Personality Cafe banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
There is a common misconception that a rational mind is more capable of being intellectually profound than an emotional one.

This MAY be because it’s commonly thought that emotion and logic exist as a dichotomy in the range intelligential capacity, and thus implies that a higher accumulation of one, immediately cancels out the presence of other.
On the intellectual basis, logic is often held in higher regards due to the fact that by principle, it is beyond invalidation, thus meaning it’s capable of producing a more accurate result, than emotion as when used by the basis for evaluation.

However, while that is true, what makes a mind profound in and of itself is the depth of the analytical process its capable of conducting NOT the accuracy produced by the evaluation.

It’s true that an evaluation without accuracy produces little substance, but it will fair just as poorly if it is devoid of depth. This would mean that the two work in conjunction to generate profound thought, and NEITHER seems to be more superior than in regards to determining a more profound intellect, because BOTH emotion and logic have the capacity to impact the depth of the analytic processes itself, meaning that they’re closer to counterparts than polar opposites.

Being emotionally profound is JUST as intellectual credible as being logically profound, so if you’re an F no NOT intellectually discredit yourself and know that it is within the depth of your analysis that makes you intellectual, not the source of your evaluation.

As mentioned in a previous thread: The capacity for a great intellect lies in the depth of the analytical process, NOT from the nature of the results you produce. An answer, no matter how accurate, holds shallow substance if given little depth, and no great intellect can exist without a great capacity for depth.

EDIT:

Sorry, this post is meant to refer to Thinking and Feeling, not logic and emotion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Feeling isn't necessarily about emotion although feeling types might pay more attention to it. It's more about following your sense of what is ethical or following your subjective values regarding what is good, bad, etc. I agree though that emotion is often denigrated in our society when the reality is that a lot of great art, literature, even science is produced because of it. Emotion is what ultimately motivates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Intellect and intelligence don't have to do with type. Thinkers can be dumb and feelers can be geniuses and vice versa. Some of the dumbest, least intellectual people I know are thinkers and some of the most intellectual people who've ever existed are feelers. Some of the most "emotionally profound" people I've ever met are thinkers. Just like thinkers can have blond hair or be tall or be short or be white or black, and feelers can be any of those things, too. And more.

Type isn't about biology nor intelligence (which might have some genetic roots, too.) Type is just about cognitive orientations and preferences. There is no "preference" towards intellectualism or intelligence, just like there is no preference towards being the height you are. You just are. The MBTI does not explain all things.

Logic is beyond invalidation only insofar as logic sees itself as the only small container in which reality can exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Rational would be T and F.
Irrational would be S and N.
Logic also is a word wouldn't shouldn't be using when discussing personality because logic is a study much like mathematics. It is learned and nobody seems perfectly through a lens of logical correctness. It would likely be impossible to make decisions if they did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Rational would be T and F.
Irrational would be S and N.
Logic also is a word wouldn't shouldn't be using when discussing personality because logic is a study much like mathematics. It is learned and nobody seems perfectly through a lens of logical correctness. It would likely be impossible to make decisions if they did.
Well said. And even "rational" versus "irrational" should be clearly defined when speaking of them in the context of MBTI, because they are culturally loaded words and did not necessarily mean the same thing to Jung and Myers-Briggs as they might mean if one just uses them colloquially.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Feeling isn't necessarily about emotion although feeling types might pay more attention to it. It's more about following your sense of what is ethical or following your subjective values regarding what is good, bad, etc. I agree though that emotion is often denigrated in our society when the reality is that a lot of great art, literature, even science is produced because of it. Emotion is what ultimately motivates.
You have a pretty valid Point. NT's have a pretty high emotion when passion is involved, so I probably should have titled it as feeling vs. thinking in the domain of intelligence to depict the concept better.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Rational would be T and F.
Irrational would be S and N.
Logic also is a word wouldn't shouldn't be using when discussing personality because logic is a study much like mathematics. It is learned and nobody seems perfectly through a lens of logical correctness. It would likely be impossible to make decisions if they did.
I wasn't referring to personality I was referring to the domain of intelligence. I might have accidentally given the impression that logic confers to the personality temperaments, in which that's my bad. But I was dressing the stereotype that feelers are less intellectually capable than thinkers, because thinkers are associated with logic and feelers are association with emotion, and logic is deemed intellectual superior because it's deemed as the ultimate source of validity in the nature of rationalization. And rationalization is strong associated with intellectual aptitude. Personality and Intelligence are not the subject of relation, S and N have nothing to do with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
I wasn't referring to personality I was referring to the domain of intelligence. I might have accidentally given the impression that logic confers to the personality temperaments, in which that's my bad. But I was dressing the stereotype that feelers are less intellectually capable than thinkers, because thinkers are associated with logic and feelers are association with emotion, and logic is deemed intellectual superior because it's deemed as the ultimate source of validity in the nature of rationalization. And rationalization is strong associated with intellectual aptitude. Personality and Intelligence are not the subject of relation, S and N have nothing to do with it.
I shall explain. Being "emotional" or "reactive" is associated with the perception functions. Feeling isn't emotions, I think it's better to differentiate feeling and thinking through being personal and being impersonal. I think that's slightly better because it's less difficult to confuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
In this system, "feeling" does not equal emotional states; it equals subjective values.

