Prejudice against Sensors?

[Little Linguist]

Regarding the question of whether or not it is you or the other person, I would say both parties are responsible any kind of uncomfortable relations between any two types.

In other words, the problem does not lay purely with the sensor or the intuitive individual, but rather the issue lies with both people's inability or unwillingness to attempt to understand each other's point of view.

 

[ptgatsby]

But people pushing for liberal beliefs doesn't bother me, because I approve of those. It's mostly conservative religiously-based beliefs that bother me. The theory behind those people being SJs is that they're defending older ideas and refusing to listen to newer ones.

What do you mean? You can't mean to tell me there's something wrong with me because I don't like them.

I will say it... but not in this context.

I think quite a few people would gain from watching Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

Identification is extremely dangerous (a few minutes into the talk, he mentions "team psychology"). The advantages you see in being against SJs (direct opposition to the openness you value in NPs) are counteracted by your lack of openness of SJs and their principles. You are reflecting exactly what you dislike about SJs, just in your own style.

 

[Athenian200]

I will say it... but not in this context.

I think quite a few people would gain from watching Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

Identification is extremely dangerous (a few minutes into the talk, he mentions "team psychology"). The advantages you see in being against SJs (direct opposition to the openness you value in NPs) are counteracted by your lack of openness of SJs and their principles. You are reflecting exactly what you dislike about SJs, just in your own style.

I can definitely see that. But I can't help but feel as if the other three foundations of morality tend towards unreasonable and oppressive beliefs that inhibit possibility for individuality or choice, pressing people into molds that destroy their identities. I can see the need for balance, but I'm still far more afraid of the world conservatives want to create, and just don't like their invasive, unyielding beliefs. Their principles aren't fair, they're just practical and indifferent to individual needs.

I didn't claim to be better than SJs/conservatives/low openness types or whatever we call them now, I just said that I couldn't accept their values and principles as valid, and I know they can't accept mine, thus... conflict is inevitable. When people disagree on fundamental things, they can't coexist happily. And I'm not willing to suffer coexisting with them, because that's the only way it could happen... I'd have to suffer their oppression, and I don't want to.

 

[pure_mercury]

But people pushing for liberal beliefs doesn't bother me, because I approve of those. It's mostly conservative religiously-based beliefs that bother me. The theory behind those people being SJs is that they're defending older ideas and refusing to listen to newer ones.

Then that is your bias, and not theirs. It's one thing if there is no reasoning, but you'd probably find that many of these people have completely legitimate and logical explanations for their beliefs. You may disagree, but that doesn't invalidate them.

What do you mean? You can't mean to tell me there's something wrong with me because I don't like them.

Well, I am going to say something controversial here: there might be. Some people are inherently more likable than others, and sometimes you can tell that someone else has their own issues going on when they really dislike a very likable person. Ever hear the old saying, "Judge someone by the company they keep?" The opposite is valid, too: "Judge someone by the company they turn away." It's almost never completely on one person, but it does happen. I am not saying that you are that way, but did you ever stop to think that maybe your own value judgments have been poor?

 

[ptgatsby]

I can definitely see that. But I can't help but feel as if the other three foundations of morality tend towards unreasonable and oppressive beliefs that inhibit possibility for individuality or choice, pressing people into molds that destroy their identities. I can see the need for balance, but I'm still far more afraid of the world conservatives want to create, and just don't like their invasive, unyielding beliefs.

And I agree. Your truth, feelings and perceptions are not incorrect. The problem is that it is also subjective, and it doesn't hold any particular objective truth. In other words, it is your preference that is distinct, like theirs. Any attempt to measure these values are going to be subjective to your stance.

The significance of this is pretty huge, as it applies to the SJs as well. They also have their subjective views. You don't like their way, just as they do not like your way. When you compartmentalize their beliefs, even through personality, you are doing what the worst of them do too - override your preferences without consideration.

I just want to bring attention to this because if MBTI has one purpose, it's that it helps let you bridge that gap. But do understand that it was written by Ns, for Ns. It has virtually all the stereotypical issues that Ns have, but they aren't addressed anywhere... and it highlights the gap that exists between the two extremes of preference (extremes being a given, due to the population distribution of Ns). Be careful that tool you are using isn't also forming your opinions (as you say, you get your typings from INTPs - want to guess what they don't like?)

 

[Athenian200]

Then that is your bias, and not theirs. It's one thing if there is no reasoning, but you'd probably find that many of these people have completely legitimate and logical explanations for their beliefs. You may disagree, but that doesn't invalidate them.

I never said it invalidated them, I said it made them an enemy. There's a difference. They have their values, I have my values. No problem there. The problem starts when one of us tries to make things conform to their values. The thing is, my values are invalidated by their principles, and their values are invalidated by my principles... so, what am I supposed to feel?

Well, I am going to say something controversial here: there might be. Some people are inherently more likable than others, and sometimes you can tell that someone else has their own issues going on when they really dislike a very likable person. Ever hear the old saying, "Judge someone by the company they keep?" The opposite is valid, too: "Judge someone by the company they turn away." It's almost never completely on one person, but it does happen. I am not saying that you are that way, but did you ever stop to think that maybe your own value judgments have been poor?

