The ethics of the relationship between reason and emotion (through a Ti lens)

[Umbilical Sphere]

Im transferring this here with the aim of having a more coherent ongoing conversation on this topic than would be possible on discord.
Umbi: i really resonate with this from the Ti description; "There will be an ethical quality to their pursuit which manifests in a valuing of neutrality, honesty, authenticity and clarity. Lack of neutrality, honesty or lack of clarity will be sensed as a transgression; one which they avoid in their own behavior and which they may also depreciate in others"
Jelle: I understand why there’s a strong identification with this perspective in terms of putting aside your values when making judgements and not letting biases get the best of you. But I also think that having accompanying strong emotions or lacking dispassion doesn’t need to preclude the ability to reason effectively. I also think that once one has engaged in that reasoning process properly they are even more likely to hold some set of beliefs in a highly impassioned manner. We simply are not truly dispassionate about what we really believe to be true. So I just don’t like generating discourse that propagates that division between reason and emotion.
I just don’t think it stands up well to scrutiny. I do not see those two things being fundamentally mutually exclusive. Moreover as I said even that strong dedication to neutrality and feeling “trangressed” by anything deviating from it, is still a bare feeling at its core. So it’s not even really neutral itself. I think that sort of thinking points to a sort of self blindness when people cling to it. And I also think it’s related to powerful discourses of scientism and western/Eurocentric ways of thinking. And that it’s limiting in that it fosters shortsightedness in people and narrowmindedness — it limits effective intersubjectivity (and ultimately, objectivity) if you dismiss anyone that seems to care about what they are saying. Why wouldn’t we care about the things we claim? Why shouldn’t we?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theres an important distinction to make here, between emotion possessing the psyche (where no analytical distance can be taken from the view being pressed onto the mind from the emotional register) and emotion influencing the psyche (but psyche remains able to dissociate from the emotional inputs to consider things from a dis-invested/de-personalised perspective). In the context of a discussion between people, the difference between these two is quite consequential; its the difference between operating from a position that is neuropsychologically akin to an aggressive or defensive animal fighting for territory (where thought becomes warped by the one-eyed aims of a certain emotion), vs an observer who has less vested interest in seeing a particular outcome, apart from the seeking of truth (emotion and thought are here more balanced, one not dominating the other and corrupting the others functionality). It’s true that the separation of these two often fails to take place, sometimes even when one believes themselves to be thinking without influence from the emotional register, but its also possible to completely dissociate the two and think outside influence from a specific agenda (except from the agenda-transcending agenda of seeking objective truth to the greatest of ones capacities, which negates all other personal/interpersonal agendas).
The two poles I describe are extremes, and thinking in such a neutral way is an ideal that Ti-in-itself has (at least as i see its operation in myself, and as auburn described in his Ti profile (may be modulated by the P axis and/or other factors?)), but that the psyche in which Ti is embedded doesn’t always necessarily successfully live up to (because other aspects of our psyches do have egos and vested interests). If Ti is held as the primary parameter-setter of optimisations towards which cognitive operations aim, deviation from the ideals of neutrality, honesty and authenticity occur via intrusion from psychological optimisations pulling in other directions. Some examples of where these tensions arise to produce suboptimalities from the perspective of Ti (these aren’t really distinct phenomena but simply manifestations of the same phenomena with different emphases (often co-occuring) – that phenomena being breakdown of the dialectical evolution of understanding, breakdown of intellectual integrity);
Ideology – aim is to maintain solidity of deeply embedded thoughts in the face of superior contradictory reasoning which would under the operation of Ti-in-itself be inescapably recognised as superior and interact either dialectically (to transform) or destructively (to destroy or replace) with existing thought patterns. Ideological thinking maintains its axioms and perspective *despite* the occurrence of a recognition of inconsistency in it (this recognition revealed by the defensiveness in the mind of the ideological arguer, for if ideas stand strong by themselves/on their own terms (and we know they do), no defensiveness is necessary).
Ego – aim is to negate thoughts/situations (or perceived implications of thoughts/situations) which contradict ones specific ego-patterning in either a direct or indirect way. By ego-patterning here I mean the sum of thoughts about the self which operate via defensive negation of their opposite in the unconscious. Classic example is superiority complex (ego level) created in counter-formation/attempt to suppress inferiority complex (unconscious/traumatic level). The ego is formed via negation of felt truths (which may or may not be true, but are felt as such). Hence its nature is fundamentally defensive, deceptive, and deluded. The ego-image is hypersensitive to contradictions to its patterning precisely because its built on lies which we know, at some level of our being, to be false. When ego is influencing thought we are bent away from neutrality and into cognitive acrobatics whose aim is to defend the fragile ego belief. Naturally optimising in this direction conflicts with optimising in the direction of truth.