"Thinking" does not refer to logic or rationality; it refers to objective systems.

Subjectivity and objectivity are, themselves, very messy concepts. But neither F not T are indicators of any particular type of intelligence, intellect, or being good at something. They're just ways of making decisions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I shall explain. Being "emotional" or "reactive" is associated with the perception functions. Feeling isn't emotions, I think it's better to differentiate feeling and thinking through being personal and being impersonal. I think that's slightly better because it's less difficult to confuse.
I agree with your explanation, however I might have mistakenly referred to emotion and feelings in the same context when writing the title and the post but in the explanation I was referring entirely to feelings, so emotion and feelings in the same context are a misapplied concept, but I didn't mean to depict it that way in the explanation.

When I transcribe my thoughts into words, my writing has trouble keeping up because my thought process,because it has a tendency to produce too many distinguishable assets in the argument that could effect the outcome, so I scramble to find exact definitions to avoid confusion without changing the conclusive outcome, and the result is I add things that are there because of tangents and possible applicable, rather than definitive. ( is this a common thing with INTP's, because I heard it was.... )

Emotion itself does't at all factor into what I was trying to communicate, so it can be confusing but know I was referring to feeling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
There is a common misconception that a rational mind is more capable of being intellectually profound than an emotional one.

This MAY be because it’s commonly thought that emotion and logic exist as a dichotomy in the range intelligential capacity, and thus implies that a higher accumulation of one, immediately cancels out the presence of other.
On the intellectual basis, logic is often held in higher regards due to the fact that by principle, it is beyond invalidation, thus meaning it’s capable of producing a more accurate result, than emotion as when used by the basis for evaluation.

However, while that is true, what makes a mind profound in and of itself is the depth of the analytical process its capable of conducting NOT the accuracy produced by the evaluation.

It’s true that an evaluation without accuracy produces little substance, but it will fair just as poorly if it is devoid of depth. This would mean that the two work in conjunction to generate profound thought, and NEITHER seems to be more superior than in regards to determining a more profound intellect, because BOTH emotion and logic have the capacity to impact the depth of the analytic processes itself, meaning that they’re closer to counterparts than polar opposites.

Being emotionally profound is JUST as intellectual credible as being logically profound, so if you’re an F no NOT intellectually discredit yourself and know that it is within the depth of your analysis that makes you intellectual, not the source of your evaluation.

As mentioned in a previous thread: The capacity for a great intellect lies in the depth of the analytical process, NOT from the nature of the results you produce. An answer, no matter how accurate, holds shallow substance if given little depth, and no great intellect can exist without a great capacity for depth.

