You said once you don't feel. Hmm
Trump is the second coming of Jesus 
he will fix homelessness, reduce inflation, stop the wars, and create heaven on earth for his flock
You are definitely left-hemisphere dominated, i.e. you mainly think logically rather than emotionally. Like me. That certainly doesn't mean we don't feel emotions, or that our thinking can not be influenced by emotions, but logic tends to predominate. Part of your problem is that you apply logical reasoning to situations where you have very incomplete data, but then you trust your conclusions.
Trump is the AntichristYou said once you don't feel. Hmm
You like liberalism?
When it comes to situations I'm personally not involved in i find it easy to apply logic to the situation when I'm emotionally involved or effected directly however i find it hard to separate my emotions becoming an emotional thinker
Yes, everyone uses both, but it is very well established that most people lean more heavily on one mode of thinking than on the other. You can see it for yourself in the people around you, and scientific investigation confirms it.
Adding to this. (Upon review, I guess I'm more reiterating rather than adding.) Logical, emotional, whatever label you want to put on it, you will be a better thinker if you can (1) critically reexamine your own conclusions as you get new information, and (2) learn to understand - even if you ultimately reject - the thought process of those you disagree with or are tempted to "other."
In psychology, researchers tend to focus on dual processes, which refers to the use of our system 1 and system 2 ways of thinking. Type 1, which relies more on the subconscious and emotions (your intuition or gut-feeling), while type 2 tends to rely more heavily consciously working things out. People don't tend to routinely think rationally. Our thought processes are generally not rational due to much of it being unconscious, emotional, and automatic. We don't tend to primarily rely mainly on one or the other. We are constantly using a mixture of both thought processes throughout our daily life depending on our situation.
That is a flawed argument. I am me, not you or anyone else. Someone making what seems to be a logical decision doesn't mean that said decision was based fully in logic. I'm not them, so how am I supposed to know their thought process by just watching them? Also, my own biases would get in the way. What people consider to be rational or logical can sometimes be based in their own biases. If I'm religious then I may view believing in god as being rational as oppose to being an atheist. If I am a conservative then I may view anyone left of the political spectrum as being less rational than me and vice versa. Along with that, even ignoring the issues with using observation alone to prove your point, our emotional processes can be subtle and even unconscious so just pure anecdotal observations alone are useless.
When I am making the decisions involved in debugging code, for example - something I have to do quite often - I better use logic, and logic only, because emotions certainly aren't going to help me. So some decisions, at least, are certainly 100% based in logic. Whether or not you or I think they are based in logic, it is clearly true that they are. You just can't find or fix bugs in code using emotional thinking.
It's funny you mention having enough insight into yourself because in reality, we don't have nearly as much insight into ourselves and how we function as we like to believe. Introspection can only go so far and we cannot take into consideration how are our behaviour and thoughts are influenced by things we aren't aware of. From non-concious cues to there being instances where there is a disconnect between the parts of the brain that allow us to construct explanations for our behaviour and the parts of the brain that actually generation our behaviour (take split-brain patients for example), to how the subconscious parts of the brain impact our everyday decision-making, you truly don't know yourself and the causes of your behaviour and line of thinking as well as you think you do. How are you going to claim that your decisions are 100% logical when in no way you can confirm that your own unconscious emotions may have played a role in them?
^The audacity to claim that you aren't basing this off of anecdotes while also talking about using anecdotes to support your view. Also, you aren't psychic. You cannot use your own observations to make claims like these. You are about as clueless as me as to how people come to their own conclusions. I don't know how you somehow have the magical ability to just know something that is going on in a person's head...
I know all that. I was reading Jung's collected works and a lot of Freud over 50 years ago. Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs, as the old saying goes. And none of it changes the things I stated in my pervous posts. We seem to be arguing at cross purposes.
Most of Freud's work doesn't even hold up today. Also, from what I know, Jung's work doesn't even hold up anymore either. Carl Jung did not study human behaviour using the scientific method, to my knowledge. His work seems to be something that therapists tend to look into more and use in comparison to psychologists (just for clarification, not all therapists are psychologist, which explains why many of them use tests and theories that aren't used in psychology). His work isn't even covered in most psychology courses for a reason.
This is getting us nowhere, largely because much of what you write is simply not pertinent to the points I am trying to make. I stand by everything I have posted in this thread.
