"Fyodor Pavlovich learned of his wife's death when he was drunk; it was said that he ran out into the street with his hands raised to heaven in joy, shouting : 'Lord, now lettest thou thy servant..' :* others say he wept convulsively like a child, so much so that, despite all the revulsion he aroused, he was pitiful to behold. Very probably, both accounts are true--that is, he rejoiced in his liberation and shed tears for his liberator at one and the same time. In most cases, people, even evil-doers, are much simpler and more naive than we generally suppose. And the same is true for you and me." Fyodor Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov.
Human behavior used to befuddle me, and I did overthink it.
I thought human behavior was very complex!
But recently I realized that people with complex motivations tend to be logical, as one needs to be logical to devise anything complex. Those were not the people who confused me the most as their behavior was very consistent with their ostensible principles as well as easy to understand to an outsider observer. When it was not easy, they were willing and able to explain their behavior.
The illogical people, mostly NFs who confused me the most. Recently I realized there is nothing complex to it, just vulgar people acting out on their ephemeral impulses and passions, and the thoughts behind them are crude and simplistic. Their behavior is exactly what it appears to be, no need to devote much thought to it.
I'm usually aware of when this happens and I keep those thoughts to myself.How many times have you been told this?
How many times was it true?
Differentiate circumstanses please.
He has a vendetta against NFs. Isn't that obvious? He spews that junk all over the forum.Your excerpt made me want to read more. Nice post.
NFs apply logic it is just not easilly understood by you. There is in fact is a reason to all that anyone does.
Your use of the word vulgar causes me to need a defiinition for its context. Repulsion as the word vulgar suggests is subjective not objective.
He has a vendetta against NFs. Isn't that obvious? He spews that junk all over the forum.
Your excerpt made me want to read more. Nice post.
NFs apply logic it is just not easilly understood by you. There is in fact is a reason to all that anyone does.
Your use of the word vulgar causes me to need a defiinition for its context. Repulsion as the word vulgar suggests is subjective not objective.
Regarding the word vulgar, it is indeed the case that in the most conventional sense of the term it is a value judgment, as it means 'of lower, or inappropriate taste'. However, I use it as synonymous with the word simple or crude. I call what is crude vulgar or of 'lower taste' because in order to be in tune with the finer aspects of our nature (such as those represented by the sciences, philosophy and the fine arts) one needs to be a complex thinker. Quite simply because one cannot attain a vision of such complex things without first having thought them through. Yet if one is not competent at logical reasoning, one cannot do this, therefore one must rely on his feelings or instincts. Inevitably, things that this person would favor, (or have a taste for) would be simple, or crude, which I use as synonymous with vulgar.
How many times have you been told this?
How many times was it true?
Differentiate circumstanses please.
I tried to understand the aversion evoked by some of BW's posts by following several of the threads all the way to the beginning.
The outcome of the exercise made me believe the following (which, if this runs true to the previous pattern will either be ignored with implied disdain, or arrogantly dismissed with a few (or many) carefully chosen barbed words that will include self-quotes of some technical terminology).
1) He has "dated an NF for almost a year".
2) It obviously was not the kind of experience that brought him unbridled joy and satisfaction.
2) Words have incredible power to evoke thoughts and emotions. BW seems to have an extraordinary facility to use vocabulary to satisfy some deep-seated (perhaps unconscious) need to make himself believe that a certain group of people is unworthy of his regard.
3) This group seems to include only 'F' individuals
4) He chooses his vocabulary with the precision of a surgeon to evoke negative emotions in the group that seems to be his target. Hell, even before any NFs offer rebuttals to his 'logic', they are defeated because they were made to appear a lesser person by his labels - labels that put them on defensive before they even offer their views.
"Vulgar", "crude", "abusing" logic", "illegitimate" arguments. Those words, in my opinion, are used deliberately to debase and hurt, while allowing the user to hide behind their less common meanings that can be run up a flagpole for anyone reacting negatively to them....to once again score a point for 'logic vs gut reaction'
I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent. I believe that BW, as much as he'd love to be one of those lofty INTP's he so greatly admires, is actually a member of one of us, the 'vulgar, crude' groups he tries so desperately disassociate himself from. I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words
Ah, yeah, just my opinion...after all, look at the topic of this thread
He may not be an INTP, but he's a T. He's a T with a vendetta, and he's not thinking clearly. What's amusing is that he tries so hard to appear objective, but he can't pull it off. He can't help but take shots are NFs, there's so much animosity there.I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent. I believe that BW, as much as he'd love to be one of those lofty INTP's he so greatly admires, is actually a member of one of us, the 'vulgar, crude' groups he tries so desperately disassociate himself from. I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words.
He may not be an INTP, but he's a T. He's a T with a vendetta, and he's not thinking clearly. What's amusing is that he tries so hard to appear objective, but he can't pull it off. He can't help but take shots are NFs, there's so much animosity there.
He dismissed the argument as worthless because it was posted by an NF, same 'type' as his ex GF or BF (though he no doubt makes himself believe that he only dismissed it because it was worthless)
BW's response was exactly as I thought it would be.
I've known F's who are incredible linguists with vast lexicons used with clinical precision.
Being able to do so is not limited to non-F's.
I'm fairly new here but last night I was reading through some old posts and found one from you saying that if you were not an intp then the type you would prefer to be would be infp
At the time I misunderstood what Fi was. I thought it was a lot like Ti or that it had a very clear, systematic account of the personal values it endorses.
Yet, I was unaware that Feeling alone cannot give a systematic account of anything, as only Thinking can see structure in things. This was just one aspect of typology I overlooked.