• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NF] Do you care how others feel?

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
I'm not sure I understand what a "bad man who does good things is" (or the opposite) if one is judged by one's actions morally.

-Geoff
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
But you certainly would not want to make friends with the bad man who just did a one good thing because then you'd know that in the future he would end up doing more bad than good.
Uh huh. So judging a man overall by his actions and not his intent still works. You know, like I was originally saying. Jeez.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Uh huh. So judging a man overall by his actions and not his intent still works. You know, like I was originally saying. Jeez.

Yes, but in order to make sure that you have an accurate assessment you'd need to see him act a lot as you could get fooled by initial appearances. Yet if you figure out his intentions that shed light onto his inner character, you'd have a lot less work to do.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm not sure I understand what a "bad man who does good things is" (or the opposite) if one is judged by one's actions morally.
Yes, but in order to make sure that you have an accurate assessment you'd need to see him act a lot as you could get fooled by initial appearances. Yet if you figure out his intentions that shed light onto his inner character, you'd have a lot less work to do.
Some examples for analysis...

Charles Manson manipulated his followers into believing that killing someone was freeing their soul. They were manipulated into thinking it was an act of compassion. How does their 'intent' compare with the intent of other acts of compassion that produce constructive results? Why did they not arrive at those intentions independently of mind control tactics? Is it possible to arrive at an altruistic intent that causes harm? Or is the sense of 'good' intent for harmful actions actually a process of self deception?

Ted Bundy worked for a suicide hotline for a period of time and was one of the most effective volunteers at talking people out of committing suicide. Based on the totality of his life, we could make a reasonable guess that he didn't care about the people, but enjoyed the process of manipulating and controlling their responses. Were his actions equal to an individual who was also effective at this task whose motivation was one of concern?

Compare the inconsistency between his intent and actions with the inconsistency of his actions over the course of a lifetime. Perhaps internal inconsistencies by nature eventually produce external inconsistencies.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Some examples for analysis...

Charles Manson manipulated his followers into believing that killing someone was freeing their soul. They were manipulated into thinking it was an act of compassion. How does their 'intent' compare with the intent of other acts of compassion that produce constructive results? Why did they not arrive at those intentions independently of mind control tactics? Is it possible to arrive at an altruistic intent that causes harm? Or is the sense of 'good' intent for harmful actions actually a process of self deception?

Ted Bundy worked for a suicide hotline for a period of time and was one of the most effective volunteers at talking people out of committing suicide. Based on the totality of his life, we could make a reasonable guess that he didn't care about the people, but enjoyed the process of manipulating and controlling their responses. Were his actions equal to an individual who was also effective at this task whose motivation was one of concern?

Compare the inconsistency between his intent and actions with the inconsistency of his actions over the course of a lifetime. Perhaps internal inconsistencies by nature eventually produce external inconsistencies.

I guess I am not sure what your point is. Are you insinuating that it is more practical to judge people by their actions because it is too difficult to see their intentions?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Whoops..

My national character typology went in the wrong thread... sorry about the fax paus.. it should be in the Curren Events/Politics sector by now..
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I guess I am not sure what your point is. Are you insinuating that it is more practical to judge people by their actions because it is too difficult to see their intentions?

The last sentence is my hypothesis. It is too simplistic to judge people based either on intention or action alone. Perhaps even too simplistic to judge people in the first place. There is a relationship between intent and action. To deny that is to reject seeing the entire picture. Intent and action are part of the same system and the relationship is complex. Over the longer duration they will tend to unify. People are quite effective at deceiving themselves, so our personal estimates of 'good' intentions are not always accurate. On some level we are required to interact with reality, so eventually the truth of our intentions make their way into reality. The individual who has been taught/coerced into believing harmful actions are good, will eventually perceive the reality of it, given enough time, and will alter their actions to better fit their intentions. Likewise, the individual whose intentions are destructive, but works under the guise of helpful actions, will eventually produce harmful actions.

