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!