In-group bias – aim is to avoid believing in or be seen believing in or even entertaining possibilities that go against some belief held by a group which one considers oneself a member of. Risking deviating from group consensus may excite evolutionarily encoded group-abandonment anxieties, especially in cases where the group explicitly demands orthodoxy from its members. The prime examples of this are religions, and many political/social movements etc.
Typically fear drives all of these defensive reactions which undermine the striving towards objective understanding. Fear may then be masked or inverted into irritation and anger (best defence is a good offence). Whenever fear or anger are driving cognition, it creates a vulnerability within it that can be exploited by incoherent ideas/inauthentic epistemology. This is known in neuropsychology as amygdala hijacking; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack. Its important to note that not all examples of emotional arousal are cases of amygdala hijacking - its possible to be emotionally aroused without having that compromise one’s capacity to check ones thought for logical coherence with known or perceived data sets. In such a case the feedback loop that runs between the limbic system (housing amygdala) and the networks of the brain involved in logical thinking has activity running in both directions. In the case of amygdala hijacking, feedback from the logical networks back into the limbic networks stops and there is only a feedforward flow from limbic to logic centres. These are the cases in which we see the breakdown of the dialectic which enables the evolution of perspectives in something approximating a balanced manner.
When I speak of Ti striving towards objective understanding, it doesnt mean that the products of Ti *necessarily* reflect objective reality. What it means is that given sufficient counter-evidence or counter-reasoning, one modifies or replaces ones existing ideas, and emotional sources of resistance/attachment are not considered valid inputs into the reasoning process. This dialectical process is what is severed when amygdala hijacking occurs, and cognition is forced into disingenuous and fallacious patterns, instead of examining the contradictions that have arisen with a clear head and allowing inadequate/inconsistent ideas to be destroyed or transformed. Ideally there is more invested in seeking the truth according to the optimal criteria that Ti can discern, than in ‘being right’, ‘towing the party line’, ‘protecting ideas one holds and cherishes’ etc. It may be that one protects ones ideas because they appear to be the most coherent and accurate according to our best ability to discern, in which case a discussion can proceed on the basis of expressing the ideas and chains of reasoning involved, hearing counter-arguments, responding to said arguments etc. Since we remain human and not solely Ti machines, its almost inevitable that attachments to certain ideas will arise – thats not an issue per se – the issue occurs when a mind has its logical reasoning coherently negated, and the response is denial, rationalisation, various charged fallacies (appeal to authority, strawman, moving the goal posts etc) or some other emotion motivated response. As I said, because Ti exists in a mind with other drives (optimisation directions), its innate drive towards authenticity, honesty, neutrality etc may not always or perfectly be the organising principle of ones cognition, but I do believe that Ti-in-itself innately strives for these things.
If there’s a ‘tl;dr you verbose mofo’ of all this its that – from the perspective of the Ti ideals outlined in the first part of this post, neither emotion nor passion for ideas are considered innately bad, what’s considered bad/impure/failing to live up the ideal is when emotionally charged ideas and contradictory externally (or internally) originating ideas clash within the mind, is the response to forfeit intellectual integrity and robustness of reasoning for the sake of maintaining the emotionally charged idea, or is it to recognise the inconsistencies or inadequacies in ones ideas and then discard or refine them.
I think a person can be deeply impassioned without sacrificing intellectual integrity, and passion is not in itself a feature that leads to default dismissal of another mind’s ideas. The red flag is when the emotionally charged person is not engaging in the dialectical nature of conceptual sparring in a genuine and authentic way. We must meet and speak on the level of ideas, and let them speak for themselves, otherwise it ends up being just two people talking past each other, both unproductive and unsatisfying.
There are a few angles of development of this discussion that I think could be interesting;
1) Since as I just described I don’t believe passion is fundamentally incompatible with logically coherent thinking (only in amygdala hijack mode), what are some good examples (and mechanics of the examples) of when they work together in a glorious and harmonious manner? As I wrote up there, with the 3 main ways I think Ti optimisations towards truthfulness (insofar as we can understand it) are undermined by optimising in different directions (ego defense, ideological rigidity, in-group biasing), I’m thinking of the opposite of that - what are some key ways in which emotional charge/passion can work together with logically coherent thinking such that neither undermines the other but they both are deployed with deep integrity?
2) I didnt refer to Fi-Te axis (or Fe) in this post, because I’m not sure how this whole question of the relationship between reason and emotion works in case of Fi-Te axis, and also not sure the role of Fe here. Any Fi-Te people care to chime in on their understanding of the way amygdala-hijacked (defensive) and non-amygdala-hijacked (seeking truth) thought play out in their minds (and how they think that relates to their judgement axis)? Also if anyone has any ideas on relationship of Fe to all this i’d like to hear them.
And of course am interested in direct rebuttals or elaborations of specific points or the overall theme of my argument.

