Thread: Mini Rant: "I Feel" vs. "I Think"

For some reason this has become a new pet peeve for me: people using the phrase "I feel" instead of "I think" when they are thinking something and not feeling it.

The phrase "I feel" implies that what you are saying is based on intuition, and there is a lack of logical reasoning behind the statement.
I recently had a meeting where a coworker stated something along the lines of "I feel that we should reduce the price of x, because..." In this context, use of "I feel" cannot be followed by "because". Any reasons listed after "because" imply thought, and therefore the phrase "I think" should be used.

Of course, that's just language. I understood the meaning perfectly well. What bothers me more is wondering how did "I feel" come into common usage in that context, and does it diminish "I think", or more importantly does it diminish the ideal of thought?

I have no idea how to trace the origin of a contextual phrase, but what I have noticed is that people tend to use "I feel" because it somehow sounds less harsh than "I think". When two people are debating, "I feel" seems to fly back and forth commonly. Apparently debaters rarely think, and only feel their arguments.

For some reason it also bothers me when someone asks me "How do you feel about x?" in cases where x is something that I should have thoughts about instead of feelings.

I have more incomplete thoughts (or are they just feelings?) on this... More to come later...

In the meantime I'd like to hear any thoughts or feelings you may have about it.

I think regardless of the method, what matters is the message. Everything else is just semantics.

Originally Posted by aeon

I think regardless of the method, what matters is the message. Everything else is just semantics.

I agree that the message is important, but I think that the semantics can diminish perceptions about certain things.

If you haven't read it before, George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", in addition to addressing how meaningless phrases come into common usage, gets a lot into how language can affect thought.

"I feel" absolves the speaker from future blame, since their suggestion was (apparently) based on intuition. They will be praised for offering such heartfelt and genuine advice, and will not be criticized for using poor reasoning skills if it turns out to be poor advice

I feel that phrase is a pet-peeve for you because you do not like subtly implemented cop-outs. If I am wrong just remember, it's the feeling that counts

Maybe you aren't such a hoglahoo after all... You were able to address the thought that was floating around that I wasn't quite able to put words to.

When they use the term "I feel", they are using their emotions to tie into your emotions in order to counter your logic. Its everywhere these days, even in journalism it is so prevalent when journalism should be objective. It is used to create bias rather than logical thought, because they know that emotions will counter and overcome logic. Look at what passes for political debate these days and the division and strife that inevitably ensues.

Originally Posted by HNSB

I have no idea how to trace the origin of a contextual phrase, but what I have noticed is that people tend to use "I feel" because it somehow sounds less harsh than "I think". When two people are debating, "I feel" seems to fly back and forth commonly. Apparently debaters rarely think, and only feel their arguments.

This is an attractive hypothesis, Eric. It could be that people are inclined to use "I feel" because attacking their position could be construed as an inappropriate attack of their feelings. After all, who are we to say exactly how something makes someone else feel?? However, if one uses "I think" then maybe this opens them up to valid attack of their faulty and indefensible logic.

Just my thoughts/feelings/2 cents BTW, where does "2 cents" fit into this scheme

I think it began a long time ago...somewhere probably in the eighties when the political correctness crazy train started rolling without any brakes. Around that time, in my opinion, "we" were taught to respect every person because they are a person and have feelings, and if a person starts their conversation with, "I feel..." rather then, " I think..." it seems to me that if I don't feel/think the same way as them, then in some fashion my response might be offensive to said person because I did not respect their feelings. At least that's what I think, or is that how I feel?

It's ironic that a person with the username "ReardenSteel" would comment on this thread... It didn't occur to me until I saw that post: it is a fairly Randian concept.
In fact, there may have been two or three novels with this as one of the underlying themes.

This is going to be a bit long winded, but I promise you I'll get to a point that's on topic.

The whole issue reminds me of martial arts. Through repetition, you learn to react based on instinct, not thinking it over. With language, the same thing happens (though it is less noticeable because we do not think of reading/writing/talking as "training").

A child first learning the language or someone learning it as a second language view the language differently. They have to think about the word and associate the meaning. Those who have been reading/writing/speaking the language for quite some time start to view the sentences as one meaning. We don't think about what each word means, those just come to us instantly, it is the sentence that we think about. That's where I agree with you.

The words we use act together to create a meaning in a sentence. But that only goes so far. In everyday discussion, we don't read into things as much because we are not expecting there to be much to think about. It's our adaptation to everyday life. If we are put in a situation where we know we will have to analyze and think through things, we react differently (such as being in a classroom).

On that point, If a child is doing poorly in school, it may not be the method that is causing the problem (though it plays a big part), but rather the childs mentality going into the situation. Most kids don't want to think, it's hard for them because they don't know as much about the world as an adult would. This is why it helps with younger kids to turn the learning into a game, because that's where they have their heads at.

Adults are different in that we have the capacity to think at any time, but we still have our "modes" which either aid or detract different situations, which brings me back to the martial arts thing. In a situation where you need to resolve things quickly, you don't have the luxury to take your time thinking things over, you act on instinct. A paramedic trains so that they don't need to think about what they need to do to save a life, they just do it (and that plays into all parts of their job, from hearing a call on the radio to resolving the problem). While playing chess, you can take your time thinking about the best strategy. In debate, it's a mix of the two. Different modes for different situations. Unfortunately, humans don't have a mode switch, so adapting to a situation can be difficult and take time.

If someone is in a different mode than you are when you talk to them, they will react differently. They may over-think or under-think to varying degrees, and most of the time that will be undetectable. The message will remain the same between the two of you, but the method will change, based on where the two of you would sit on the spectrum. To me, that is a difference that is purely semantics because of human nature.

It helps to view people this way, as every human is capable of every thing that every other human does, it just depends on what their experience has been. Someone who has spent their whole life playing chess is better suited to planning strategies than someone who has spent their whole life talking to people about their problems, yet that same person is better suited to analyzing situations than the strategist. You can apply that to everything from talking about the hockey game to world politics. It explains, realistically, why western governments are structured the way they are and why relations between different countries cant always align.

I don't mean to imply that all differences in people are simply a matter of what "mode" they are in, humans are much too complex for that, but it's a start into understanding the differences in language, and, more importantly, how we all experience that language.

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing or convoluted.