"In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?"

[PeaceBaby]

Let's all then be surprised there're types, some people even, whose opportunities for living expression dwindle the closer they are urged to this wretched past-staring literalness.

awwwww

Who knew, right? I'm here to claim that not many here did.

Thanks for pointing it out of course; it's a valid comment.

The only way you can get away with such an approach is to have some library of concrete facts that you treat as containing more of the substance of the world than the world itself displays from moment to moment.

I can align with that. Yet is it not appropriate to have some parameters we agree on? It's not like a nuclear detonation is going to contain skittles or something. We can agree that devastation is the most probable outcome, no? And base our opinion of that which we see as the most probable? So, why is someone who comes in and says, "I can't see past the horror of this to even contemplate alternate outcomes" so stifling?

And which changes, among other things, what elements of some internet question will strike you immediately as constituting the substance of that question.

Basically you're saying our own personal wiring and context changes how we view the world, even down to the interpretation of any given question. But you're talking to the most subjective of the subjective types here; to me (Fi dom) such a thing is a given. Do you think that point is not obvious to all?

 

[Thalassa]

I grew up with all these influences as well, but it didn't traumatize me, or impact my personality much. The reverse is more true, in that my personality shaped how I processed and viewed events. I suspect the same is true for you. We can see the same thing, but interpret and respond to it very differently.


But there is also at least one INFP agreeing with Kalach. Not everyone with a given type will have the same opinion; we are not groups of paper dolls, cut on the same template.

Yes, you're not saying anything I didn't say. He's the one saying it's about Si vs. Ni and I'm telling him, no, it's something more complex than that, and probably has mostly to do with my own Fi belief system.

How about asteroid impacts? Global greenhouse effects rendering much of the earth inhabitable? New viruses that kill large segments of the population? Even alien invasions? All of these scenarios involve the destruction of many of the things you mention. Are they more acceptable fodder for fantasy, perhaps because they lack human agency?


It is also called personal preference. Some people have no stomach for horror movies, and find fiction about individual killers, eg. serial killers, up-close-and-personal to be too creepy. It is silly to criticise people for what comes down to a matter of taste.

Yes, it's called personal preference. It's called Fi. Why don't you tell Kalach that instead, since you agree with me and apparently don't realize it?

I don't like the idea of senseless suffering any more than you, but no amount of hypothetical consideration of destructive events on my part is going to precipitate a nuclear war. Moreover, if one is unable to distance oneself from the emotional response produced in a crisis situation, it can be more difficult to respond constructively.


It may be easier to think of Ni in terns of "if . . . then . . . ". As in: if we had a nuclear war, then this is what would happen. Ni envisions a single integrated answer to the Ne open-ended question, all of it hypothetical, impersonal, and separated from any moral considerations.

If you read Jung, like I posted in this thread, the moral Ni type (that would be the Feeling type with Ni, whether NFJ or SFP) uses Ni to deconstruct the significance and meaning of the thing.

That's why INFJs are stereotyped as psychiatrists and counselors and psychics.

There is a moral consideration involved, just apparently not for the INTJ unless they have a strong Fi ethic about the subject matter.

 

[mintleaf]

I'm having a hard time understanding what's meant by "in a certain light." I think everyone would agree that there are perspectives in which that would be the case - the perspective of a sociopath, for example - so can someone clarify what this poll is asking? Is the question "Is there some part of you that would truly be excited to take part in it?"

Sometimes I find conflict to be a relief because I know that underlying issues are being acknowledged and addressed. I guess that that would apply here, and that nuclear war would also heighten a person's sense of purpose & make them feel more alive.

...but nuclear war is the most destructive and horrific way of going about any of those 3 things, so I'd personally feel nothing but dread in response to news of nuclear war.

edit: okay, after reading more of the thread, it really seems like most people agree with each other and that there's just a problem with language here. no one wants nuclear war, but most are able to see the possible benefits and thrill? some more willing to consider that side of it than others.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah. I know. You and everyone else read the sentence wrong.

Discussing how much less than perfect nuclear war is, is fine. In context though, point: missed. I know, right? How could that possibly happen? It's not like different priorities and perceptions exist, is it?


There wasn't an argument, btw, about it being Si vs Ni. I didn't argue. I stated. Enthusiastically. And reasserted several times, while adding in suggestive explanatory outlines. IT"D BE STUPID TO ASSERT INDIVIDUAL FUNCTIONS CONTROLLING PEOPLE TO THAT EXTENT, WOULDN"T IT! It'd be alarmingly reductionist.

However, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that heavy on the side of people who got outraged was a focus on "nuclear war" in its concrete image terms, with those terms understood to NOT admit division of images into any category other than the physical (the factual, the concrete, the holistically realistic). Those persons getting outraged without Si present in their mental clown suit were doing so for god only knows what reason, but if that proves Si people don't do Si, then perhaps we shouldn't believe typology after all.


There's an intensity to the conservatism here.... it is both frustrating and uniquely exciting. If Jung was right, it should be nearly impossible for a person to see themselves from the outside. If everyone knew entirely how their own minds worked, Jung would be wrong.

Meanwhile, gaah, you guys, grow your conceptual schemes a little.

Except you're missing the point that Fi comes into play just as much as Si or Ni. You can't see past *your* own conceptual framework, that's the funny thing about Ni thinking its so open-minded that it too chooses one path and says this is best path; for example [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] seems to be a big fan of saying that personal preferences should all be respected. This is *her* Fi talking. Her Fi says that every preference, no matter how gruesome or unrealistic, should be respected; this overlaps with her ethic against gun control. [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], even as an INTJ, has shown a dogged vision and moral consistency for giving people personal freedom, even making sure in another thread I don't think one culture is better than another. The irony of [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] telling me not to criticize people for their personal preferences is that she is subtley criticizing me for mine. At the end of the day, INTJ has his or her own Ni vision and Fi morals.

You have yours, and it has something to do with being right about Jungian functions, and how everything is about Ni and Si, to the absurd point of excluding Fi or Fe, Ne or Se. It's really absurd Kalach, and you don't even see how absurd it is, because Ni can have tunnel vision just like Si that way...you've been posting about Ni versus Si in threads for years to the point of ridiculousness. You have a weird one-track tunnel vision about it, you really do, and you're on a mission to convert people to it. It's not all that different from my own moral mission against nuclear war.

It's so weird how INTJs lecture people about things they do themselves, it's just they're so convinced that their view is *correct* that they don't stop to consider how subjective they are also being; in that regard they aren't all that different from ISTJs, it's just that they tend to have these moral visions about Ni rather than Si concepts.

Jung said that the Se type loves to embrace things as concrete and is suspicious of conjecture for conjecture's sake. Who does that sound like?

Why it sounds an awful lot like me.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm excited and surprised at the number of people who said "no".

Is it due to pure pressure? A lack of imagination?

Is there really any difference? Is peer pressure the stifling of creative imagination and constructive imagination, consequences be damned? We could talk about the very real consequences suffered in the wake of nuclear detonations all day, but all we can really rely on is our imagination as long as we're dicking around, bathing ourselves in the incandescence of our computer screens instead of the glow of an atom bomb. So who has the best control of their imagination? Or, rather, who has the best control over their misgivings about shredding away what they already know from the idea we discuss here?

I think nuclear war, in some respects, is exciting for the same reason a widespread power outage is exciting: you gotta break out the candles and spend some quality time with each other.

Who doesn't like quality time? And, for those of you who may comment about the ethical nature of my involuntary surge of emotion that is my excitement (lol), would you say that improving the quality of life in response to the threat of lethal nuclear rads is an ethical course of action - perhaps, an action equally susceptible to the impetus of peer pressure?

At this point I'm rambling, but what can really be taken away from this? I think there were some who thoughtfully responded to the poll option, and others who didn't. Those who would disagree with me are probably moralizers.

No. It's not due to peer pressure. If I was one to cave to peer pressure, I'd join everyone else in their fanciful nihilistic conjecture.

You guys really should read more about how Se types do not like conjecture for conjectures sake; it's distasteful, since it can't (or at least probably won't) be applied to real life. The description of Jung's Si says nothing about this...

To say that people lack imagination because they disagree with you on one very serious topic (but may have plenty of imagination for other ideas or subjects or activities) kind of makes the author of Gifts Differing weep.

Shame on you typologists. I at least agree with Kalach on that.



EDIT: And I know I criticized people for not sharing my moral framework, I'm not being hypocritical, I'm suggesting that other people here are hypocritical about their own valuing system and don't even realize it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You can't see past *your* own conceptual framework, that's the funny thing about Ni thinking its so open-minded that it too chooses one path and says this is best path...

The thing is, Ni can presume to think it sees ALL paths ...

 

[Stanton Moore]

The thing is, Ni can presume to think it sees ALL paths ...

This is colloquially known as a delusion of grandeur...

 

[Thalassa]

The thing is, Ni can presume to think it sees ALL paths ...

