The Curse of Neutrality

[Danmach]

This is a topic that has concerned me as an INFJ for long, being someone who sees the world as a multi layered, never completely graspable composition. I always believe in multiple perspectives and while some people may see some issues as contrasting, I would see them as different facets, wrong and right in different ways, and without proper knowledge, I never produce strong judgements.
The result is that I am almost always perceived as neutral, and consequently dull, or without the energy and power that comes with being "emphatic". Similar to how one liners and clear concepts are powerful, while long tedious talks about how things are really complex rarely catch on. And while I have my emphatic moments when I "know enough", I believe usually this is not the case.

Now I have learned lately that subjectivity and expression of views that are not well rounded or multifaceted, might not be inherently "wrong". I now see concepts, ideas, and expression, as tools to formulate the "ultimate truth", rather than truths in their own rights. I am starting to believe that as long as we, or I, know them for what they really are, they can be quite powerful in building up a common understanding of the world that comes from the very diverse, "subjective" building blocks. Consequently, I am becoming more at peace with the idea of putting ideas on the table, as long as I make sure to properly define them.

Any thoughts on the topic?

 

[Wyote]

Put some ill defined ideas on the table. It'll be interesting.

 

[Pin]

Basically, I think every INFJ is Sam Harris in disguise.

 

[Ren]

Now I have learned lately that subjectivity and expression of views that are not well rounded or multifaceted, might not be inherently "wrong". I now see concepts, ideas, and expression, as tools to formulate the "ultimate truth", rather than truths in their own rights. I am starting to believe that as long as we, or I, know them for what they really are, they can be quite powerful in building up a common understanding of the world that comes from the very diverse, "subjective" building blocks. Consequently, I am becoming more at peace with the idea of putting ideas on the table, as long as I make sure to properly define them.

It's incredible how many INFJs share that vision of the One as expressed through the diversity of subjective experiences and viewpoints. It really seems to be an Ni thing.

Looking forward to your ideas

 

[John K]

This is a topic that has concerned me as an INFJ for long, being someone who sees the world as a multi layered, never completely graspable composition. I always believe in multiple perspectives and while some people may see some issues as contrasting, I would see them as different facets, wrong and right in different ways

Any thoughts on the topic?

Imagine you live in a very large building. Part of it is old, medieval or earlier, but it has been added to over the centuries and there are many newer parts as well, some built very recently. Inside there are hundreds and hundreds of rooms, all different and individual - they too are old and new like the building itself, and furnished in all sorts of ways, some fanciful, some very ordinary, some like a science lab, some like a castle solar, there are gaming rooms, a bar, exercise rooms, some full of art, rooms lined with books, some look out on the garden (there is a fantastic garden full of features and separate areas), some onto a river (it flows through a water gates and under the building) but they are all set up so you could actually live in them as well as just visit. As you walk around and go into any room you find you can choose to let it soak into you - you are able to take on its flavour and let its character possess you superficially. You like to spend some time living in any of these rooms and most people who met you casually would think you are well suited to that room and its flavour. You are quite happy to adopt the views that go with the room perspective - a bit like wearing a particular set of clothes. Of course some rooms are easier for you to live in than others - you can only spend short times in the more difficult ones, but there are others that you could live in for a long time and there are one or two that you think of as home. You never get so taken over by the character of a room that you forget yourself, and you can go to your home room any time you like. It's lovely walking round this building and trying out all the different room flavours and living for a little while almost fully in each perspective that they present. When you do go back to your home room you always bring something new back with you: perceptions, insights, a decision, something you have done for others. Sometimes you find the building changes and two different rooms get knocked through into one - that is a magic moment!

You realise how rewarding it is to give each perspective a chance to flower.

 

[Ren]

Imagine you live in a very large building.

This is like the perfect introduction to an Ni insight! I could totally see Wittgenstein beginning a paragraph with that sentence.

Imagine you live in a very large building. Part of it is old, medieval or earlier, but it has been added to over the centuries and there are many newer parts as well, some built very recently. Inside there are hundreds and hundreds of rooms, all different and individual - they too are old and new like the building itself, and furnished in all sorts of ways, some fanciful, some very ordinary, some like a science lab, some like a castle solar, there are gaming rooms, a bar, exercise rooms, some full of art, rooms lined with books, some look out on the garden (there is a fantastic garden full of features and separate areas), some onto a river (it flows through a water gates and under the building) but they are all set up so you could actually live in them as well as just visit. As you walk around and go into any room you find you can choose to let it soak into you - you are able to take on its flavour and let its character possess you superficially. You like to spend some time living in any of these rooms and most people who met you casually would think you are well suited to that room and its flavour. You are quite happy to adopt the views that go with the room perspective - a bit like wearing a particular set of clothes. Of course some rooms are easier for you to live in than others - you can only spend short times in the more difficult ones, but there are others that you could live in for a long time and there are one or two that you think of as home. You never get so taken over by the character of a room that you forget yourself, and you can go to your home room any time you like. It's lovely walking round this building and trying out all the different room flavours and living for a little while almost fully in each perspective that they present. When you do go back to your home room you always bring something new back with you: perceptions, insights, a decision, something you have done for others. Sometimes you find the building changes and two different rooms get knocked through into one - that is a magic moment!

You realise how rewarding it is to give each perspective a chance to flower.

