Do Thinkers Have Feelings?
My brain is currently rebelling against the confines of structure and the suffocation of advance preparation. So, I’m breaking from my various series to focus on a subject that I know we’ve touched on here and there, in other articles. (Like probably in this one: Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): What’s the Difference? and this really old one here: Yes, Thinkers feel and yes, Feelers think.) But, my brain is running what my brain is running, and I’m in the mood for a more unstructured ramble… which means I’m not entirely sure how I’m going to categorize this article when I’m done with it. But anyways, let’s talk about thinkers and feelings.
Do Thinkers Have Feeling?
One thing I remember knowing right away, when I first looked into Myers-Briggs, was that I was thinker. It was painfully obvious. No, it wasn’t because I was smart and analytical and all that jazz. I mean, my sister was/is a painfully obvious INFP, and she’s very smart and analytical. Likely smarter than me, in fact. That’s why so often I harp on the fact that intelligence has nothing to do with personality type. I’ve been around a lot of smart people of all different types.
So, How Did I Know I Was A Thinker?
It was my relationship with my emotions. Now, I know people are probably going to get annoyed eventually, as they continue reading this ramble of mine, because “feeling functions aren’t about emotions, they’re about values.” Well, that’s actually kinda wrong. The feeling functions are about “feeling-values” and “feeling judgments”, which are all rooted in “feelings”. For the record, Jung did say that “feeling values and feeling judgments—indeed, feelings in general—are not only rational but can also be as logical, consistent and discriminating as thinking.” Everyone has values, no matter the personality type. If you want to read more about that subject, go check out Feeling vs Thinking: What Are Values?
Naturally, I Have Feelings.
We all do, right? People are people. I struggle sometimes with personality theory (not just Myers-Briggs) because it frequently reduces people to unrealistic caricatures. Are you a sensor? Well, you must be brainless, brawny brute only capable of seeing what’s physically in front of you. Feeler? Depressed emotional wreck or manic hyper optimist. Intuitive? Basically a ghost that can’t touch grass. Etc. Etc. Is it so hard to forget how to think like a real person when approaching personality theory? Apparently so.
As a human being like any other, it would be entirely irrational for me to claim to be an emotionless robot. I’ve never been under such an illusion, although I generally considered myself to be less emotional than many people around me. (But for the record, I’ve come to learn in recent years than I am more emotional than I previously thought. That’s development for you, I suppose.)
Here’s A Couple Things Jung Said About Dominant Thinking
I’m sharing this because it really struck me when I first read it. You know, (for the Enneagram enthusiasts out there), how you’re supposed to know you’ve found your Enneagram type when you feel called out by the description? That’s kinda how I felt when reading these quote about dominant thinking, especially the first one. (For the record, I know it says “thinking type” in the quote below, so you may be tempted to include the auxiliary thinkers, EXTPs and IXTJs, but for the most part, Jung strictly refers to dominants when discussing cognitive functions. Therefore, the auxiliaries may find this less relatable. I’m curious though, so if you’re an auxiliary, please share your thoughts in the comments.)
What It Means To Be A Dominant Thinker
I like to quote Jung because while I know he can be very convoluted at times, sometimes he says things very clearly. The bottom line here is that yes, thinkers have feelings. They can even be extremely aware of them. But the key is that these feelings are denied validity. They are sectioned off, and disassociated from. The thinker with a highly differentiated thinking function (and thus an underdeveloped feeling function) will try their best to reject their emotions, refuse to admit that their emotions have any influence in their actions or decision-making, and bury them in the deepest darkest corner of their mind, all in the name of objectivity and rationality. However, as Jung pointed out, treating emotions this way can cause them to spontaneously surface against the thinker’s will, to (in a sense) demand the validity they’ve been denied. People are people, after all.
Admittedly, as I mentioned, this is a description of an underdeveloped state. Jung spoke in extremes, but the principle remains. Thinkers tend to be at odds with their emotions, viewing them as obstacles. An adversarial relationship. That’s what I’ve always related to. Sure, I can be happy, passionate, excited, sad, angry, etc. But my emotions are always checked against logic, and only allowed validity when in line with logic. That doesn’t mean they don’t surface, but my mind turns in a war zone, because my emotions are essentially like an independent entity threatening to act against my will.
I once spoke with an INFP, and we essentially came to conclusion that we took opposite approaches to our emotions. For me, they were invalid until proven otherwise. For him, emotions came first. They were valid, until proven otherwise. Either one of us could work our way to the opposite end of the spectrum, but our starting points were the key difference.
Feelers In Disguise?