Well, it's not because they aren't likable that I'm turning them away. It's because their principles invalidate my values, and this makes them my enemy. It's really... as simple as that. I wish it weren't, but that's really how simple human beings are.

 

[Athenian200]

And I agree. Your truth, feelings and perceptions are not incorrect. The problem is that it is also subjective, and it doesn't hold any particular objective truth. In other words, it is your preference that is distinct, like theirs. Any attempt to measure these values are going to be subjective to your stance.

The significance of this is pretty huge, as it applies to the SJs as well. They also have their subjective views. You don't like their way, just as they do not like your way. When you compartmentalize their beliefs, even through personality, you are doing what the worst of them do too - override your preferences without consideration.

I guess the problem is that I don't see any way for either of us to be satisfied. We don't want the same things, how are we supposed to cooperate? I'd like to consider them, but every possible way I could show consideration would violate my principles. Everything they could do to show me consideration would violate their principles. I think we'd both LIKE to show the other consideration, but can't.

I just want to bring attention to this because if MBTI has one purpose, it's that it helps let you bridge that gap. But do understand that it was written by Ns, for Ns. It has virtually all the stereotypical issues that Ns have, but they aren't addressed anywhere... and it highlights the gap that exists between the two extremes of preference (extremes being a given, due to the population distribution of Ns). Be careful that tool you are using isn't also forming your opinions (as you say, you get your typings from INTPs - want to guess what they don't like?)

Oh, yeah... they might not like SJs. I would have thought they'd like them better because of sharing tertiary Si with them, but I guess not.

I guess instead of seeing how to bridge the gap, I only see more illustrations of what make us different, and how much I'll have to suffer or sacrifice in order to get along with them. It kind of sucks.

I think as an FJ, I might have an exaggerated tendency to see things in terms of friends and enemies. So I might be missing something.

 

[pure_mercury]

I never said it invalidated them, I said it made them an enemy. There's a difference. They have their values, I have my values. No problem there. The problem starts when one of us tries to make things conform to their values. The thing is, my values are invalidated by their principles, and their values are invalidated by my principles... so, what am I supposed to feel?

You're supposed to work to find common ground. Every human being has it in some regard with someone else.

Well, it's not because they aren't likable that I'm turning them away. It's because their principles invalidate my values, and this makes them my enemy. It's really... as simple as that. I wish it weren't, but that's really how simple human beings are.

That's how simple YOU are. Look, I am a libertarian. What many of the people in the world believe absolutely horrifies and disgusts me. And yet, I am close friends with people who disagree strongly with me. You seem not to want to realize that this is possible.

 

[Athenian200]

You're supposed to work to find common ground. Every human being has it in some regard with someone else.

We have some, sure. But if neither of us wants the other's way encroaching on their lifestyle or choices... well, it can be messy.

That's how simple YOU are. Look, I am a libertarian. What many of the people in the world believe absolutely horrifies and disgusts me. And yet, I am close friends with people who disagree strongly with me. You seem not to want to realize that this is possible.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's desirable. Why would I want to befriend and potentially benefit or find myself vulnerable to the people associated with the cause of my enemies? I have a feeling this is more an I/E thing, though. I'm fairly selective about my friends.

 

[Into It]

Yes, I have one. But only against Introverted sensors, that is, Si users. Se users I have a bias toward because they are very different from me and thus difficult to understand. But they are every bit as worthy as N's in their own respect. Si users, however, tend to disgust me, and I often have nightmares of a world filled only with SJ's, in which all people lived in caves, bleed the sick, and write with quills, because this is the way things "should be done."

 

[pure_mercury]

We have some, sure. But if neither of us wants the other's way encroaching on their lifestyle or choices... well, it can be messy.

And part of being a mature adult is being able to disagree with someone civilly.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's desirable. Why would I want to befriend and potentially benefit or find myself vulnerable to the people associated with the cause of my enemies? I have a feeling this is more an I/E thing, though. I'm fairly selective about my friends.

The fact that you refer to these people as "enemies" tells me that you have a very immature "Us vs. Them" attitude. And I think that a lot of these people you are claiming to weed out from the friend group have probably have done the same to you before you did.

 

[Athenian200]

And part of being a mature adult is being able to disagree with someone civilly.

Intellectually, I can do that. But emotionally, it's hard to trust or value someone I disagree with. Especially if after the disagreement, they still demand that everyone comply with their way regardless of disagreement.

So by being civil, you mean submitting to something I disagree with on the surface to keep the peace. Yes, I've done that. I hate it. I'm tired of doing it, and that's why I'm so frustrated.

The fact that you refer to these people as "enemies" tells me that you have a very immature "Us vs. Them" attitude. And I think that a lot of these people you are claiming to weed out from the friend group have probably have done the same to you before you did.

Well, I don't go around calling them enemies, I just sort of avoid them, or try to interact as little as possible. I'd tolerate them because I have no choice, but I'd never trust them or call them friends.

