Yeah, that's because you are a feeler. Feelers are keenly aware of social interactions and emotional states of other people. Thus, their primary objectives, for example in a debate, tends to be that people find consensus, most people are satisfied, and nobody is emotionally harmed.
A thinker, on the other hand, is just worried about the truth and what is the correct decision, regardless of whether it upsets other people.
You might be a feeler who recognizes the great danger in making decisions based upon trying to minimize emotional pain, but the danger is inherent in that predisposition to experience external emotional states.
Consider the following scenario:
You have a high school student who is on the football team. The football team has been selected to play an important game out of state, and there will be college football recruiters there watching for talent. The school, however, cannot afford to send the entire team. Several students will have to stay home. What do you do?
A thinker immediately sees the obvious solution: the players who perform the least well amongst the team stay home. Feelers often come to elaborate arguments about how to randomize it so that is "fair", or how to find some way to pay for everybody so that nobody's feelings are hurt.
Imagine running an entire civilization like that. Belay that. Read the news and see what happens when you run an entire civilization like that.
That's not to say there is anything wrong with being a feeler. Evolution created it for a reason. I just think it's not all that rare these days (probably half the population is like you to some extent) and in a democracy it tends to create problems.