Are there rooms to rent in that building, John? I'm interested

 

[John K]

This is like the perfect introduction to an Ni insight! I could totally see Wittgenstein beginning a paragraph with that sentence.



Are there rooms to rent in that building, John? I'm interested

It's rent free for all infjs Ren

 

[Pin]

This is a topic that has concerned me as an INFJ for long, being someone who sees the world as a multi layered, never completely graspable composition. I always believe in multiple perspectives and while some people may see some issues as contrasting, I would see them as different facets, wrong and right in different ways, and without proper knowledge, I never produce strong judgements.
The result is that I am almost always perceived as neutral, and consequently dull, or without the energy and power that comes with being "emphatic". Similar to how one liners and clear concepts are powerful, while long tedious talks about how things are really complex rarely catch on. And while I have my emphatic moments when I "know enough", I believe usually this is not the case.

Now I have learned lately that subjectivity and expression of views that are not well rounded or multifaceted, might not be inherently "wrong". I now see concepts, ideas, and expression, as tools to formulate the "ultimate truth", rather than truths in their own rights. I am starting to believe that as long as we, or I, know them for what they really are, they can be quite powerful in building up a common understanding of the world that comes from the very diverse, "subjective" building blocks. Consequently, I am becoming more at peace with the idea of putting ideas on the table, as long as I make sure to properly define them.

Any thoughts on the topic?

Your way of seeing the world is cool. However, it seems a little anxious to me. In fact, I don't think that the world is too complicated. For example, a tree is a tree. What's so complicated about that?

The world only gets complicated when you decide how you're going to use it. For example, am I going to use the wood from that tree to make a fire, a chair, etc?

Interesting ideas.

 

[Ren]

In fact, I don't think that the world is too complicated. For example, a tree is a tree. What's so complicated about that?

Things get complicated when you use both Ni and Ti in considering what a tree is.

 

[Ren]

For example, when you state that "a tree is a tree", you're only stating that in the world, things are identical to themselves. But you've not said anything about what a tree is, nor by extension, about what the world is.

... But what is a tree?

That's how an INFJ using too much Ni and Ti would proceed, as opposed to your dreadfully efficient and pragmatic Te

 

[Pin]

Things get complicated when you use both Ni and Ti in considering what a tree is.

Ti...

Who has time for that?

 

[Lady Jolanda]

How to confuse a Te user: bring up definitions.

 

[Pin]

How to confuse a Te user: bring up definitions.

Yeah, you got me.

 

[Ren]

How to confuse a Te user: bring up definitions.

Yeah, you got me.

Aha! Actually, I've seen @Pin ask for terms to be defined when he's genuinely engaged in a discussion.

Or perhaps that's more because he was debating with EH.

 

[John K]

I always thought a tree was a sort of computer database structure .......

 

[Pin]

Aha! Actually, I've seen @Pin ask for terms to be defined when he's genuinely engaged in a discussion.

Or perhaps that's more because he was debating with EH.

Debate isn't about understanding.

Debate is about subjugating... Metaphorically.

In debate you want quick and easy to understand 'definitions.'

 

[Ren]

I always thought a tree was a sort of computer database structure .......

Ha! And I always thought a tree was a problem tree. I blame the world for being so problematic.

 

[Ginny]

This is a topic that has concerned me as an INFJ for long, being someone who sees the world as a multi layered, never completely graspable composition. I always believe in multiple perspectives and while some people may see some issues as contrasting, I would see them as different facets, wrong and right in different ways, and without proper knowledge, I never produce strong judgements.
The result is that I am almost always perceived as neutral, and consequently dull, or without the energy and power that comes with being "emphatic". Similar to how one liners and clear concepts are powerful, while long tedious talks about how things are really complex rarely catch on. And while I have my emphatic moments when I "know enough", I believe usually this is not the case.

Now I have learned lately that subjectivity and expression of views that are not well rounded or multifaceted, might not be inherently "wrong". I now see concepts, ideas, and expression, as tools to formulate the "ultimate truth", rather than truths in their own rights. I am starting to believe that as long as we, or I, know them for what they really are, they can be quite powerful in building up a common understanding of the world that comes from the very diverse, "subjective" building blocks. Consequently, I am becoming more at peace with the idea of putting ideas on the table, as long as I make sure to properly define them.

Any thoughts on the topic?

I think neutrality is hard to maintain in a fast-paced world. Making decisions and judgements is imo important for the development/definition of the self. You seem to me to make decisions carefully and you take your time making them as well, which in of itself is quite admirable. Does that neutrality render you incapable of making your own judgement?

In my experience, which isn't all that much perhaps, people are always biased in some way, influenced by split-second judgements which needn't even be made consciously. To say you are neutral is not something I'd take your word on (I mean the impersonal 'you'). In order to be neutral, you'd have to recognise that your own perspective is inherently biased. And that you have some base opinion, which you neglected to mention in the OP. You talk of the outside and what you know to be true, but you don't take subconscious judgement into account, do you? I mean, look at me, I'm biased in that I don't trust people who (admittedly by omission) seem to claim unbiasedness. You seem to indicate judgement in your use of "right" and "wrong" with varying perspectives. This indicates judgement, if of a nuanced kind.

Is it really neutral if you make claims to something being right or wrong at all? Isn't that dependent on perception and perspective as well?