Which is exactly what my own less powerful Ni was doing, since it's not my preferred function, I was insisting things like "so what if you don't die, smart guy?" thinking I have it all scoped out, and none of this is good, not the dying, not the fall-out, not even it happening in more limited spaces because of the impact on the environment...I already thought of all those things, and any silliness about outer space or being happy about it happening in enemy countries didn't occur to me, because of my moral framework: I have Fi, and my Fi feels strongly about this. I don't even want it to happen in outer space or to mine enemies, because hey even if I would even theoretically hate those people, there are cats and cows and babies there.

It's funny how everyone (including me) presumes nobody else thought it through. People saying I lack imagination or that others are giving in to peer pressure, me saying people have no inherent moral compass or simply haven't considered the real-world impact.

Which is why our psychological lenses are so much more than Ni or Si, and sometimes I don't even know if Kalach is aware of how doggedly and persistently he harps on this concept he has, even in the face of clear examples to the contrary.

I harp on my ethics and how I see them applied to reality. They're harping about peer pressure and imagination.

It all amounts to the same thing: I don't understand your world view.

 

[Thalassa]

For once I'm totally following Kalach.

Edit: except these days I mostly tune out when people talk about se/si/ne/ni/fe/fi/fo/fum. Just don't care anymore. But in terms of the concepts in the thread divorced from the type slapfighting (and concepts can indeed be divorced from one another)... yeah. I don't know how to end this edit.

Here's the thing though: I usually follow Kalach. His posts are some of the most insightful and hilarious on the forum. Why would I be able to usually follow him better than you if I have Ne/Si and so do you?

He doesn't take into account that I pretty easily follow most Ni doms, it's just that I sometimes don't agree with what they're saying, and in his case, it's a real over-saturation with him abusing this pet concept of his, I was making snide remarks about his Ni/Si obsession easily two years ago.

This is totally off-topic, but then again so is most of this thread.

 

[Nicodemus]

And I know I criticized people for not sharing my moral framework, I'm not being hypocritical [...]

It all amounts to the same thing: I don't understand your world view.

The conclusion to be drawn from these two statements is all I would really ask for (although I know that saying this will make it all the harder for you to do it): Tolerance towards differing perspectives and moral feelings.

I think very few have ever tried to invalidate your feelings. It is only when you try to do it to others that the usual fights ensue.

Please, try to take this at face value. Think of it as coming from someone else if that makes difference.

 

[Thalassa]

I think blind tolerance is lazy morality. I don't tolerate something carte blanche if it's something I feel strongly about; IRL, this typically isn't much, IRL people tend to think of me as not especially imposing and frankly disinterested in what they are doing; as a teenager I gave into this kind of warped societal blind tolerance, because I wanted peace and love for all of mankind.

As I grew into an adult, I realized that peace and love for all mankind cannot be sustained by certain moral world views, that over-permissiveness is destructive, and that it's actually reached a point where people will tolerate just about anything, but then they often want to complain about the consequences of not having foresight.

Ni is foresight just as much as anything else; I developed it later in life, as a young pup I was much more of a easy target, gaining experience, tolerating the intolerable because I hated to judge people without first understanding them.

But then I learned that doing that is kind of stupid and can lead to horrible consequences; it's probably not a good idea to let heroin addicts ride in your car, and no that violently angry bf of yours is never going to change.

I used to always pity the hated.

The difference between then and now is adulthood, and a complete understanding of how morally wrong it is to allow all things, because it ironically impedes freedom, not gives it.

There has to be a balance.

Nico, you're a nihilist. We're never going to agree. You philosophically represent everything I eschew, and vice versa, and because we're both Fi types, we're never going to smile and wave at each other and pretend it's okay.

 

[Thalassa]

The conclusion to be drawn from these two statements is all I would really ask for (although I know that saying this will make it all the harder for you to do it): Tolerance towards differing perspectives and moral feelings.

I think very few have ever tried to invalidate your feelings. It is only when you try to do it to others that the usual fights ensue.

Please, try to take this at face value. Think of it as coming from someone else if that makes difference.

Oh and by the way, I asked you to no longer quote me, and you just blatantly disregarded my request. You completely disrespect me constantly, bringing me up or following me around on the forum when I'm not even talking to you, and now quoting me after I asked you not to.

So you're a fine one to preach about tolerance, or to insist no one invalidates my feelings; you do it constantly, and when I got banned, it was partly because people thought it was hilarious to talk about killing and/or abandoning me.

Oh no, that's not invalidating my feelings at all, but you're still doing it NOW.

You have an authoritarian attitude toward me, because you can't stand what I represent. Even when I "live and let live" and leave [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] alone, you can't wait to invade MY space.

It's kind of repulsive, your hypocrisy.