 

[pure_mercury]

Intellectually, I can do that. But emotionally, it's hard to trust someone I disagree with. Especially if after the disagreement, they still demand that everyone comply with their way regardless of disagreement.

So by being civil, you mean submitting to something I disagree with on the surface to keep the peace. Yes, I've done that. I hate it. I'm tired of doing it, and that's why I'm so frustrated.

I don't mean that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

Well, I don't go around calling them enemies, I just sort of avoid them, or try to interact as little as possible. I'd tolerate them because I have no choice, but I'd never trust them or call them friends.

I didn't mean calling them enemies to their faces or in reference to them. I meant the fact that you even THINK about these people in those terms is a major red flag.

 

[Athenian200]

I don't mean that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

Well... umm... how else do I disagree civilly? All I can think of is either doing what they say regardless of how I feel about it (I often do, which is probably why I have so much pent-up resentment), or avoiding them.

I didn't mean calling them enemies to their faces or in reference to them. I meant the fact that you even THINK about these people in those terms is a major red flag.

So I'm supposed to respect and value them? Despite the way they treat us? Perhaps I should... but that's really, really hard to do.

 

[pure_mercury]

Well... umm... how else do I disagree civilly? All I can think of is either doing what they say regardless of how I feel about it, or avoiding them.

The best way is to have a better argument with more evidence. That's what I do on here. You may not get the other person to see the light, but it's the right way to do it. Being right is not always enough.

So I'm supposed to respect and value them? Despite the way they treat us? Perhaps... but that's really, really hard to do.

There's that "Us vs. Them" attitude again. You really need to get past that mentality. Having a disagreement IRL with someone who has that mentality is fucking exasperating. You don't have to have a high level of respect for someone to TREAT them respectfully in these situations.

 

[Costrin]

I agree with merc. It sounds like your problems are starting in your mentality.

 

[Athenian200]

The best way is to have a better argument with more evidence. That's what I do on here. You may not get the other person to see the light, but it's the right way to do it. Being right is not always enough.

There's that "Us vs. Them" attitude again. You really need to get past that mentality. Having a disagreement IRL with someone who has that mentality is fucking exasperating. You don't have to have a high level of respect for someone to TREAT them respectfully in these situations.

Oh! I don't tell them I disagree with them or anything like that. I just end up complying what they say regardless of how I feel about it. I'm not crazy enough to create conflict in real life. So I definitely treat them respectfully, even though I don't feel respect.

I just resent them. A lot. And I'll take any reasonable opportunity I can get to sabotage, or otherwise avoid cooperating with them. I certainly try to keep them from knowing I feel this way.

 

[Costrin]

Oh! I don't tell them I disagree with them or anything like that. I just end up complying what they say regardless of how I feel about it. I'm not crazy enough to create conflict in real life. So I definitely treat them respectfully, even though I don't feel respect.

I just resent them. A lot. And I'll take any opportunity I can get to sabotage or avoid cooperating with them.

Then how do you expect anything to change?

Maybe if you didn't take that stance and actually tried to explain to them your problems and work out a solution...

 

[BlackCat]

After having read this diaglog between merc and athenian, I think that it's easy to say that you, Athenian, are stuck in your head, and refuse to come out. You're going into relationships with SJs like a ostrich with it's head in the ground would approach describing their surroundings, it doesn't work. You mentioned that their principals invalidate your values, please give an example of this. I honestly have never experienced this, if an SJ I'm associated with has a different belief if that topic is brought up, then we will talk about our differences and move on. It's the mature thing to do.

Assuming that every SJ or whatever will be a terrible person because of typology pretty much defeats the purpose of it. There is no point in doing this. You're just holding yourself back and lying to yourself.

To gain respect you must give respect, and if they don't respect you in consequence then they are just failures as human beings, a personality typing thing won't do anything to describe that.

I really don't see the purpose of hating SJs, they aren't all terrible honestly. The only way you could say that they're all terrible is by going out and meeting every XSXJ in the world and making the same judgment on them, saying that they're terrible.

Why are you afraid of creating conflict? Your relationships with people grow stronger when you survive conflict, especially necessary conflict. If you just go along with what people say and don't object if you don't agree with it, bad things will happen, misunderstandings will happen, etc. Why are you afraid of creating conflict? It's not the end of the world to have a disagreement with someone. You will never get your voice in if you just agree, thus making you feel unheard (like you basically feel). It's just a bad loop that you could easily fix. What's stopping you from voicing what you want to say? Why would you even think it was the best thing to do, to avoid a problem? You know that problems just get worse.

 

[Athenian200]

Then how do you expect anything to change?

I don't.

I know that the conservative-types (what type they are, most of them might not even be SJs) won't have change. Why do you think I'm so bitter?

Maybe if you didn't take that stance and actually tried to explain to them your problems and work out a solution...

Their "solution" is usually to tell me that I'm misguided to disagree with them. They often won't even concede that my problem is valid, and that I must just be seeing things incorrectly.