I’ve always struggled a bit when I see self-proclaimed thinkers (young ones especially) start talking about how it’s only logical to include emotions in the equation. (Typically, they’re trying to justify their high emotional intelligence as a thinker, or something of the sort.) Bear in mind, I don’t disagree with that concept, but when I don’t see any kind of adversarial relationship with emotions, it makes me wonder if the person I’m observing is truly a thinker, or just a smart feeler. I get that development happens, and people learn to account for their emotions and other people’s emotions, and etc. (For the record, someone can be a nice thinker. Devaluing emotional data doesn’t make someone mean or malicious. For instance, a thinker might fail to foresee or recognize emotional implications in themselves or others. They also might be trying to make the most rational decision for the sake of others, as a kindness… Trying to do what they truly believe is best without realizing that they’re missing information that others deem important. I don’t consider myself to be a mean person, and I do try to account for people’s feelings, but sometimes it feels like I’m operating on a different wavelength.) Development usually takes a long time, and there should be some indication of the default tendency to devalue emotional data.
In Conclusion…
I think I’ve run out of thoughts. (And I think my rambles have become more structured…That’s weird.) I’d love for you all to share feedback. Maybe my inferior feeling function is just extra especially bad, and other thinkers out there aren’t quite as extreme. Either way, let me know what you think in the comments!
Hi there! If you enjoyed that article, leave us a quick comment to encourage us to keep writing, and check out our Updates and Current Projects. In addition, if you've found our content helpful, please consider Buying Us A Coffee to help keep this website running. Thank you!
English is not my first language.
I’ve always found it interesting how a dominant thinker can be speaking, yet at the same time, their tone of voice and expressions clearly reveal emotions that are just as strong as the logic they’re presenting. They become so absorbed in their own thoughts that it’s difficult for them to see the impression they’re giving off. Unless someone points it out to them, it’s hard for them to recognize it themselves, I suppose.
I think dominant thinkers are more transparent in that regard than auxiliary thinkers. In any case, it seems to me that regardless of what your dominant function is, your emotions will be influenced by it. “The cause-and-effect relationship in this situation clearly gives me a reason to worry about this,” or “All these possibilities—how exciting!” Whatever is most relevant to you will affect your emotions more quickly.
For sure. We’re all emotionally effected by what’s most important to us. As to you initial paragraph, the dominant inferior relationship can result in a whiplash effect that clearly reveals the inferior function as it fights with the dominant. So yeah, dominant thinkers can definitely have the emotions shine through without realizing it’s happening.
“I’ve always struggled a bit when I see self-proclaimed thinkers (young ones especially) start talking about how it’s only logical to include emotions in the equation.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
What would be some concrete examples of “logically including” emotions in the equation?
For instance, emotions could be factored into decision-making (the equation) as potential problems to be anticipated, avoided or eliminated (e.g. “If X happens, it will likely trigger emotion A in someone, which could become an obstacle later, therefore do Y instead to prevent that outcome”).
Based on what’s written in the article, I assume you’re not referring to this kind of dismissive attitude toward emotions. But additional examples would be helpful to clarify where you draw the line between “logically including” them and simply managing them as obstacles.
Decisions, where it is wise to factor in emotions : Relationships or job choices for instance.
Pragmatically it could make sense to maintain a relationship (professionally or even in private) to a certain person or group to achieve a goal or receive other benefits. But it could make you miserable in the long run. Besides, bottled up emotions can and likely will resurface in some sort or form, thus potential fallouts with the consequences to bite you could harm you later down the road, thus accounting and including your emotions into the equation would make sense.
Same goes for jobs : If it pays well, but you hate it to the bone you’ll end up in a weird spot. Kento Nanami is a good representation of this dilemma in fiction.
In addition to this, feelers are usually better at making decisions that more effectively mobilize the people involved/impacted because feelers more naturally account for people reactions. Thinkers are more focused on “things” and “facts” and expect people to fall in line with those just like they do. It usually takes more effort to slow down and expand their focus to the feelery realm.
I’ve found that the pragmatic job that you hate situation is more common for the TJs than the TPs because of low identity.
To clarify, since it was discussed under the heading “Feelers in Disguise?”, I was looking for examples that help differentiate between:
1. A feeler who is “logically including” emotions in the equation, and
2. A thinker who factors emotions in as a variable, even if they are relatively devalued compared to factual information in the decision‑making process.
Examples involving pain/suffering/misery are tricky in this regard. They aren’t necessarily good differentiators between thinkers and feelers since most people, regardless of type, are motivated to avoid prolonged misery unless there is some clear benefit (however defined for that individual) that outweighs the cost. Acting on that drive might simply be basic human self‑preservation, rather than a reliably type‑indicative behavior. Anyone can come up with logical justifications to end their misery one way or another.”
