• 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.

[MBTI General] Succumbing to Irrationality or, How to Become More Compassionate

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

What are you actually afraid of here?

What perception are you trying to foster in the eyes of others about yourself that you are trying to publicly preserve?

And what things about yourself that you don't want to accept are you running from?
 

Colors

The Destroyer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,276
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Erza said:
They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

Well, I think that you don't have to sacrifice your rationality to be more compassionate. It's not so much that these people are irrational- they're just using a slightly different set of base assumptions, or have slightly different order of priorities that fuel their rationality. People do this all the time. And just because they don't always have the "Point A to Point B" formal-logic way of diagramming their thought process on the matter, doesn't make their conclusion, you know, less logical.

When you say, "I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently," it might not be a bad time to evaluate why you decided on neutrality on the first place and whether you've been introduced to new information (or new reasonings) that would lead to a different conclusion. You don't have to reject your reasoning to change your mind, just see it in new context.
 

blanclait

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
305
MBTI Type
ENTP
your not going to become any less logical or lose part of your intellect b/c you can associate with people's feelings.

rather you become more intelligent as you develop your interpersonal skills.


if its hard, just pretend you care.
 

Grungemouse

Widdles in your cream.
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
577
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
This is probably an overly idealistic and simplified solution, but how about keeping quiet when it next pops up in conversation? That way you don't have to appear compassionate. Just smile and nod in feigned agreement. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. But not everyone appreciates cold practicalities and logic. Sometimes people take comfort in acts of compassion. Yes, it's irrational, I agree, but it's probably their way of coping; they feel like they're doing something about it, which puts their heart at ease.
 

mtaclof

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
59
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
My approach to these situations is to simply avoid these topics around people that can't stomach a rational argument about an inherently emotional situation. I can't really compromise my rationality at will, I have a hard time being disingenuous about my feelings. Because of that, I have to trust that the person is interested in a rational argument, irrationality in argument really gets my goat.
This kind of compromise wont sacrifice your objectivity at all.
 

groovejet02

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
199
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.


Bah! This is a silly assumption based on the simplistic dichotomy of the head vs. the heart.

See it this way: if you fail to be compassionate, you will always view the world in a one-dimensional manner. Intellect tempered with wisdom and compassion is what everyone should aspire to.

But as an INTP, I'm still figuring this out, so my advice is: ask a healthy INFP ;)
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Being scared of irrationality is irrational.

Sothere.

The fear will make you do irrational things. Realize that being irrational is not something to be afraid of, and suddenly you'll actually become more rational, yet simultaneously be able to connect more with your emotions.

imo
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Being rational is also about knowing that other people are justified about being emotional, sometimes. In the end both viewpoints are clueless as to what constitutes "the perfect approach".
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?

Wtf?! How is being compassionate = to being irrational? I dunno, but when I first joined this place it used to annoy me that so many used to assume that NT types were cold somehow, but posts like this one seem to be a hint as to why they do. Seriously, spell this out for me, how is feeling compassion for the suffering of others somehow a *compromise* of intellectuality?

Gah. GAH.

Also re: amoralism. Really? Really now?
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?


USA is a great player in the free market. USA has NOT been 'rationally' neutral to the Gaza conflict, vis a vis, their support (indirect, and, much so) of Israel. So, before you make a judgement on a topic by saying that it has reached its ceiling of rationality, you may want to be better informed. It helps to actually prove your case for rationality that you think you seem to have so much of in spades.

First thing to know about logic, it is merely a thought-process. It is not an actual 'thought'. And most thoughts in this life is neither black nor white. Predisposition:
Applying logic to it makes you a T.
Applying value-based judgements to it makes you an F.

However, the 'thought' (e.g., Gaza conflict) itself is neither T nor F. And, thus, neither is 'one side' a logical argument, while the other a value-based. It is how you PROVE your thought (the process) that will predict whether you're working with T or F. So, you can take either side, neither side, or, sit on the fence. Just prove it - accordingly. Be it logic or value-based.

E.g., My close friends know my frustration when things are not 'logical'. When I was younger, it was a really big issue. I would get angry, frustrated, couldn't/wouldn't/refused to work with the world, when I felt that someone had committed a fallacy of logic. For me, it came down to, if it is not logical, I cannot do it/commit. So, one time, I challenged them, can you find 'logic' within values? Show me.