EDIT:

Sorry, this post is meant to refer to Thinking and Feeling, not logic and emotion.
Yes I've noticed feelers - INFPs at least - being characterised as not being intellectual/analytical and being incapable of logic because they think with their feelings. As an intellectual type of person myself (INFP 5w4) it was one reason I felt I didn't feel I fitted the stereotype, not that I was trying to. But yes, it's a very western way of thinking, the idea that the intellect is associated with some sort of cold impersonal logic or reasoning that is entirely devoid of emotions or feelings. As feeling beings emotion/sentiments/values colour everything, it's hard for most of us to avoid their pervasive influence, and I think any intelligent person can recognise the innate connectivity of thought/feeling. Like you say feelers are definitely capable of great thought, and thinkers of great feeling, and the two are often combined.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Yes I've noticed feelers - INFPs at least - being characterised as not being intellectual/analytical and being incapable of logic because they think with their feelings. As an intellectual type of person myself (INFP 5w4) it was one reason I felt I didn't feel I fitted the stereotype, not that I was trying to. But yes, it's a very western way of thinking, the idea that the intellect is associated with some sort of cold impersonal logic or reasoning that is entirely devoid of emotions or feelings. As feeling beings emotion/sentiments/values colour everything, it's hard for most of us to avoid their pervasive influence, and I think any intelligent person can recognise the innate connectivity of thought/feeling. Like you say feelers are definitely capable of great thought, and thinkers of great feeling, and the two are often combined.
Oh, hello! Welcome.

Though most of the responses I got was from the NT's, I'm glad than a non Thinking Type found this thread, (especially an NF) because I can find so many instances of intellectual arrogance on the NTs behalf, that's imposed on the other types, but particularly the NF's temperament, that they would probably be unwilling to admit if confronted about it.

I've seen INFJ's being referred to as a "downgrade" compared to an INTJ, and I noticed a lot of the INFP's feel like they get this treatment from INTP's too.

It's saddening because to a lot of the NF’s, (especially the INFP, and INFJ) intellectual capacity means a lot to them, and because they may have frequently encountered NT’s that often disregard this about them, they seem to be under the impression that they will always get this treatment, or(in the worst case) actually start to believe that by being an F type as opposed to a T makes them less intellectual capable, and they'll look down on they're own temperament.

Secondly, there is a HUGE stereotype that all NT's (INTJ and INTP especially) seem to act/think this way, ( on both part of temperaments) which is NOT the case.

So if it's not to much trouble can you get other NF's to look at this thread so I can get non INTP/NT input

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Intellect and intelligence don't have to do with type. Thinkers can be dumb and feelers can be geniuses and vice versa. Some of the dumbest, least intellectual people I know are thinkers and some of the most intellectual people who've ever existed are feelers. Some of the most "emotionally profound" people I've ever met are thinkers. Just like thinkers can have blond hair or be tall or be short or be white or black, and feelers can be any of those things, too. And more.

Type isn't about biology nor intelligence (which might have some genetic roots, too.) Type is just about cognitive orientations and preferences. There is no "preference" towards intellectualism or intelligence, just like there is no preference towards being the height you are. You just are. The MBTI does not explain all things.
This is something I considered recently. Being an F doesn't mean that you have less intelligence, it means that you have a heightened sense of F. For example, a mentally handicapped person could think in a way that was logic based while my aunt is most definitely an F and is in Mensa.

I think the cause of this way of thinking stems from the following paragraph:

Reason is what separates us from animals and to rely on F is to align yourself with your instincts. It's animalistic and barbarian. Therefore, logic is the lynchpin of human superiority. Further, when we are children, we think about how we feel about things and not the greater picture and must generally learn to use logic. There are many logic puzzles which would probably puzzle even the strongest Ts on the site and classes for logic that have pushed my limits. It is something that is trainable and therefore, Fs must simply have inadequate training/development in this area. Because of this, they rely on their primal urges (instinct) and not sound thinking.

