I quite enjoy a good argument about anything I know something about, mostly because I like playing devil's advocate and promoting interesting, unconsidered possibilities. I think that's an NP thing. Like you, I don't like arguing with people who make it personal. I won't try to placate them (unless I like them a lot and think they've just misunderstood me), but I will disengage unless it's something I don't feel I can disengage from. In which case I'll generally call them on it in as calm, reasonable and rational a way as possible. Well...ideally I will. Usually I will. Sometimes I'll just inquire as to what their fucking problem could be. Occasionally I'll goad them into greater and greater displays of rage. Coz, y'know, it's a fallen world and I'm a fallen man with a fallen sense of what is fun.
If that is what INFP's can be like- I'll have no problem typing myself as one.
I would genuinely like to know what the difference between INFP and INTP judgment would look like in a situation where the decision to be made has to do with an inherently impersonal issue. Say, for instance, a political issue. I have seen plenty of examples where the T-types are shown to stick to their principles of "objective logic" even in situations involving people or personal issues, but there are precious few that show the F-types using their more "personal/people based" value system in situations that did not directly involve people.
Here's a hypothetical issue (well, not really, this was real a while back):
In Michigan there is a proposal to remove the ban on the hunting of the Mourning Dove for sport. The ban has been in place since 1905 because of the state's categorization of this particular species as a "songbird". In 39 other states, it is legal to hunt this exact same species for sport. These birds are not known to be overpopulated, and they do not inflict damage on farmer's crops or cause any other kind of special destruction. Should the ban on hunting these birds be removed?
Given these basic facts of the issue, how would a typical INFP and INTP decide how to vote on this issue? And I do not mean that I simply want to know what they decide, since both types may very well arrive at the same decision. I want to know specifically how they would each come to this decision, as the processes for each should (in theory, at least) be very different from one another.
How would the INFP use their values in this situation instead of "just" logic?
I would need more information about why mouring doves need to be hunted. Does anyone actually eat them? Someone making Dove pot pies like other people eat possum pie?
If they aren't eaten (shuders on that one in any case) and they don't do damage and not overpopulated, I would vote not to lift the ban for softhearted reasons. It isn't hurting anyone to let the dearies live, is it?
Nope, the birds are neither harmful (to people or to the environment) nor are they intended to be hunted for food. The small size of their bodies, even if they were shot with precision (preserving what little meat they have), is not sufficient for eating. The reasons for removing the ban and allowing them to be hunted are thus:
-Under their current classification, these birds are not managed by wildlife experts. They are not tracked or provided for by a competent state agency, and removing the ban would place them under the "care" of the state game agency, which employs wildlife experts.
-The main purpose for hunting them would be for sport (and this is admitted by those advocating lifting the ban).
So do you think that your decision process on this issue would be different from the one theoretically ascribed to INTP's? Would you say that you used your personal values first, even if you would consider other factors beyond this afterwards?
Sorry to pry, but I just want to know what you think about your own process. Thanks!
I thought it was pretty obvious that I used personal values, mostly sympathy as the basis of my decision. If I found out that people actually eat these birds, then I would change my decision, but since they don't, why hunt them?
Well to be perfectly honest you did say that only after you had considered whether or not the birds were harmful, or whether people ate them, that you took into account your own sympathy towards them. From how you answered I gathered that this was not the *first* thing you thought of, but I seem to have been mistaken.
I suppose, though, that even if you were not considering how you personally felt about killing the birds, all of you other considerations were about how the people would be affected by the decision one way or the other. This is where I have a problem though, because I am not sure that there are any other criteria by which this issue could have been judged, even by an INTP. I probably should have posed a better issue. Ah well...
First I thought of why they might NEED to be hunted, like over population pest issues, or that they are pressuring another type of rare bird or other animal out of those areas or that people eat them, etc. If I could see a compelling reason in this first section, I would vote to lift the ban. Might not like voting, would feel twinge of sympathy for the birds, just as I do each time I cook a chicken! but I would still vote to lift the ban.
But then I thought, well they aren't harming anything and people just want to shoot them for sport, their carcasses rotting like waste, my heart goes out more to the bird than the person who wants to shoot them. So decision made in that order, on that basis.