I agree with your statement that to understand the relationship between intent and action, we must observe the individual over the longest duration available.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The last sentence is my hypothesis. It is too simplistic to judge people based either on intention or action alone. Perhaps even too simplistic to judge people in the first place. There is a relationship between intent and action. To deny that is to reject seeing the entire picture. Intent and action are part of the same system and the relationship is complex. Over the longer duration they will tend to unify. People are quite effective at deceiving themselves, so our personal estimates of 'good' intentions are not always accurate. On some level we are required to interact with reality, so eventually the truth of our intentions make their way into reality. The individual who has been taught/coerced into believing harmful actions are good, will eventually perceive the reality of it, given enough time, and will alter their actions to better fit their intentions. Likewise, the individual whose intentions are destructive, but works under the guise of helpful actions, will eventually produce harmful actions.

I agree with your statement that to understand the relationship between intent and action, we must observe the individual over the longest duration available.

It is true that observing him for the longest amount of time possible, observing just his behavior will give us the most reliable results. Yet again, if we learn to read people well, we can find a lot of shortcuts by seeing through to their intentions without observing many of their actions.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It is true that observing him for the longest amount of time possible, observing just his behavior will give us the most reliable results. Yet again, if we learn to read people well, we can find a lot of shortcuts by seeing through to their intentions without observing many of their actions.
That is true, but evaluating our own ability to perceive intent is subjective. I would suggest a public vs. private distinction here. For evaluating an individual for public reasons, it is best to focus on actions alone. For example, when hiring an individual, or voting for public office, or sitting on a jury, etc. it makes sense to looks at verifiable facts alone i.e. actions committed.

For building relationships and entering into personal interactions with others, a view of their intent becomes more important. When we trust others with our subjective, internal world, we need to have some view of theirs as well. I see some grey area when entering into business arrangements with individuals. I have been thinking of starting my own business and have individuals in mind to work with. A large portion of my internal analysis of them involves determining their motives for the venture as a way of predicting future behavior.

I suspect that is also a key point. To evaluate an individual based on their past is to evaluate their actions. To evaluate an individual based on future projections is to evaluate their intent? That also suggests an S vs. N perspective to some extent.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
That is true, but evaluating our own ability to perceive intent is subjective. I would suggest a public vs. private distinction here. For evaluating an individual for public reasons, it is best to focus on actions alone. For example, when hiring an individual, or voting for public office, or sitting on a jury, etc. it makes sense to looks at verifiable facts alone i.e. actions committed.

For building relationships and entering into personal interactions with others, a view of their intent becomes more important. When we trust others with our subjective, internal world, we need to have some view of theirs as well. I see some grey area when entering into business arrangements with individuals. I have been thinking of starting my own business and have individuals in mind to work with. A large portion of my internal analysis of them involves determining their motives for the venture as a way of predicting future behavior.

I suspect that is also a key point. To evaluate an individual based on their past is to evaluate their actions. To evaluate an individual based on future projections is to evaluate their intent? That also suggests an S vs. N perspective to some extent.


Clearly Sensors tend to come to their opinions of people based on observations of their behavior and iNtuitors based on their perceptions of their intentions.

We should note that the most ground-breaking insights come from the latter category, yet the former is far from without merit. As it is clear that scientific route usually gives us the most reliable information and it demands a vere high emphasis on empirical evidence which by its nature is aligned with the Sensor-perspective, or knowledge from experience--observations of the concrete data.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
I just find it hilarious when NTs profess to have no feelings or emotions, or that they don't use them at all in their lives. It's ridiculous.

IMHO.

agreed.

minus the IMHO.

[those that do profess such lack of emotions] think they're so much better .
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Clearly Sensors tend to come to their opinions of people based on observations of their behavior and iNtuitors based on their perceptions of their intentions.

Heh, you have described some of the fights Cherie and I have had in a nutshell. So many times she is evaluating me based on what I actually do / have done / not done (i.e., my observable/observed behavior), while I am getting much more bent out of shape because I am weighing her motivations/intentions... even if she "looks like" she is doing the right thing.

