raabjerg

This is how I feel

maj 25th, 2008

At great risk, I’m throwing myself into the recent stream of opinions about reason and feelings. I am doing so with some anguish, as I am sure the NT’s will come, outsmart me, and win the debate. If nothing else, because that is important to them. And let’s face it; NT’s do argue more consistently and rationally – otherwise they would not be rationals. Therefore, I will not try and present an objective confirmable argument, but rather give you my view on things as they have developed over the last few days. Keep in mind however, that nothing is static.

Let me start by describing myself a bit. I am a quite abstract person, I think a lot, I feel a lot; sometimes I may even tend to let my emotions carry me a bit away. I view myself as being definitely NF (INFJ as it were), but even so, my secondary ‘type’ is the NT – I believe I have an NT’ish side of me which I am able to put into play at specific occasions, but not over a longer period of time.

What motivates me? People. Relations. Even at the job I’m sitting at now, where I am handling invoices in various ways, dealing much with computer systems, and communicating with people mostly through email, the thing that motivates me is that I get a lot done (probably my J-side which gets satisfaction from completion) and the feedback I get from the people I help, letting me know that they consider my job valuable to them. I always feel myself opposed to various attempts in the department to cut down on the level of personal contact with our users (of which there is not that much already), even if it would seemingly free our time to do even more processing, because I know it would not motivate me, but rather do the opposite.

What is the issue I am concerned about right now? Put simply, my right and privilege to be an NF-person without having to feel as if there was a better way for me. Much of this will be triggered by thoughts originating from a book called ‘Could it be this simple’, which proposes a hierarchy of the mind, in which reason along with conscience should be at the top, and feelings at the bottom. I will blog more about this book later, probably, but regardless of what the intentions of the book are, it has brought forth in my circle of friends the idea that all NF’s should strive towards becoming NT’s, being more rational and letting reason be the sole determinant of their choices.

At first glance, this seems obvious. Who would not want to let reason determine their choices? So I think we need to go into semantics here. For what is really meant by this reason seems to be (to me) cold, detached, calm rationalistic arguments, that objectively can tell you what to do. My problem is this: To me, the effect of trying to do this is to make me even more confused, more miserable, and ultimately less passionate and less caring about the choices I make. Why? Because I am simply not wired the way you (the thinking people) are. I am simply not wired to base my decisions on detached rational choices. I don’t feel good about it. If you are an NT, you will feel good about it. It’s that simple (to me).

The argument then tends to go something like ‘but you can’t trust your feelings. Think about the worst things you’ve done and whether or not they were based on feelings’. I think there may be a bit of semantic confusion as well, when we use the term ‘feelings’. For some people, feelings will be the naturally unhealthy and erratic impulses that goes here and there, not allowing us to settle, or rather, inciting us to do things that are plain wrong. But this is not how I see the feelings that the NF-type leans on when making decisions. I see them as also including the gut-feeling that you have, the deep conviction, the deep values that make you just know whether or not something is right or wrong. Some would call this conscience, and indeed, in Jenning’s (the ‘Could it be this simple?’-guy) book, he rightly argues that conscience should be balanced with reason. However, somehow reason still ends up being the most exalted entity in the book (my overall impression), which is not surprising, since the guy comes heavily across as being an NT. Furthermore, I do not see ‘feelings’ as containing the ‘animal passions’, lusts, and so on that Jennings ascribe to feelings. These are in a completely different category and are called sinful tendencies. And I believe they exist both in reason and feelings, as long as we continue to be marred, sinful, human beings.

Before we go on, I think there may be some confusion when it comes to the ‘thinking’ types as opposed to the ‘feeling’ types. In Keirsey’s model of reworking the Myers-Briggs inventory, he renames the T to tough-minded and the F to friendly, indicating that the T-types tend to be more detached when making decisions, and the F-types tend to be more involved people-wise when making decisions. In this way, F-types will not be devoid of reason, but they will employ it in a different way. Whereas NT’s will tend to be more focused on objective truth, and thus view the reason as performing more of a strictly logical exercise, the NF’s will use the reason along with their feelings to enhance their relations to other people, and enhance other people’s well-being (not accounting for sinful behaviour which inherently is selfish for everyone). When faced with a trade-off between objective truth and the well-being of an individual, the NT’s will tend to be tough-minded and choose the ‘truth’, where the NF will tend to give priority to the needs of the person. But still, the NF’s will also allow more room for considering their feelings when making decisions, and not the least, living in the world of their feelings, rather than their thoughts.

