In thinking of my positions and comments on certain threads, I see that when it comes to issues of right/wrong (or what I perceive to be right/wrong) I simply do not care about feelings. And it's like I won't let myself consider the feelings of someone who I think is acting wrong, whatever their reasons. Maybe my judgemental side kicks the door in and bellows: "Pick yourself up by your bootstraps! Suck it up and do the right thing regardless of your feelings. And don't waste your sympathy on the unworthy!" Maybe this is similar to how some NTs don't care if the evidence or argument hurts feelings in a debate. They don't care how you feel about the information, only what's true or logical.
I find myself amazed that some of you guys can have sympathy for people who may be acting wrong. Or people I would judge as undeserving. I think that's pretty dark of me. It's judgmental. But I've not really thought about it until I found myself astonished by the sympathy given at times here. It was startling to me.
In thinking of my positions and comments on certain threads, I see that when it comes to issues of right/wrong (or what I perceive to be right/wrong) I simply do not care about feelings. And it's like I won't let myself consider the feelings of someone who I think is acting wrong, whatever their reasons. Maybe my judgemental side kicks the door in and bellows: "Pick yourself up by your bootstraps! Suck it up and do the right thing regardless of your feelings. And don't waste your sympathy on the unworthy!" Maybe this is similar to how some NTs don't care if the evidence or argument hurts feelings in a debate. They don't care how you feel about the information, only what's true or logical.
I find myself amazed that some of you guys can have sympathy for people who may be acting wrong. Or people I would judge as undeserving. I think that's pretty dark of me. It's judgmental. But I've not really thought about it until I found myself astonished by the sympathy given at times here. It was startling to me.
It does feel good to say, "I'm right!" And then ride off on your high horse into the sunset. The End.
Until you finally have to face that you're not really right. Or you're not always right-- if someone is able to argue effectively that you aren't right or you don't succumb to cognitive dissonance. Then you have to ride your horse back into town, dismount and knock your shit off lol.
It does feel good to say, "I'm right!" And then ride off on your high horse into the sunset. The End.
Until you finally have to face that you're not really right. Or you're not always right-- if someone is able to argue effectively that you aren't right or you don't succumb to cognitive dissonance. Then you have to ride your horse back into town, dismount and knock your shit off lol.
Well, I am quite late for the thread this time, but I want to say a few words about what has been said and bring a little bit of my opinion too.
I think that there a great conceptual flaw into Hitler's typing and that notion that people has on the "INTJs wants to rule the world". E/I on Jung definition can be partially reduced to internal/external orientation, where Extroverts are oriented towards the environment while Introverts are oriented towards self, his own physique. Of course, people are not fully introverted or extroverted, however part of people (those who are not ambiverts) are supposed to have a preferred orientation. The problem is... Having activities that relates to "dominate" the world does require an external orientation, because dominate the world is an external activity. In the end, you will deal with the external world and with people. A person that is really Introverted and not an ambivert or extravert wouldn't really want to spend his whole life pursuing something related to the external world, like ruling the world. So the INTJs that wants to rule the world are Ambiverted NTJs at least. At the same way, if Hitler were really an introvert, he would not want to spread the Nazistic culture over the world or even bothering moving people towards the Nazi goals. So, Hitler for me is an Ambivert or Extravert. If Hitler was really an introvert, you know, he would spend way more time Introspecting instead. He would be instead more like this...
I have spent a lot of time to explore and observe my own dark side. It manifests itself in various manners but with years of observation I have managed to take a few steps back and just let it roll on its own. Some things can ignite some really detailed dark and vicious thoughts in us. That dark side has its power. Tremendous in fact. It is very hard to suppress it since it will manifest itself in some form. Therefore I prefer to channel it into music or writing.
No offense, but Hitler would spend more time "exploring and observing" his own dark side, perhaps adoring and admiring it (not something lime you do), instead of wanting so desperately to bring it out to the world.
--
My second point is that the result of Milgram Experiment and Big 5 (where Conscientiousness and Agreeableness got a positive correlation) is sort of interesting because it indirectly bring a reflection that some people on this thread had mentioned. Agreeableness has a few facets and understanding them and understanding the Migram experiment can be an eye opener because with these you can understand it deeply instead of just thinking "so, agreeableness and fe are pure evil?" (you know, agreeableness relations with Fe are very weak, but that is another subject).
I know Milgram experiment in its shock version, but I know the others follow the same patterns. In the shock version, a person two persons are put on separated room, one of them can receive shock (I think the shocks are fake and the person is an actor?) and the other person punishes the former with a shock if the person answers the questions wrongly. And with them there is the experimenter, that is the person, the "social scientist", lets say, conducting the experiment. Whenever the person that does admin. the questions and shock does questions regarding "is this safe?", "Should I stop?", stuff like that, the experimenter says: "The experiment requires you to continue". This is the resume of Milgram experiment, just a quick reminder, but an important one.
So, Agreeableness has facets and with these we can understand why a person with a higher agreeableness does admin more shock. It is correct that sympathy is one facet, and that it does relates to empathy in a way that an empathetic person should put on somebody else's shoes. But there are 3 special facets that together makes the person to administer more shocks instead, and these are: Cooperation, Morality and Trust.
Trust facet has questions like:
- Trust others.
- Believe that others have good intentions.
- Trust what people say.
