[INFJ] Extroverted Feeling: Cowardice or Courageous?

[philostam]

One part of bravery is also to be independent and sceptical of authority. Here I think all NT types converge. They might play the game for a while, but it seems that all NT internally disregard authority.

NFs are more affiliative/respectful of authority in my opinion. I see this in my work constantly.

 

[philostam]

IMO INFJs make the best whistleblowers, anthropologists, spies, femme fatale's, etc. because of the auxiliary "agreeableness". It's an important function to get around in the world with, but not nearly as important to us as the Ni "mission" we are targeting to reach. I think it takes a lot of courage to walk alone behind enemy lines or in unfamiliar places while hiding in plain sight.

It could be, yeah.

For me it's almost like my ego gets in the way of playing this game, I get too much of an ego boost by being cynical about authority and let them know it.

 

[Ginny]

What's the point of ego? It is so boring and exhausting. It may even be considered primitive when your existence centers around it.

 

[Ginny]

Ti-doms always play games, just not the ones they are expected to play. They have seen it all. Ti secondary plays easily and gleefully. Ti tertiary plays the game hard, because they have yet to learn the rules. Ti inferior is either a slave to the game or doesn't want to play.

 

[OK007]

That's interesting. I wonder if that has something to do with Ti-dominance? Like thinking: "I know this is total bullshit. I'm done playing this game".

Wheras I'm like: "This may be bullshit, but if I keep it up long enough I can see my mission successfully completed". But if too physically or materially tired or stress I'll blow "cover" and exclaim in a usually rather inappropriate way: "This is BULLSHIT! Fuck outta here!" regardless of consequences. Brave or Reckless? I dunno I'm tired and hurt...u decide.

I think regardless of consequences is where I hear you and understand you. It is an acceptance of what "Is" and undeniable and inside that bounces around in thought and feeling. If it bounces around too long (different for us all) we make the choice to be as you say Brave or Reckless. Some choose to save face while others adapt and conform, but it is those that defy normal that are always subject to misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with cognitive function and everything to do with the environment they are in and choose to be in.

 

[philostam]

What's the point of ego? It is so boring and exhausting. It may even be considered primitive when your existence centers around it.

Healthy ego and competitiveness is good. When you play a game, you want to win. Even if you play a collective game (sport), you want to be the one to make a difference. It's natural.

I agree with you that it's primitive if your whole existence centres about ego, obviously.

I was always (trough childhood) on the other extreme - not having enough ego. So that's why I enjoy it now, and most of the ego driven decisions I made worked well in the long term. It makes me feel alive and, more importantly, aligned with my core. There is no regret.

This is not the same as being rash or impulsive, of course. I see it as a healthy self respect.

 

[philostam]

That's interesting. I wonder if that has something to do with Ti-dominance? Like thinking: "I know this is total bullshit. I'm done playing this game".

Wheras I'm like: "This may be bullshit, but if I keep it up long enough I can see my mission successfully completed". But if too physically or materially tired or stress I'll blow "cover" and exclaim in a usually rather inappropriate way: "This is BULLSHIT! Fuck outta here!" regardless of consequences. Brave or Reckless? I dunno I'm tired and hurt...u decide.

I try to evaluate the situation and the consequences of my transgressions.

Also, I probably wouldn't have a problem following someone else if I really respected them or we shared the same values. Or if he manages to convince me why doing things his way will be good. I like the idea of mentors. It can save a lot of time.

 

[Ren]

IMO INFJs make the best whistleblowers, anthropologists, spies, femme fatale's, etc. because of the auxiliary "agreeableness".

 

[acd]

Personally I can just say when I get it in my head that something is wrong, I really couldn't go along even if I really wanted to try. Even if I knew the blowback would be unpleasant for me. I've been the whistleblower before. Though I don't know if you can call it bravery or courage because there's not much of an internal battle. Just a recognition that this may suck short term but long term it is what is necessary. You just do the right thing or whatever you think is right. It can be like a compulsion. The urge to resist going along is too strong in those instances.

 

[acd]

@Ren I've been thinking of your relative and what @slant said. Maybe he was a coward but I don't think anyone unwilling to die should fight in wars. They may become a liability for those beside them anyway. (Though maybe it's true they can enlist in non combat roles as @Deleted member 16771 mentioned.)

But I think @slant is right in that if people were less willing to do as others command we may have less wars. How many just went along when Hitler came to power because it was expected and considered patriotic? How many didn't speak up against Hitler or resist when he was starting to gain power? (Those who did are heroes.) But ordinary people just went along. They weren't all raving blood thirsty Nazis. People built weapons and developed bombs etc., Etc.. So we all get roped in when people do nothing but go along. (And that transcends cognitive functions. I don't even think cognitive functions are relevant here.) But I guess by the time your relative was to be involved maybe none of that mattered. Because they were already in the war and he should have had a part. Self preservation is instinctual. I just can't really blame anyone unwilling to kill or die.