 

[Kalach]

I can align with that. Yet is it not appropriate to have some parameters we agree on? It's not like a nuclear detonation is going to contain skittles or something. We can agree that devastation is the most probable outcome, no? And base our opinion of that which we see as the most probable? So, why is someone who comes in and says, "I can't see past the horror of this to even contemplate alternate outcomes" so stifling?

because no, agreeing that devastation is the most probable outcome is not the way forward. Some such agreement is the assertion of what image is most fundamentally relevant to the discussion. Yet that image is concrete, factual, and irrelevant, except to those who wish to work the discussion that way.

Basically you're saying our own personal wiring and context changes how we view the world, even down to the interpretation of any given question. But you're talking to the most subjective of the subjective types here; to me (Fi dom) such a thing is a given. Do you think that point is not obvious to all?

No, I don't think it's obvious. If it were, you'd know to say more than we're all subjective. The nature of the subjectivity differs from type to type, and its prominence in conscious priorities differs too. Which is to say, in the sense you appear to mean it, we are NOT all subjective. And in fact, there is no most subjective of all types.

 

[Thalassa]

Um Fi is subjective subjectivity.

You've just made up your own theory and are pushing it on people Kalach.

At least that's what it's starting to look like.

 

[Kalach]

Except you're missing the point that Fi comes into play just as much as Si or Ni.

You remember the part where I asked what Fi works with? Fi doesn't come into play "just as much" as perception. It's not some independent entity working alongside some disliked process. The perceptions you allow yourself dictate what you have available to judge. If concrete imagery is where Fi works in one type, then concrete imagery is king. If some Ni person comes along saying concrete imagery is the smaller part of what's interesting here, they're not somehow failing to be human and have values. They're just looking at a part of the story that you're not.

 

[Nicodemus]

A minute ago, I was about to post something nice, share with you a story about my sister to show you where I am coming from, but you just cannot help it... So, instead of establishing understanding, I am back to defending myself against your bullshit claims. I even thanked you for your non-toxic post!

Oh and by the way, I asked you to no longer quote me, and you just blatantly disregarded my request. You completely disrespect me constantly, bringing me up or following me around on the forum when I'm not even talking to you, and now quoting me after I asked you not to.

I am not following you around. You are everywhere. When you say something objectionable, I react. I would refrain from that (thereby honoring your request) if you refrained from saying outrageous things. I bring you up in other contexts sometimes to draw attention to the contradictions in your line of reasoning, if we want to call it that, because I think people should know when there is a poisonous well in the garden.

So you're a fine one to preach about tolerance, or to insist no one invalidates my feelings; you do it constantly, and when I got banned, it was partly because people thought it was hilarious to talk about killing and/or abandoning me.

That is not what I mean by invalidating feelings. What I mean is that no one says that you are wrong to feel as you feel. But sometimes it needs to be pointed out that your reaction is unproportional to its cause, usually because you take it much more personal than it was intended or simply completely the wrong way. Such was the case with the car race and your abandonment in the woods.

Oh no, that's not invalidating my feelings at all, but you're still doing it NOW.

No.

You have an authoritarian attitude toward me, because you can't stand what I represent. Even when I "live and let live" and leave @Nicodemus alone, you can't wait to invade MY space.

Perhaps it is because my sister is just like you, only with open ears. You have no space here (except your blog, which I have not posted in since you attacked Moniker).

It's kind of repulsive, your hypocrisy.

See, this is the kind of thing I object to. First, there is no hypocrisy. Second, what is this supposed to mean? "You disgust me", probably. But what should I do about it? Jump off a cliff? Have brain surgery? Pretend you are right when I know you are wrong?

 

[Thalassa]

You remember the part where I asked what Fi works with? Fi doesn't come into play "just as much" as perception. It's not some independent entity working alongside some disliked process. The perceptions you allow yourself dictate what you have available to judge. If concrete imagery is where Fi works in one type, then concrete imagery is king. If some Ni person comes along saying concrete imagery is the smaller part of what's interesting here, they're not somehow failing to be human and have values. They're just looking at a part of the story that you're not.

I already acknowledged that Se rejects conjecture for conjecture's sake. I think I've attempted as much as I can, without compromising my actual vales, to admit why I see things as I do; I was trying to be fair and good-humored about the whole thing.

But that's not enough for you people is it? Unless I sacrifice my values, you'll never be content.