So don’t get me wrong. We should all lean on our rational capabilities. There should be balance. Not even the most rabid NF should cease using their reason, and not even the most abstract thinker calling himself an NT should cease feeling. But, please don’t try to make me feel so passionately about consistent reasoning and rationales as you do. It’s not me. It’s not who I am. (even if I am one of the more analytical NF’s you will meet)

Some will argue that unless you let reason have complete control over your actions, you will end up doing terrible things. Those of you that know me well know that I have done some bad stuff not too long ago, and some of you will ascribe it to my NF-traits, and claim that if I was more of an NT, letting reason control my actions, I would not have given in to temptation. However, I believe this to be a simplification. I believe that if I had listened to my conscience, and decided to take heed of it, I – and other people – would have been better off. This leads us to the will. I believe the will governs both the way we reason and feel, or rather, that the will should take inputs from both our reason and our emotional world. I think I would place the will as the highest entity we have (just looking at Jenning’s book, I realise I may be using his terminology a bit loosely, so I will not make to much comparison at this point). I believe both NT’s and NF’s alike can be controlled by sinful drives. Is the way to defend against this to think, or to use our strengths to combat the desires we feel? (I certainly agree that reason has its place in tempting situations, as do conscience. But I believe the power to overcome temptation can come only from God, and that He will only provide this when we with our will has taken the stand that we do not wish to give in to it. For me, being an NF, the greatest motivation for such a stand is not that it is rationally wrong, but that it is relationally wrong – that God has forbidden this for the very specific reason that it will do harm to myself and the people around me)

Let me return to the argument about feelings being the root of all the bad choices we make, and that if we only trust reason, it will go much better. When I think about much of the bad stuff I have done, I realise that it is not necessarily feelings that motivate. Almost always, after having committed a sin, I do not feel good. In fact, I feel badly about it – this is probably my conscience talking, but I see the conscience as having some part in my emotional world as well. Before I commit sin, I usually think that it will make me feel good. So somehow, the sin is based on a lie (this is true, even if it really feels good when committing that sin). So really, the problem has been a misconception about the way that act would make me feel. This misconception is as much in the mind as in the feelings. I believe that here, only God can enter and shed his light. His truth – as we find it in the Bible – is not merely absorbed through reason. The reason for my trust in the Bible is not that I find it to be rationally coherent and ‘proven’; rather it is that God has shown Himself to me through his word, and that whenever I have managed to build my life on the Scriptures, God has proven to me in practice that His principles do work. It is the effect this book has on me when I read it. It is the deep conviction that here, I am sitting with something of not only human, but also divine, origin. It is the revelation of God that is evident when I read this book. Also, I believe God can speak to us in other ways than through the Bible. I believe God, the Holy Spirit, can prompt us through our conscience to do or abstain from certain things. I do not believe we only take inputs from God through our reason. I believe we also get them from our conscience, and that our emotions also originate from somewhere, which will make them reflect what we may have experienced with God.

I cannot be satisfied with reasoning detached about everything I do. I am a complete person, created with a great emotional depth, and I thrive on emotions and harmonious relations – not abstract mind structures that have (to me) no purpose (ok, sometimes, but not consistently ). I believe I am created with this capability, and that there is not a basic problem with being an NF (as stated before, there may be some areas in which I am weaker, but this is then something I will need to deal with – not by trying to act like an NT, that is). On the contrary, I see us as having great purpose. I am right now struggling a bit to see the purpose of detached reason-based NT’s, but I think I am beginning to see some of that as well (and of course, the picture is always mixed – I probably would not like to see a 100% NF person either). They will have great strengths that I do not (This also goes for the S-types, by the way, for whom there was sadly no place in this post).

In summary, I am made as an NF. The NF-trait has weak sides. So does the NT-trait. Please don’t try and rationalize me. I am happy to engage in discussion with you, and I enjoy it. But I enjoy it for your company and for getting to know you better. Not for the sake of the argument itself. And in that respect, we are different. I am passionate about other things than you. If you try and make me into you, my passion will be strangled, and the world will be a poorer place, just as it would if I tried to make you feel all the time, thus strangling your passion for thinking great thoughts.

(Many thanks to Serina and Katrine for providing some feedback on these thoughts while in the creative process )

Entry Filed under: Books,Personality,Reflections