^That made me wonder
How old are you BlueWing?
Another thing that came into my mind:
Are you just looking for getting some attention with your posts?
Because you are certainly getting attention.
I think I have some interesting ideas and I wonder what others would have to contribute to them. Most of the havoc that happens in these threads is a result of my claims being misunderstood.
21
If you are interested, the way to control emotions is to accept them. They will mellow out that way. Restrain is not the right way to control them, while it seems most straightforward. It is harder to take the punch.
Sooner or later they will wear out on their own, but this seems to be a long and inefficient route. Why do that when you can focus your emotive energy onto something much more constructive. As for example, what works for me is delving into hard-core Thinking material. This puts me into an emotionally neutral mode and substantially lessens the grief in a short period of time. I remember I was bothered by something intensely for 2 good weeks at least, yet after 3 days of solid studies, it was nowhere near as significant.
I don't think Mr. Rogers is an example of an NF without any T. He was utterly consistent for his entire life. I agree with BW that F must be balanced with T. It seems to me that he is saying that one needs more T than F, which is much more reasonable to me than saying F is worthless and T is awesome. I don't necessarily agree, but it would be an interesting discussion if we could leave behind the invective.
We are on the same page. I believe that Thinking should be in the drivers seat and Feeling in the backseat because Thinking gives us a clear perspective of what we should do with our lives.
BW, you assume value judgments are to be restrained. i think value judgments need to be worked through and factored in. Feeling shouldn't be locked in the trunk -- Feeling should be in the passenger seat, having a constant conversation with Thinking (which should be the driver of the car, heh).
You work through value judgments through rational analysis of emotion. Everybody processes emotion, this is inevitable. A hardcore thinker however may not have enough interest in emotion to analyze it. He does not need to indulge in his emotive appetites more to do this. He just needs to get himself to focus on emotional aspects of his life.
Before I start I have one question: What is your purpose in making these types of threads?).
I have interesting ideas and I am curious about what others may have to add to them.
Your premise is a little bit odd in my opinion. 'We know for sure that this is what the NFs are portrayed as fighters of. But was this really the case?' That quote makes it seem like you are going to refute the notion that Jesus, Buddha, and Ghandi actually tried to fight for 'the happiness of society, the common good, and the welfare of the individual', which you don't exactly do. ?).
I used those heroes as means to the end of depicting a caricature of the 'NF' stereotype. It is not my business to inquire into matters of their biography.
A pure type being having no Thinking or Sensing function? I highly doubt someone like that exists in reality. An argument that stems from such an unrealistic notion will surely be a strawman.?).
Yes, that is correct. Which is why you will never meet NF people as 'out there' as I have described them. Even the craziest of NFs had some kind of Thinking in them and usually enough to avoid running amuck with their Feelings. Yet, unfortunately too many of them had too little Thinking in them and championed very unreasonable values and visions.
Feeling itself has logical sequencing BW, emotion is not random, it has triggers..?).
That is clearly so. Nothing in the world is random. By random I meant, emotions do not bear a logical relation to each other. For example, an overly emotional person may have emotions of guilt, anxiety, ecstasy, whatever, triggered by a refrigerator. There is no direct logical relationship between the refrigerator and such feelings. But the reason they turn out to have such feelings triggered is because their refrigerator reminded them of some scary event in their lives. They may even consciously assert that the refrigerator is evil. A logical person would see that there is no connection between the two.
No sane person does not take into account details about reality that they receive via Sensing when deciding to fight for a cause. You are interpreting typology too literally...?).
Many of the N dominated NFs I have met, especially INFJs seemed practically insane to me. Historical case in point, INFJ Dostoevsky persuades the ignorant Russian peasant folk that their country has been chosen by God to be the new Israel! This is why God put Mother Russian through this much suffering, he is putting her to test only to be rewarded for her faithfulness later on! This led to rabid worship of Russian soil which had almost no bearing upon reality and seemed to be wholly a concoction of his imagination.
This makes no sense. If the NF was fighting for the cause of "the welfare of the individual", that is a magnanimous cause, it doesn't matter the means of fighting for it in my opinion, the action is what counts....?).