And guess what? Without sufficient evidence that I am wrong (which I am not, the only thing that even sounded remotely plausible to me was [MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION]'s suggestion about Ann Frank, and I thought no, even still, we've already had Japanese survivors of nuclear bombs to teach us lessons, and the Chernobyl victims, it's not like it needs to keep happening to prove us wrong, unless we're like savages, stuck in perpetual infancy because of being unable to remember the past), ain't gonna happen.

My values have shifted over the course of my lifetime. But there must be sufficient evidence for this to happen, and I've already explained, I just don't see the justification for any of this except conjecture for conjecture's sake.

And I'm relieved that's all that's going on, which is why I'm able to be less emotional about it now than a couple of days ago, but I still am not gonna like it.

You can't make me.

 

[Kalach]

Um Fi is subjective subjectivity.

Is blue blue bluer than another blue or is it still just blue? "Subjective subjectivity" is a nifty phrase to refer to cognition that discards environmental influence (subjectivity in the Jungian technical sense) and focuses on the personal (subjectivity in the conventional sense). It is as such no more or less removed form the environment than any other introverted concern, and it's no more removed from the impersonal than any other personal concern.

You've just made up your own theory and are pushing it on people Kalach.

Well spotted. Did I give it away when I said it was a theory I made up and wished people would get congruent with?

Are you under the impression that made up theories have less substance than--well, less substance than what? Should I learn from your approach here that you think theories are not substantial? So I should know now what level of respect you intend your own theories should have?

Gifts don't differ any more, do they.

 

[Thalassa]

A minute ago, I was about to post something nice, share with you a story about my sister to show you where I am coming from, but you just cannot help it... So, instead of establishing understanding, I am back to defending myself against your bullshit claims. I even thanked you for your non-toxic post!


I am not following you around. You are everywhere. When you say something objectionable, I react. I would refrain from that (thereby honoring your request) if you refrained from saying outrageous things. I bring you up in other contexts sometimes to draw attention to the contradictions in your line of reasoning, if we want to call it that, because I think people should know when there is a poisonous well in the garden.


That is not what I mean by invalidating feelings. What I mean is that no one says that you are wrong to feel as you feel. But sometimes it needs to be pointed out that your reaction is unproportional to its cause, usually because you take it much more personal than it was intended or simply completely the wrong way. Such was the case with the car race and your abandonment in the woods.


No.


Perhaps it is because my sister is just like you, only with open ears. You have no space here (except your blog, which I have not posted in since you attacked Moniker).


See, this is the kind of thing I object to. First, there is no hypocrisy. Second, what is this supposed to mean? "You disgust me", probably. But what should I do about it? Jump off a cliff? Have brain surgery? Pretend you are right when I know you are wrong?

Nico I never pursue you personally. I have you on ignore. You can't seem to ignore me, that's not my problem, it's yours, and I don't care how much you project your own issues, the sad truth is that you won't leave me the fuck alone.

I only react to you when you talk directly to me. You're even trying to blame me for you choosing to not say something nice. You take no moral responsibility. You don't see yourself clearly, but maybe that's due to only having tertiary Fi and insisting so much on living in your Ni.

No, you don't need to point out things to me, unless I don't need to point out things to other people.

That's why I say your hypocrisy is repulsive.

I just point out things collectively. I don't follow individuals around like you, per their request to leave them alone, unless it's a boy I was involved with in some way, and since you're gay, I know you're not in unrequited love with me, so this following around thing you do to me is moral.

You feel a duty to morally correct me, specifically, which is weird, because I have absolved all moral responsibility to you, because I see you effectively as a "lost cause," a nihilist, so by respecting your nihilism, I don't go around correcting you.

But you can't seem to stay away from me. And I do have open ears...for people who respect me or say something convincing.

Your sister has more open ears TO YOU, because she's your sister, probably.

I listen to my sisters too.

Now go away. You keep following me around and quoting me, I'll report you. Period.

 

[Kalach]

I already acknowledged that Se rejects conjecture for conjecture's sake. I think I've attempted as much as I can, without compromising my actual vales, to admit why I see things as I do; I was trying to be fair and good-humored about the whole thing.

But that's not enough for you people is it? Unless I sacrifice my values, you'll never be content.

Marm, that's funny. You sound like me. All up in the internet requiring that other people accept you believe something of substance. They're supposed to take action aren't they. They're supposed to know that since you believe it, it's amounts to a discovery of truths independent of you that can be shared.

This is (part of) why I tend to focus on differences of perception and judgment. Those preferences for other ways of thinking, doing and seeing not infrequently put a stop to the sharing of these discovered truths that were independent of you. This question of how to make your own subjectively subjective subjectivities into real purpose and plan, and how it gets thwarted by other people so lets shout some more and make it louder....

Welcome to the club.