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.

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.

I think that using "I feel" brings an emotional aspect into it rather than jst an intillectual aspect. I don't se a problem in using because after it since you are still using it to describe the intent be it emotional or intillectually based. And that's just how I feel...lol.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using 'i feel' and then 'because' to qualify it in principle.

'I feel pain in my left arm because I fell on it'

'I feel this is wrong because it goes against what I was taught to be correct'

Our feelings, pleasure or pain or what ever, do not occur abstract of thought in any case, you cannot 'feel' anything with out thinking, and quite often when we are asked for an examination perhaps if 'this' hurts more than 'that' - you may well say 'yer I think so'.

Difficult, they are closely linked and I don't necessarily think your examples are problematic.

Originally Posted by aeon

...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)...

I understand the point you're making here, and there is some validity to it, but I want to point out that I was trained to think through situations and I train my students to do the same. We have to make rapid decisions, but it would be impossible to reliably make good decisions regarding life or death by only reacting to a situation on instinct.

Originally Posted by aeon

...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...

You make a fair point here. In the situations where someone uses the phrase without giving it much thought I usually don't make a big deal out of it, but it does still get my attention. I realize that a lot of times people use language without thinking about it. What concerns me about this is that at some point people did have to think about it for it to be incorporated into common usage as such. In addition I still believe that even if there is little thought behind it, the language that we use does have an affect on how we perceive things. If you talk to someone that has experience with doing surveys they will tell you that using different words to ask the exact same question can lead to vastly different results. Even if the meaning is same, there are subtleties that create different perceptions.

Originally Posted by aeon

...Hopefully that wasn't too confusing or convoluted.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I don't think there is anything wrong with using 'i feel' and then 'because' to qualify it in principle.

'I feel pain in my left arm because I fell on it'

'I feel this is wrong because it goes against what I was taught to be correct'

Our feelings, pleasure or pain or what ever, do not occur abstract of thought in any case, you cannot 'feel' anything with out thinking, and quite often when we are asked for an examination perhaps if 'this' hurts more than 'that' - you may well say 'yer I think so'.

Difficult, they are closely linked and I don't necessarily think your examples are problematic.

You make a good point. I was only thinking of it in the context that I used in the example. Certainly there are cases where "I feel" can be followed with "because".

I work in a female dominated workplace [a hospital] and if I remember right you do also. Not right or wrong, just different from my previous experience in male dominated factories and trades. I mention this because of your workplace example. "I feel " to me is a more feminine statement. My wife is a teacher and every once in a while when talking about how our day went I get a chuckle about how similar our workplaces function.

Tim

"I feel" and "I think" mean exactly the same thing when used here. I feel that is, perhaps, the nitpickingest objection to language and grammar usage I've ever heard. Far more bothersome to me is the misuse of "there" for "their" (and vice versa), alot for a lot, to for too (vice versa again). The other annoyance is totally incoherent sentences and phrases. However, I know exactly what is meant in each misuse, so I never (NEVER) call anyone out on it.

Folks, this is a SHAVING forum, not a grammar/spelling board.

I run into this a lot, and I believe that there are two main reasons for this.

First, every psychology and counseling text over the last 30+ years has promoted the value and sanctity of an individual's emotions. Emotions are individually generated, and impossible to assess from a 2nd or 3rd party perspective, therefore, no one can deny their validity.

Second, an overarching departure from empirical linear thought patterns. The meta-question leading up to and beyond the industrial revolution; and giving us the glory days of straight razors, chrome clad V8 beauties, and a whole host of good and wonderful things, was "How does it work?" Empirical truth was THE truth. If something could not be proven through logical determination and scientific replication, it was not true.

The meta-question of the preceding generations is being replaced with the question, "How is it experienced?" As we all know, we could watch a guy shave on a you-tube video and tell the story of what was done in different ways. Because of our differences in histories, cultures, subcultures, vision quality, and more, we will all experience life in slightly different ways. Therefore our expression of how we experience an event is as individual as each of us, and yet regarded as equally valid.

Compound this fundamentally dynamic world view with a supreme value in an individually generated basis for identity, completely invincible to external critique and evaluation, and you have an entire society that values "I feel X" over "I think X."

The language difference may be semantics, but it's indicative of an overarching shift in Western world view.

As a commentary; I think there are some serious flaws in valuing feelings and individual experiences over empirical reality. However, I think there are some benefits to this pendulum shift that allow society to answer questions beyond the reach of empirical data.

I think HNSB's issue is that he sees life from more of an empirical data perspective and therefore values logical argument and critical thinking over what is largely a nebulous affection.

Just my two cents.

Jim