusing more on the emotions rather than the logic.
How does that make sense?
Is it based on how much we experience emotions vs logic. The whole pleasantville color vs non color, or the whole star trek vulcan vs human thing.
Or is it simply what we focus on FIRST?
I'm just unclear her.
It could be what we experience most.
What we focus on most.
What we focus on FIRST.
What we focus on LAST.
I could be F in one of these and T in another.
So the descriptions of F and T, really have to be SPECIFIC, to an exact thinking pattern, otherwise they just seem ambiguous and meaningless.
Someone could have a very small emotion, and base their entire life around that one emotion, but use logic the entire time.
Someone could use logic most of the time, but any time an emotion comes up, then stop being logical, however, emotions powerful enough to have awareness only come up once in a while.
Of course, the brain scans that show Fi and Fe in opposite hemispheres, make the definition seem something else altogether.
People start saying things like "humane values."
Well, what if someone considered rocks humane?
What if someone considers logic a personal extension of themselves, akin to a religious spirit?
My contention is that there is no definition of F and T that can be called "humane" that can be agreed upon.
Unless people agree on "what is humane."
These are two very different definitions of T and F, but both have serious problems in my mind.
They seem to be culturally dependent, in where what most people consider F to be ends up being it, or we have to try and figure out what Jung or MBTI thought F was. But did they ever really explain it enough?
Where are the lines? Did they talk about people treating rocks as spirits, or logic as if it was its own entity?
Everyone must admit, I think, that there are some things in life that are rational processes that are neither F nor T in the way we define them.
And they are in the middle.
It seems to be a cultural thing as well as a brain thing.
Where in the brain, seems to be a cultural thing.
Idk, enlighten me please.