[Amy]

“There will be an ethical quality to their pursuit which manifests in a valuing of neutrality, honesty, authenticity and clarity. Lack of neutrality, honesty or lack of clarity will be sensed as a transgression; one which they avoid in their own behavior and which they may also depreciate in others”
I wasn't a part of the original discussion... so I'm going off this quote being what the discussion is about...
If you relate to this from a Ti standpoint, I relate to this a lot from an Fi standpoint.... since you finished with asking how an Fi would see this... I have strong morals and values... but as far as my feelings swaying how I handle a discussion or explanation or deliverance... I prefer to be open to the other person's perspective, at the very least... I think it's easier to be closed and adhere to what helps you to feel grounded... but I don't find that in my feelings... I have feelings... I have curiosities... I have a want to know what's going on in other people's worlds and not to inflict my own before understanding someone else's...
so there's that.
I don't think it's a matter of functions, however... there are opinionated and impassioned people all over the place and of any type.
Finding someone open and available for discourse and understanding is not so easy.... nor is it easy to find people able to listen without injecting their own ideology. I don't think that's the aim for Umbi or Jelle...
Passion is different from emotion. Emotion is not devoid of logic. Logic is not devoid of emotion. Nothing is devoid of logic... BUT logic AND/OR emotion can be used to reason anything... wether right or wrong...
The ethics lie in the pursuit, intention, and the resulting responsibility to maintain such in further dealings... in my opinion

[Animal]

I agree with @jelle unequivocally.
To add to that -
I think it's unethical and unreasonable for people to pretend they are using "reason, free of emotion." Who are they fooling?  When people tell others that their arguments are invalid because there are emotions involved, they are usually speaking from a place of fear.
Emotions can be intimidating or manipulative to another party, even if that's not the intent. I know this because I always intend to be straight forward but I happen to be a passionate person. So, I speak in an energetic, passionate manner, and then people feel trampled. My intent is not to trample them, but that is the result because it's a lot for them to take in.
This is the real reason why I need to keep working on myself in this way - because I want to foster open-hearted, honest conversations with people, where they feel present and heard, and not afraid or overwhelmed by my passionate delivery. This way I can foster positive sentiment and create an environment where truth is uncovered from both parties.
But for me, the most truthful insights come out when I'm running on high passion. This is when I can see most clearly and when the universal truths are coming to light. I can't always get them into words perfectly, but when my emotions are running on high and I'm debating about something, I'm seeing what's important; even if it's not always easy to clarify. When I'm calmly talking about some topic without being fully invested in it, I don't touch on anything important. It's all empty words; talking just to talk.
So the real reason for me to cut out the emotional juice is to make the other person feel safe. I'm fine with that, and I'm scolding myself this very minute for my latest transgressions of passionate arguing 😀 but it needs to be fully clear that I'm willing to continue trying to reel myself in for the sake of good atmosphere & other people's comfort. But I'm not "clearing away the feelings" so I can get closer to the truth. For me, the more passionate I feel, the more likely I am to hone in on something that actually matters.  My heart has an intelligence of its own.
My ideal arguing scenario is with another equally passionate person who rawrs back at me with high-energy retorts, then gets over it 2 minuets later, along with me. I really like arguing with @ivory, with a handful of Te leads, and with other choice people who know how to jump right in there and hash it out, full-force. Then when it's over, after ripping each other's argument to shreds, "let's have a coffee!!"  In such scenarios, I learn the most and feel the best.

[Author]

Posts