My question is, did they have the 'welfare of the individual' in mind when they were acting? Or were they caught up in their passions and imagination like Dostoevksy seemed to have been?
You are only presenting negative aspects of a feeler with a highly underdeveloped thinking function, that kind of person maybe only exists in a pre-teen who doesn't know any better yet.....?).
You mostly meet those in lunatic asylums. Today we keep them locked away, thousands of years back they were religious prophets.
Also, NTs have followers that have romanticized them, take Copernicus for an example, he's been credited with the idea of Heliocentrism when it had been present in other cultures for centuries......?).
Noone thought that he was God's son, however or that whoever rejects his teaching shall be commited to the flames for eternity. There clearly was less passion involved here than with the NF leaders, and his teaching was more clearly presented, so more difficult for charlatans to exploit.
Don't say "the truth", there is no absolute truth, except for maybe in mathematics (1+1=2, absolute truth). ......?).
Truth is absolute. Either my car is white or not white. Either John took my shoes or he did not. Our knowledge may not be absolute as we could have made many errors in our attempt to understand what the truth is.
Proof by assertion, hasty generalization, strawman. That is clearly descriptive of an extreme stereotype of someone who has no balance in their cognitive processes. This is very similar to what you wrote: "All hispanic people in the US crossed the border illegally, they are all lazy, dirty people, who mow our lawns and make our fast food for us."......?).
Strawman fallacy would be if I misrepresented my opponent's case.
For example, John says my car runs fast because it has an engine from 2005 by GM.
If I respond, oh your engine is from GM, that is why it runs fast?
That'd be a strawman as I am misrepresenting what he said to make his case seem weaker.
Proof by assertion? That would be if I said this is just the way it is, and I refuse to explain why it is this way.
Where did I commit these two?
Argument for NFs not knowing their view was founded upon the proposition of them over-indulging in Feeling and lacking Thinking. Feeling is chiefly concerned with telling us whether things are agreeable to us or not. Thinking is concerned with telling us what things are. If you lack the latter, you will lack clarity. The 'drama queen' notion derives from the proposition concerning the nature of Feeling, which by definition of itself seems to attract emotion. If you lack thinking to balance your feeling, almost doubtlessly you will turn out over-dramatic.
I doubt it is uncommon to witness a radical Feeling type in an off-balance state going at great lengths to receive approbation from others, as I have mentioned earlier.
You can fulfill a cause and not know what the cause was, your making a false dichotomy, the options being "they know the cause and fulfill it" and "they don't know the cause and don't fulfill it". ."......?).
Okay, so say I am in a segregated city. I stand up on top of the roof and say FHOIAFHIDSOIHFDSFDOHIFDSOHISFDOFSDOHIFDSOIHFDSOIHFDSIOHFDSIO
Strangely, this turns out to mean 'Fight for freedom' in some odd language I never knew anything about. People rally for the cause and in the end the city ends up being desegregated. Did I fight for the cause of de-segregation? Seems to me I was just a lunatic screaming random non-sense.
Again, my question was about the mindset of those people who we regard as heroes seemingly for all the wrong reasons.
You try to make the case that because they don't know the cause they can't possibly fulfill it. The other options that you didn't consider are "they know the cause and don't fulfill it" and "they don't know the cause and fulfill it". You may have not directly stated the dichotomy but it was implied.."......?).
My claim was that they seemed to be extremely neurotic NFs with almost no access to Thinking. Such types are unlikely to know their cause for this reason. Other options were not relevant in light of this claim.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The cause of the confusion about Jesus's teachings is not that he was an NF, but rather that the scripture written by his followers can be interpreted in various ways being that it was written 2000 years ago in a different language and culture. Also I'm pretty sure that the teachings of Buddha and Ghandi aren't misinterpreted in any way..."......?).
That is irrelevant bibliographical information.
Be careful with the word "All". Also, what if a worldview was to be founded upon emotion And clear-cut rationale? You might argue that if it was to be founded on emotion then it must be irrational, however i've shown you how emotion has logical sequencing and can therefore be rational if controlled...."......?).
I believe I have shown for this view to be false.