Maybe this is all a whole 'nother topic.

/Just meandering infp thoughts lol

 

[April]

Fe is bravery when you set your own principles aside and are willing to take the risk of disarming yourself for the sake of maintaining social harmony.

Fi is courageous if you dare to stand up for your own principles, disregarding from the stance of the general populace. I'm taking @Deleted member 16771 experience here from when he stood up against the faculty as one of the few defenders on what is right versus maintaining the facade that is the maintenance of the faculty itself. That to me is courageous (one upping you here bud, but it's well deserved).

Fe is cowardice when it is used as a group principle over someone's well being. I've seen and experience enough examples of people holding themselves in for the sake of some stupid group-setting and withstanding conflict while someone is suffering in silence. It's fucking cowardice when you do not act upon it.

Fi is egotistical when one's own values are pushed over a group, disregarding the commonality of everyone's principles. It strives for conflict through challenge rather than the necessity to resolve.

The most courageous on either is when you dare to take up Fi or Fe as an experience in which you are not comfortable with. These functions are the weakest for either INxJ's. And when I see an INFJ take their best effort to take steps based on inner (Fi) feelings, I have nothing but respect for that.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Ti-doms always play games, just not the ones they are expected to play. They have seen it all. Ti secondary plays easily and gleefully. Ti tertiary plays the game hard, because they have yet to learn the rules. Ti inferior is either a slave to the game or doesn't want to play.

 

[Ren]

@Ren I've been thinking of your relative and what @slant said. Maybe he was a coward but I don't think anyone unwilling to die should fight in wars. They may become a liability for those beside them anyway. (Though maybe it's true they can enlist in non combat roles as @Deleted member 16771 mentioned.)

But I think @slant is right in that if people were less willing to do as others command we may have less wars. How many just went along when Hitler came to power because it was expected and considered patriotic? How many didn't speak up against Hitler or resist when he was starting to gain power? (Those who did are heroes.) But ordinary people just went along. They weren't all raving blood thirsty Nazis. People built weapons and developed bombs etc., Etc.. So we all get roped in when people do nothing but go along. (And that transcends cognitive functions. I don't even think cognitive functions are relevant here.) But I guess by the time your relative was to be involved maybe none of that mattered. Because they were already in the war and he should have had a part. Self preservation is instinctual. I just can't really blame anyone unwilling to kill or die.

Maybe this is all a whole other topic.

/Just meandering infp thoughts lol

Your thoughts aren't meandering, you are right about this. If people were less willing to do as others command we would have less wars—I think this is undeniable, and it would of course be better. But in relation to my earlier point, this part of your message is key:

@RenBut I guess by the time your relative was to be involved maybe none of that mattered. Because they were already in the war and he should have had a part.

The context was that the war was already there. Even so, I don't think that refusing to take part would make one necessarily a coward. It depends on what motivates the decision. Not all men who avoided conscription were cowards, but some of them were. Those who were not were those following principles (pacifism, individualism, etc.) and ready to face the consequences of following those principles. At least that's how I view it.

 

[dragulagu]

The context was that the war was already there. Even so, I don't think that refusing to take part would make one necessarily a coward. It depends on what motivates the decision. Not all men who avoided conscription were cowards, but some of them were. Those who were not were those following principles (pacifism, individualism, etc.) and ready to face the consequences of following those principles. At least that's how I view it.

Honestly, I can't blame any decision made. War is a position where no one wants to be in. Not sure either what I personally would chose. Wouldn't avoid conscription, but I wouldn't be too happy either when I have to throw myself into a life-threathening position on the base of a command.

 

[Ren]

Wouldn't avoid conscription

War: *exists*

My relative:

 

[dragulagu]

Space Force: *exists*

Me:

https://www.spaceforce.mil/

 

[philostam]

War: *exists*

My relative:

Lol, you are really harsh on this relative.

I guess you must have strong convictions about this.

 

[Ren]

Lol, you are really harsh on this relative.

I guess you must have strong convictions about this.

You're right phil, maybe I should play it down a bit. He is (was) a relative after all.

There were some good sides to his personality. Just not someone you could have relied upon for anything requiring a little bit of guts.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

You're right phil, maybe I should play it down a bit. He is (was) a relative after all.

Why does that matter? Genuinely curious.

morality is a human made perception.

What does this mean?

 

[Ren]

Why does that matter? Genuinely curious.

It doesn't matter strictly speaking, but it feels harsh somehow to indict someone who cannot answer back on such a damning topic.

It's not a question of right or wrong, though, but more of propriety maybe.

What does this mean?

My interpretation is that dragu was saying, in a world without human beings there is no morality.

Which may be true, but that doesn't make it a 'perception'. The fact is that in our world there are human agents and moral systems are part of this world.