There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.
Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.
That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion.
There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.
Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.
That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion.
I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".
There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.
Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.
That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion.
I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".
I will tilt more T than F every once in awhile, but I have been mostly 50%T and 50% F on those kinds of tests for decades now. The T is highly beneficial to me as an administrator, the F is invaluable as a moderator/facilitator/counselor.
But I am too much T to fully trust going with my gut. And that's why emotion didn't get put into any of those boxes.
There is some controversy about that though. On the Myers-Briggs and similar scales, a Thinking person makes decisions based on available verifiable evidence and generally emotions will not factor into that. A Feeling person will of course be influenced by verifiable evidence but more often makes decisions on what feels right--goes with his gut so to speak.
Of course few of us are all Ts or all Fs but most of us trend one way or the other. The best decisions will often be made by collaboration by a T and a F. The F will remind the T of human consequences of an action the T might not consider. The T will be more likely to spot the unintended consequences of an action based on emotional criteria.
That's why I couldn't really fit emotion into any of the existing boxes. If reason had been one of the boxes, I would have had to re-engineer it into the perception box or leave it on the outside of the whole along with emotion.
I would consider myself Thinking overall because I may feel something but I will base a decision on the evidence available. Unless it is a pretty girl then I am in trouble before I say "hello".
I will tilt more T than F every once in awhile, but I have been mostly 50%T and 50% F on those kinds of tests for decades now. The T is highly beneficial to me as an administrator, the F is invaluable as a moderator/facilitator/counselor.
But I am too much T to fully trust going with my gut. And that's why emotion didn't get put into any of those boxes.
The emotions of other can be a powerful ally in any contest.
)
). I don't exist in a state of pepetual fear; something frightens me. I feel no love or hate for anything or anyone intrinsically; there are always identifiable reasons for such feeelings, all of which are traceable back to some instigative perception. For me, in order to feel the love for X, I must first sense something lovable about X.RAVI said:
In thinking about "mathematics", I started second-guessing myself about its relationship to the language box. What is "language", after all, but a series of meaningful equations? The characters 'c', 'a', and 't' all have potential sounds associated with them, and those sounds are determined by dialect and the letters' respective placements in larger groups (we know, for instance, that the "c" in "cat" is hard, meaning it's pronounced with a hard K sound). Beyond pronunciation equations, we're further forced to solve larger, more meaningful ones. On its own, the word "cat" brings to mind a number of literal and figurative possibilities, but without factoring in the context of its placement in a larger equation (such as the sentence, "Our cats, Saturn and Ollie, are both very cool, each in his own way."), we could neither affirm nor discount any of those meaningful possibilities (we might be talking about a brand of tractors or an archaic slang phrase from the era of swing). Of course, language isn't restricted to the realm of literacy, as evidenced by many relatively 'well-spoken' illiterate people over the years. For that matter, it isn't restricted to vocalized speech, hearing, or sight (can anyone say "sign language" or "Braille"?). It is, nonetheless, in all forms and applications...contingent upon meaningful equations.
On the flip side, math seems no less dependent on linguistic-like characters (or concepts) to convey various meaningful values (yes, in my opinion, numerical value is meaningful). So, here again, I'm stuck with a chicken v. egg type of quandary.
Suggestions?
BlackSand said:
blacksand said:
