Deep Thinkers, Deep Feelers and How They Communicate
Image with a two-toned background divided diagonally in the center. Left side is a muted blue-green, right side is colored in a muted orange. On the left side an image of clean and organized lines connected by thicker black dots is depicted, on the right a swirl of messy lines in a circle. In the center the two are trying to connect through imagery of two puzzle pieces about to click together.
Our bodies are complex mechanisms geared toward interacting with and processing the world around us. Many various stimuli enter our awareness throughout our day, yet how we take in, organize, process and make meaning out of these stimuli differ dramatically.
Today I would like to explore a conceptualization of two (out of many, I imagine) ways that we intake information and share it with those around us, particularly focusing on communication between these two types of processors and where barriers in connection may arise.
Before we begin, a caveat: these two conceptualizations are not opposite, not a binary, and not rigid categories to pinhole yourself or others into. They are ways to theorize and wonder about our amazing brains and bodies, and formulate an idea of what may or may not work for you in your own processing as well as with others.
With that, let’s dive in.
Deep thinker
Deep thinkers are truth seekers. These are the folks who need to understand concepts, ideas and communications in a structured, formulated way in order to integrate information. Many deep thinkers have a filter of logic as the first point of contact with incoming stimuli, asking themselves whether something makes sense, where it originates, what is its intent, and how does this fit with existing rational structures.
These folks are sometimes described by others as intellectual, logical or excellent at retaining facts and trivia about the world around them. Deep thinkers tend to process information through self-created and self-organized systems that help them integrate information effectively, be it spreadsheets, lists or a daily journal entry.
Many cultural stereotypes exist around folks who lean more towards logic over emotion, yet many of them are also incorrect. Deep thinkers are not all software engineers or the types to go process information internally before bringing it to the table with others. They are also filmmakers, writers and artists; profoundly creative, imaginative, and able generate ideas that push people and organizations forward.
Deep feeler
Deep feelers are attuned to the emotional undercurrent of the world around them. These folks are highly empathetic and able to easily put themselves in others people’s shoes. They are sensitive, experiencing many fluctuations in feelings due to their finely tuned emotional radar. Deep feelers tend to process information through the lens of emotion first, asking themselves how something makes them feel, what it reminds them of and how it informs their previous feelings on the subject.
Deep feelers can be described by others as good listeners and those who can get down to the emotional heart of the matter quickly. They tend to process information through means that allow them emotional expression: journaling, art creation, somatic activity, or conversation with a friend.
Much like with deep thinkers, there are plenty of stereotypes about deep feelers too. Many get labeled as out of control, fragile or easily hurt. Yet deep feelers are not all women (another big stereotype), not all in helping professions and not all external processors. They are also architects, administrators and leaders, focusing on facilitating meaningful connection between individuals.
Barriers to connection
As the world is full of different people, we will inevitably come across someone whose go-to processing style differs from our own. As it so happens we tend to be attracted to, be friends with, date, partner with and marry folks who on many occasions will fit a conceptualization unlike our own. Which is how many deep thinkers and deep feelers end up in relational situations where barriers to connection abound.
Let’s take a look at a couple of these possible barriers.
1. Content vs. process
While studying to become a therapist, in their very first year a psych student will learn the concepts of content and process, and what the difference between them is. Unfortunately that is not something that is taught or talked about in many other places, yet this piece is vital to a deeper sense of connection between humans.
This brilliant post elucidates it better than I ever will, but I will briefly quote the author and add my own thoughts.
To begin, here is the breakdown:
“Content = talking about what happened
Process = talking about how you were affected by what happened”
Content focuses on the story and the details of what occurred, it is a process of narration, retelling, the “he said, she said” type of recall.
Process invites participants to go deeper and reflect on the how of the communication: how did the communication occur, how did it make people feel, how are they making meaning out of the interaction, etc.
When it comes to communication between deep thinkers and deep feelers, deep thinkers tend to focus on content as a way to gain understanding, while deep feelers try to steer the conversation toward process. As each tries to hold onto their own desperate attempt to integrate, disconnection and loss of intimacy unfolds.
Once this barrier is in place and disconnection entered the room, there is only one thing to do: attend to the emotions present.
The reason is simple: emotions are activating to our nervous system, frequently throwing us into a sympathetic nervous system response - we are ready to fight, flee, freeze of fawn. Until nervous system activation is attended to, no true connection can be restored.
This is where deep thinkers will have to learn how to step out of their comfort zone and hold their desire for understanding through content for a while, focusing on the process and emotions of the interaction instead.
Yet this is no way for deep feelers to get off the hook. Once deep feelers are met with the attunement and empathy they seek, it is time to attend to the deep thinkers’ need for understanding of content, sorting of what happened and help them make sense of it together.
Here is brief example of this in practice.
Content-focused interaction:
Partner 1: “You didn’t wash the dishes again. I thought we talked about it. I am so tired of seeing this mess every time I come home after work.” (expresses emotion)
Partner 2: “We talked about it last Thursday and you told me it’s ok to leave it for a few days. It’s only been a few days, so I am only following what you told me.” (expresses understanding through contextual conversation, reminds other partner of ‘agreement’ made, misses emotional cue)
Partner 1: “You always do this when I try to bring something up! Can you just listen to me for a moment?” (reacts from missed emotional cue, escalates)
Process-focused interaction:
Partner 1: “You didn’t wash the dishes again. I thought we talked about it. I am so tired of seeing this mess every time I come home after work.” (expresses emotion)
Partner 2: “I am tempted to bring up some facts and details about a conversation we had about this last week, but I realize there is emotion here. Can you tell me more about how you are feeling in this moment so I can understand better?” (articulates desire to go toward content yet recognizes emotion first, expresses curiosity and goal to understand)
Partner 1: “I feel unsupported and tired. I feel like no matter how many times I say this, I am not heard.” (shares emotion)
Partner 2: “That makes sense to me, of course you would feel that given what’s been happening lately. I really want to help you feel heard and supported. Let’s talk about how we can do that together.” (expresses validation and understanding, articulates desire to provide support, invites into collaborative process)
Partner 1: “Ok. And then tell me about what you wanted to mention earlier, too.” (receives validation, deescalates, communicates care through invitation into content processing post attending to emotion)
2. Intent vs. impact
Another powerful barrier to connection between folks - not limited but including deep thinkers and deep feelers - is difficulty in attending to impact of communication.
What are these two concepts and how do they relate?
Intent is laden with motivation and reason. It is typically the why people say or do something.
Impact describes how the action or words made someone feel.
If you imagine words or actions as an arrow, intent is describing where you were aiming, with what and why.
For example, person 1 may say: “I was aiming into your shin with a toy arrow” (read: I was trying to be playful).
Impact is describing where the arrow landed and how it made the person feel. For example, person 2 may respond: “Your arrow hit me in the stomach and it pierced a layer of skin” (read: I was hurt by your action/word).
What happens when intent and impact are misaligned?
This is where many deep thinkers may double down on describing their intent, their reason for why they sent the arrow flying and how they were aiming for the shin. While deep feelers are trying to explain how they were hurt by the arrow, regardless of where it was aimed.
How do the two parties reconnect?
The person shooting the arrow needs to listen to, understand and validate the impact of their projectile.
Person 1: “I see I hit you in the stomach and you now have a bruise, that must be quite painful. I am sorry for how my arrow landed on your body and made you feel. Please help me understand how you are feeling in this moment, feel free to tell me if I am missing something.” (acknowledges and validates point of impact, affirms the existence of pain, expresses empathy and apologies for the pain caused, invites into space of listening and creating space)
Once met with validation of impact, intent can be brought back into the equation.
Person 1: “Is now a good time for me to share where I was meaning to shoot that arrow and why?” (asking for consent and checking to see if anything else was missed)
Through the process of slowing down, attuning to each other’s states of being, feelings and thoughts, and most importantly by working through the impact of words/actions/conversation, relational repair can occur.
If you remember anything from this example, remember that impact > intent. Until impact is acknowledged and held, attempting to communicate intent will only drive disconnection.
It is important to note that a person does not have to be just one: deep thinker or a deep feeler. Many people fit both of these conceptualizations.
The important part to identify is what is your go-to, what gets activated first in a particular situation?
When information is in need of being processed, what is your first response? Do you tend to try to make sense of things by sifting through the content of what transpired, draw connections and arrive at a conclusion? Do you tend to feel things: experience and express sadness, joy, frustration, grief before being able to integrate what has occurred?
Your go-to may change from situation to situation, from person to person. Being able to identify which part of your brain is getting activated - left or right, deep thinker or deep feeler - can help you be present to your experience with more compassion, and to connect with others more effectively.