To some extent, especially when idealists' deepest values are the exact opposite of those of other idealists. Take the issue of abortion for example. A pro-life idealist claims that they can't possibly claim why anyone would ever want to take the life of an innocent, helpless baby, and that anyone who disagrees or doesn't care must be heartless and evil. A pro-choice idealist claims that they can't understand why anyone would ever want to put an underage girl, rape victim, or any woman at all through the extreme discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the lifelong responsibility of caring for an unplanned child, and that anyone who disagrees or doesn't care must be heartless and evil. The two idealists argue forever, each of them seeing the other as a cold-hearted monster when, in reality, they both believe that they are doing the right thing.
However, if we didn't have idealists, life would kinda suck. Realists tend to accept things the way they are, so a world full of realists is a world without change. Then again, I'm extremely biased and I would love for all the idealists I don't agree with to be silenced. At least I can admit it.
Alternative answer: We get it; you don't like NFs.
Well, if there are too many, then presumably the answer is yes.
Now, how many idealists are too many?
Evidently, human biology says yes. I read somewhere that (among Americans, at least) the percentage of extraverts vs. introverts is something like 48% to 52%. The percentages are roughly equal on the F/T axis and the J/P axis as well. The N/S axis is quite different. Only about 26% of us are Ns. The other 74% are Ss. Something in our genetic makeup says we need more Ss than Ns, and the Ns tend to be head-in-the-clouds idealists, whereas Ss tend to be practical, down-to-earth, and much more concerned with making the world we have work (as opposed to dreaming of a better world). So, I'd say yes. Too many idealists would probably prove toxic to our society if not also to the human race as a whole. Somebody needs to do the world's work. Ns (for the most part) find that work mundane and a waste of our mental energy, but it still needs to be done. We'd all starve to death if the world were full of Ns.Are too many idealists instead of realists toxic to society?
I assume we're talking about idealism in the general sense and not specifically in regards to typology. Realistic idealism can be a powerful force for progress. I use that term in the literal sense, as well, and not in reference to the political movement which labels all of its ideas as "progressive."
What is toxic to society is unrealistic idealism, like passifism for example; it's just not congruent with reality. Neither is opening a country's borders to anyone who wants to walk in without detrimental consequences to that nation's security and economy. Expecting gun-free zones to keep people safe from armed criminals who disregard the law is also an unrealistic ideal.
Idealists are useless though, in what ways does it benifit to be an idealist if you are going to sit back and do nothing about it?
- - - Updated - - -
1 too many.
INTP are we?
Idealists are useless though, in what ways does it benifit to be an idealist if you are going to sit back and do nothing about it?
We form high principles and visions , we pursue them, people believe in us, the society changes
That is very useless alright!!
Your type - INTP. Ruthless.
To some extent, especially when idealists' deepest values are the exact opposite of those of other idealists. Take the issue of abortion for example. A pro-life idealist claims that they can't possibly claim why anyone would ever want to take the life of an innocent, helpless baby, and that anyone who disagrees or doesn't care must be heartless and evil. A pro-choice idealist claims that they can't understand why anyone would ever want to put an underage girl, rape victim, or any woman at all through the extreme discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the lifelong responsibility of caring for an unplanned child, and that anyone who disagrees or doesn't care must be heartless and evil. The two idealists argue forever, each of them seeing the other as a cold-hearted monster when, in reality, they both believe that they are doing the right thing.
However, if we didn't have idealists, life would kinda suck. Realists tend to accept things the way they are, so a world full of realists is a world without change. Then again, I'm extremely biased and I would love for all the idealists I don't agree with to be silenced. At least I can admit it.
Alternative answer: We get it; you don't like NFs.
making the world we have work is a better world. If you look at all the damage idealism has done in this world.Evidently, human biology says yes. I read somewhere that (among Americans, at least) the percentage of extraverts vs. introverts is something like 48% to 52%. The percentages are roughly equal on the F/T axis and the J/P axis as well. The N/S axis is quite different. Only about 26% of us are Ns. The other 74% are Ss. Something in our genetic makeup says we need more Ss than Ns, and the Ns tend to be head-in-the-clouds idealists, whereas Ss tend to be practical, down-to-earth, and much more concerned with making the world we have work (as opposed to dreaming of a better world). So, I'd say yes. Too many idealists would probably prove toxic to our society if not also to the human race as a whole. Somebody needs to do the world's work. Ns (for the most part) find that work mundane and a waste of our mental energy, but it still needs to be done. We'd all starve to death if the world were full of Ns.
NFs are OK that's not really what I meant anyway. More along the lines of noticing the amount of people who are very ideologically driven instead of viewing reality for what it is.