Oh I see, my bad! If I am able to produce an answer, I’ll comment again lol.
It’s not that emotions are NEVER factored in – it’s just that they aren’t generally factored in for their own sake. A younger thinker may disregard them entirely or only take them in when they see a practical benefit (e.g. “I need to make sure I don’t rock the boat otherwise people are gonna cause problems”). A more developed thinker may start factoring them in more OFTEN, but it will usually still be for some sort of practical reason (e.g. “I need to start taking care of my mental health so that I can be more productive”)
If someone is saying something along the lines of “emotions need to be factored in (and potentially override the most practical solution) because, if they’re not, then feelings are gonna be hurt” – very likely not a thinker!
Let’s talk about our feelings! (Literally, haha) I guess as an INTP my relationship with emotions kind of matches what Jung said up there. I think they cloud good judgement a lot of the time and result in rash decisions which is why I try to leave them out of the decision process when it comes to big stuff… key word “try”. I sort of think it’s a losing battle/impossible to try to just be unaffected by your emotions all the time in your decision making process so I try to keep track of things I might be biased for or against and try to… keep track of it, I suppose. If I don’t think I can trust myself to make a good, fair decision in certain circumstances I’ll try to maneuver things so I don’t have to or delegate it to someone else or what have you. Though, this mostly just applies to major, touchy things with consequences; if it’s something like what to have for lunch that day I’m fine with letting my emotions take the lead if my Ti doesn’t disagree with it. (Emotions: “I want this for lunch!” Ti: “Sure, we haven’t eaten yet…” vs. Emotions: “Ooh, let’s buy this new game! It looks cool!” Ti: “Wait, don’t we have like a million bajillion games in our backlog? Let’s try to play some of those first before we get sucked into another endless cycle of buying new games and not finishing them again…”)
Overall, I’m not sure if I view my emotions as “valid” or “invalid”, I kind of just see them as extensions of my reactions to things. I don’t really view them as a guide to finding myself nor necessarily toxic waste to be avoided at all costs (…as long as they’re managed so I don’t do anything rash. Though this can fail sometimes; Fe grip and all that.) They’re kind of just… there and I generally don’t interact with them. I guess that sort of fits Jung’s description of being aware of your emotions and trying not to let them influence you, haha.
Though I do get sort of annoyed if people seem to be being… “gratuitously emotional”? I guess I can sort of respect certain decisions made on emotion (SPOILERS FOR DEATH STRANDING Like Sam from Death Stranding saving Lou at the end of the game.) But I guess if people are trying to influence me with their emotions, the emotional atmosphere or doing things to express how they feel without checking themselves to make sure those feelings are rooted in something… well, “valid”, I guess is a good word for it. Like an ISFJ YouTuber I watch who was playing Final Fantasy: Remake and she didn’t like how Aerith’s voice sounded (or perhaps how she was portrayed… since she played Crisis Core first) and she made that abundantly, abundantly clear through the playthrough. Her and her chat made jokes about it and I kind of got this visceral feeling of annoyance, especially since there was one guy who was on the fence about agreeing with everyone else and he finally folded and she said something like “Finally seen the light, have you?” which was kind of the pinnacle of it for me. (Maybe I felt like Ti was being snuffed out by her Fe…) I guess I might be biased since I liked Aerith’s portrayal so far. (There’s that thing about tracking my biases again, haha.) Nothing against her, though. I think she’s a lovely person and I find her playthroughs relaxing and a good way to decompress. You can like someone as a whole even if they rub you the wrong way one time, haha.
This post was longer, but I hit the character limit so I’ll just stop it here. Hope this helps with comparing your inferior feeling function to other people’s!
Ahh, thanks for the share! I find stuff like the Aerith thing annoying on the premise of “Can we just move on now?” You know, like I get it, you’ve made your feelings clear and you’re allowed to feel that way, but why are we still talking about this?
“Development usually takes a long time, and there should be some indication of the default tendency to devalue emotional data.”
An interesting statement, Mara, in that it seems to bear witness to Jung’s words about the unconscious influence of the inferior function 🙂. Would not the “tendency to devalue” point to the function that assigns value, or importance, or worth to some entity? I’ve always seen your heart in everything you write, and your post today is no exception. Those who prefer thinking inevitably employ feeling to place feeling lower on their hierarchy of values. That form of judgment or decision making, though unconscious, belongs properly to feeling, not thinking, don’t you think?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and cheers to you, my young friend.
Gilbert