As you say, I see value in both. I am looking for authenticity and heart condition, the stuff that prevents cancer from eating people from the inside-out (no white-walled tombs for me); she is looking at outward behavior and preventing people from living just on good intentions while not changing what they actually act upon.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Clearly Sensors tend to come to their opinions of people based on observations of their behavior and iNtuitors based on their perceptions of their intentions.
Bullshit. A utilitarian philosophy, arrived at through experience, does not make you a sensor. I'm an extremely strong intuitor, to the point of having difficulty talking about particulars over abstracts in everyday language, and yet this is what I've chosen.

It is the result of many many many years of abuse from someone with a good faculty with words and a wide range of expression-- and with words, really, you can argue and apologize for absolutely anything, and you can look very very sorry without intending it. Being forced to live with that tends to breed codependant tendancies. I nip those in the bud.

XSFJs have a great deal of trouble leaving terrible relationships, often because of their focus on intent over action. "Sure John beats me, but he doesn't mean it, and he NEEDS me!"
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Bullshit. A utilitarian philosophy, arrived at through experience, does not make you a sensor. I'm an extremely strong intuitor, to the point of having difficulty talking about particulars over abstracts in everyday language, and yet this is what I've chosen.

XSFJs have a great deal of trouble leaving terrible relationships, often because of their focus on intent over action. "Sure John beats me, but he doesn't mean it, and he NEEDS me!"
That can certainly be true. Interestingly, my sister has a friend (ISFJ probably) who has stayed in a bad relationship. One way she rationalizes it is to blow way out of proportion those actions that aren't unkind. He is a complete jerk to her, but she recounted how at a funeral he saw a rose start to fall off the coffin and immediately leaned over to balance it back in the center. She considered that proof of his enormous sensitivity and wonderfulness.

Someone who beats their loved one does not have strong enough intentions towards their loved one's well-being or they would find a way to stop. Their good intentions are only towards their own being. I guess I don't see the schism between intention and action that others do. It can happen, but is more of a temporary inconsistency. Eventually the truth of the thing will bear itself out in reality. I'm of the position that reality is in the end stronger than anyone's make-believe.

You are right to caution against valuing inaccurate perceptions of intention over actions. It's easier to be wrong about evaluating intentions than actions. I would suggest, however, that it is not enough reason to dismiss them entirely.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
Because if you were a hit kid, you tend to draw people who want to hit you but say they don't want to like flies to honey. Probably because you almost reflexively believe them. The change to "don't look at what they say or feel, look at what they do." vastly improved the quality of my relationships.

I might eventually care a little more about intent, but caring what they do as a predictor for future behavior is a fine intermediate recovery stage, I think.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Because if you were a hit kid, you tend to draw people who want to hit you but say they don't want to like flies to honey. Probably because you almost reflexively believe them. The change to "don't look at what they say or feel, look at what they do." vastly improved the quality of my relationships.

I might eventually care a little more about intent, but caring what they do as a predictor for future behavior is a fine intermediate recovery stage, I think.
I'm not familiar with the term hit kid.

I agree that actions are a more direct way to determine intent than words. If there is a significant schism between an individual's action and words, it is better to determine intent based on the actions. Talk is cheap and requires less personal investment.

Interestingly enough I have had some opposite experiences. In my profession there are many silver-tongued devils. Flattery is typically a precursor to exploitation. I wish I could determine intent more quickly than I do. It would save me some trouble.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Bullshit. A utilitarian philosophy, arrived at through experience, does not make you a sensor. I'm an extremely strong intuitor, to the point of having difficulty talking about particulars over abstracts in everyday language, and yet this is what I've chosen.

It is the result of many many many years of abuse from someone with a good faculty with words and a wide range of expression-- and with words, really, you can argue and apologize for absolutely anything, and you can look very very sorry without intending it. Being forced to live with that tends to breed codependant tendancies. I nip those in the bud.

XSFJs have a great deal of trouble leaving terrible relationships, often because of their focus on intent over action. "Sure John beats me, but he doesn't mean it, and he NEEDS me!"


I didnt say judging by the ends makes you a sensor. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory where the moral worth of the act is assessed in terms of ends it produces. So behavioral psychology is not a specie of Utilitarianism in that sense.
 
Top