Feelers Vs. Thinkers

James D. Miller writes a good article at TechCentralStation.com regarding the issue of feelers vs. thinkers, and how the two types respond to different controversial situations:

Bill Bennett's recent abortion comments exposed the divide in America between thinkers and feelers. Bennett said "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." But Bennett then immediately added that doing so would be "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do." No thinking person listening to Bennett would believe that he ever advocated aborting black babies.

But Bennett's abortion remarks did conjure a horrible image of the mass killing of unborn black children. Feelers, those who believe emotional reaction should trump all else, naturally were horrified at Bennett's comment. A feeler would find this image very painful to bear. A feeler, therefore, might feel that Bennett would have presented listeners with such a word-picture only if he himself was not bothered by the idea of killing black babies. Thinkers, however, have been defending Bennett because they believe that intellectual rigor often requires deliberately confronting painful images to get at truth.

The usual civil rights activists, both black and otherwise, have been apoplectic over Bennett's remarks, mainly because they've insisted on taking them out of context. In their world there is no room for thoughtful analysis. After all, you might hurt someone's feelings.

Another great example provided by Miller is the recent embarrassing discussion about John Roberts offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein:

Dianne Feinstein recently made herself the Queen of Feelers when the senator announced she was voting against John Roberts because he wouldn't answer questions as a son, husband and father but just as a dispassionate lawyer. She objected that Roberts gave only "very detached response[s]." Senator Feinstein clearly believes only feelers are qualified for our Supreme Court.

I see the difference in the two types just by reading comments posted to HolyCoast.com. I can almost always tell very quickly which camp the commenter falls into. Thinkers will try and provide a logical argument for or against my position. Feelers, who are often opposed to my views since so many of them are libs, usually just go with insults and name calling. Logic is their enemy.

I had two great examples as I was writing this post. I had two comments from some guy named "Simon". They said that I was a "sad little man" and hoped that "my God would send bad things my way". Well, Simon, I'm 6'5 and very happy. So much for the quality of his analysis. And since the second comment had to do with a post on the radical Islamic bombing in Bali, I can assume that Simon is probably a member of the "religion of peace" and clearly doesn't know my God, and doesn't know how my God works. Let's just say I'm not too worried about my God's response. Simon is a classic feeler (and a classic moron, but that's beside the point....oops, I just got in touch with my feelings - my bad).

Feelings are well and good, but not when they drive important decisions. That's when it's time for thinking and thinking is something the left is very short on.