So a person with more trust (that does count for agreeableness) will believe on the good will of the experimenter and will trust that the experiment is something important and that is done for a good reason.
Morality, although has this name, does have to do with two things that I think are separated. In one of them, it is related to cheating, but the other one is simply related to sticking to the rules. Morality questions are like these:
- Stick to the rules.
- [NEGATIVE] Know how to get around the rules.
- [NEGATIVE] Cheat to get ahead.
- [NEGATIVE] Take advantage of others.
So, although rebelling doesnt mean to take advantage of others and really cheating, rebelling and cheating is put on the same facet of sticking to the rules.
So, a person with a higher Morality facet more likely to follow the rules and less likely to rebel against the experimenter.
Third facet, cooperation, that just amplifies what I had said before. People on cooperation are people who follow along easily and does do whatever they can to not confront anyone else. Cooperation facets are like these:
- Am easy to satisfy.
- Can't stand confrontations.
- [NEGATIVE] Contradict others.
So, what we got from these 3 facets are people willing to trust the experimenter easily, willing to blindly follow the rules and people who avoid to confront, question and perhaps contradict the experimenter. No wonder they end up administering more shocks instead. These 3 facets outnumber the facets of altruism and sympathy, while modesty perhaps makes it even worse for the altruism and sympathy part. So, I think that you guys had ended up capturing that the Milgram experiment might have shown how empathy doesnt work, but a closer look to it tells a different story.
I think the greatest lesson here is that some people have a tendency to cooperate indiscriminately to the first thing they find around the corner, it is more like a "just get along and help" vibe. Im not directing this to Fe users, because Agreeableness is a lot independent of MBTI, although you might think this is an absurd there are INTPs with moderately high Agreeableness or INFPs with low Agreeableness, for example. So, continuing with what I was saying, some people end up supporting everything without discrimination and without question, and they pretty much ends up supporting the bad guys - they end up being minions without realizing they are at all. Not only they end up passive, they end up supporting.
A lot of the bad guys want to "rule the world" (although these are fictional, they are based on a realistic aspect), actually want to create the rules of the world because they know they will have the other support. Im not saying that we shouldnt help anyone or be selfish, I partially preach the opposite and I am usually on that side that we should be more helpful and more cooperative, but I want to say that this is the result of the "nobody is good or evil, everyone has just good intentions" approach. I dont think this approach is true. Although I do believe no one is fully good and perhaps that nobody is fully bad (real life villains are very skilled, they dont look like villains, they know how to create a fake morality and how to make people tolerate hypocrisy and absurds), some people are more good-natured than others, and some are more bad-natured.
Now, another thing to take a point... There is something called "Corruption Perception Index", and it is by miles one of the best indicators of country development, way better than these "big state vs small state" thing and fight. Although it is entirely subjective, it does give good reasons to me to think that the lies and deceiving, general dishonesty, ultimately sinks country development. I do believe that, if we could measure how much lies per capita a country has, this would be a good measure of country development. So, I had actually took studies of Big Five in countries (they had the values of Big 5 stuff for many countries) and took GDP per capita and Corruption Perception Index and a few other stuff , and, despite my critiques for Agreeableness here, from two studies, one with facets and one with general dichotomy, Agreeableness had the best correlation and cooperation was the best facet (morality didnt had much relation). Corruption Perception, Agreeableness and country IQ combined are very good predictors of country GDP, although we have some exceptions, and US, which probably is the country for about half of people here, is not particularly much agreeable. So, I dont believe that there is really a single figure that can change everything - like Hitler converting germans alone and building "his" army, but that these things happens because of people's fault in general. The US is perceived by the world in many different ways; Some people, especially in Latin America, end up having a bad vision of the US because they just see the US monsters and a few US monsters supporters.
Im not really done talking... In subject of MBTI, MBTI never had any test related to the Milgram Experiment. MBTI does have an official branch that does control the test, and they have their "gift differing" philosophy where all types are equally good, any of them in their own ways. Big 5 tells another story, and what I think is the truth is an hybrid version of both. MBTI wasnt design to access good and evil, but to be as must immune as possible to these, in theory. In practice, though, they fail and I had no doubt, some types are more evil, some types are more good, at the same way that some are intelligent and some are not. But Gifts differing is inside most forum's rules, so I wont mention nor getting in details, but there is. Just as a tip for who is reading me, if you read what psychopath is, the proper description, you will realize that there is an important component of psychopathy that directly overlaps with one of the eight cognitive functions.
And just to end the post, I think the environment does play a role, but we cant really justify everything based on the environment and life story only. I do think and believe that the environment can indeed make us change from perhaps good to neutral OR evil to neutral, not from good to evil or evil to good. I do think that the environment can give us the right place to do good or evil if we want to, but sometimes the environment doesnt give us anything to do. Doing good or evil can be a matter of opportunity, and sometimes we lack opportunities to express our good intentions... Or, for others, to express bad intentions. Sometimes, the life is just too hard on us and make us to have a thousand concerns about our own that we have little time to care about others; In other times, we want to care, but there is zero things we can do about it; In other times, there is indeed the opportunity to do something. This is really complicated to explain, but I hope the people who is reading me here get my point at this last paragraph and the rest I wrote. I could indeed write and talk even more about it, but I guess that is ok for the day. Perhaps I should create a "Vendrah good vs evil thread", with me explaining and showing up everything and put everything into discuss... DOnt know...