I initially ascribed to this view, but after spending a great many hours pondering over this very matter and simply be being around my F wife, I have noticed that she has valuable traits to offer that are beyond my comprehension... a sixth sense, if you will (she is INFP). Further, I'm beginning to recognize just how emotionally retarded I am. I can out think most people I meet, but I can't tell you how I feel without stuttering and blushing like a person naked on a stage. It's still something I'm learning, I'm sure I won't ever be done learning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Let me further state that it is imperative that we seek to balance ourselves with all of the letters, heightening our abilities is every category. As applicable to this thread, Fs should work on their ability to reason and Ts should heighten their ability to express emotion. I imagine that God is a perfect EISNTFJP. Striving to be like that will require great effort and recognition that the task is never complete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Oh, hello! Welcome.

Though most of the responses I got was from the NT's, I'm glad than a non Thinking Type found this thread, (especially an NF) because I can find so many instances of intellectual arrogance on the NTs behalf, that's imposed on the other types, but particularly the NF's temperament, that they would probably be unwilling to admit if confronted about it.

I've seen INFJ's being referred to as a "downgrade" compared to an INTJ, and I noticed a lot of the INFP's feel like they get this treatment from INTP's too.

It's saddening because to a lot of the NF’s, (especially the INFP, and INFJ) intellectual capacity means a lot to them, and because they may have frequently encountered NT’s that often disregard this about them, they seem to be under the impression that they will always get this treatment, or(in the worst case) actually start to believe that by being an F type as opposed to a T makes them less intellectual capable, and they'll look down on they're own temperament.

Secondly, there is a HUGE stereotype that all NT's (INTJ and INTP especially) seem to act/think this way, ( on both part of temperaments) which is NOT the case.

So if it's not to much trouble can you get other NF's to look at this thread so I can get non INTP/NT input

Thanks.
There are lots of NFs who can theorise/intellectualise with the best of them. I'm sure some NFs will post, don't really know too many that well to refer them to this thread...yeah I think some NFs, maybe younger ones with less self-esteem, for instance, might feel that way, but I think anyone with a fuller understanding of the functions needn't feel that way. In the same way, some NFs might think of NTs as a bit cold and impersonal. I think stereotypes in general not surprisingly pervade any system which seeks to divide people into groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
This is something I considered recently. Being an F doesn't mean that you have less intelligence, it means that you have a heightened sense of F. For example, a mentally handicapped person could think in a way that was logic based while my aunt is most definitely an F and is in Mensa.

I think the cause of this way of thinking stems from the following paragraph:

Reason is what separates us from animals and to rely on F is to align yourself with your instincts. It's animalistic and barbarian. Therefore, logic is the lynchpin of human superiority. Further, when we are children, we think about how we feel about things and not the greater picture and must generally learn to use logic. There are many logic puzzles which would probably puzzle even the strongest Ts on the site and classes for logic that have pushed my limits. It is something that is trainable and therefore, Fs must simply have inadequate training/development in this area. Because of this, they rely on their primal urges (instinct) and not sound thinking.

I initially ascribed to this view, but after spending a great many hours pondering over this very matter and simply be being around my F wife, I have noticed that she has valuable traits to offer that are beyond my comprehension... a sixth sense, if you will (she is INFP). Further, I'm beginning to recognize just how emotionally retarded I am. I can out think most people I meet, but I can't tell you how I feel without stuttering and blushing like a person naked on a stage. It's still something I'm learning, I'm sure I won't ever be done learning.
I think whoever wrote that is using a very limited and skewed idea of what feeling actually is. Feeling isn't just some instinctual knee-jerk emotional reaction, it's about deep values, sentiments, inspiration - things that propelled us to where we are today, for better or worse. Without any of that none of the great intellectual achievements would count for anything. Almost everyone has emotions, and feeling colours their decisions, to say otherwise would mean we're robots that don't care about anything. To be more in touch with these, and with the complex values that underly reality, is what being really in touch with your feeling functions is. It's about high-minded values and ideals, or should be, not having emotional outbursts.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top