And, I have been given many an example that finally showed me the limitations of 'cold', objective logic. And, thus, the merits of value-based 'logic'.

Anecdote: Our driveway is long and narrow, and we got 3 cars parked there. Middle one, the person is not home yet so no key. Front car (my dad's). Last car, blocked in by the rest is mine. I needed to leave ASAP. So, I asked my dad to borrow his car, and when he goes out later, he could use mine. Makes logical sense. His is the in line. However...he refused, asking me to wait to get my car out. I was livid. It didn't make logical sense. Relay story to my F-disposed friend. Her response: Your dad knows you smoke and hates it, and he probably doesn't want to face it/inhale it, when he goes to sit in your car. Simple. Logical still. And, triumped me. That's value-based as you get. But, for some reason, it beats my logical reasoning. With a greater 'internal logic' of its own.

There is a certain 'logic' to many value-based judgements. Which those of us with T, or, in praise of the T, are woefully blind to.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
USA is a great player in the free market. USA has NOT been 'rationally' neutral to the Gaza conflict, vis a vis, their support (indirect, and, much so) of Israel. So, before you make a judgement on a topic by saying that it has reached its ceiling of rationality, you may want to be better informed. It helps to actually prove your case for rationality that you think you seem to have so much of in spades.

First thing to know about logic, it is merely a thought-process. It is not an actual 'thought'. And most thoughts in this life is neither black nor white. Predisposition:
Applying logic to it makes you a T.
Applying value-based judgements to it makes you an F.

However, the 'thought' (e.g., Gaza conflict) itself is neither T nor F. And, thus, neither is 'one side' a logical argument, while the other a value-based. It is how you PROVE your thought (the process) that will predict whether you're working with T or F. So, you can take either side, neither side, or, sit on the fence. Just prove it - accordingly. Be it logic or value-based.

E.g., My close friends know my frustration when things are not 'logical'. When I was younger, it was a really big issue. I would get angry, frustrated, couldn't/wouldn't/refused to work with the world, when I felt that someone had committed a fallacy of logic. For me, it came down to, if it is not logical, I cannot do it/commit. So, one time, I challenged them, can you find 'logic' within values? Show me.

And, I have been given many an example that finally showed me the limitations of 'cold', objective logic. And, thus, the merits of value-based 'logic'.

Anecdote: Our driveway is long and narrow, and we got 3 cars parked there. Middle one, the person is not home yet so no key. Front car (my dad's). Last car, blocked in by the rest is mine. I needed to leave ASAP. So, I asked my dad to borrow his car, and when he goes out later, he could use mine. Makes logical sense. His is the in line. However...he refused, asking me to wait to get my car out. I was livid. It didn't make logical sense. Relay story to my F-disposed friend. Her response: Your dad knows you smoke and hates it, and he probably doesn't want to face it/inhale it, when he goes to sit in your car. Simple. Logical still. And, triumped me. That's value-based as you get. But, for some reason, it beats my logical reasoning. With a greater 'internal logic' of its own.

There is a certain 'logic' to many value-based judgements. Which those of us with T, or, in praise of the T, are woefully blind to.

What he said
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Maybe deep down you're afraid of showing some sort of weakness, and maybe you unconsciously think that showing tenderness and consideration shows weakness?
 

groovejet02

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
199
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Maybe deep down you're afraid of showing some sort of weakness, and maybe you unconsciously think that showing tenderness and consideration shows weakness?

I think so too (Ezra, correct us if we're mistaken). I think it probably has to do with her /him being an ENTJ 8w7. I notice this with my ENTJ friend too: the failure to care about suffering -- especially in the wider world --- and pointing to it with statements "That's stupid!" and "I am too tired to care", though I'm sure there are also ENTJs who are compassionate.
 

SilentStream

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
60
MBTI Type
INTP
Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?

I do believe in showing compassion as it is something logically beneficial to everyone including oneself. But when it comes to a situation like this I'm inclined to agree that one should remain neutral, it is someone else's conflict and battle, they can only stop and resolve it themselves. You can't force someone to stop a war, without creating conflict yourself.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?

What you call rationality is really getting lost in your personal value system, labeling everything as proper and improper, and trying to come up with something that sounds consistent. But while doing so, you completely forget the fact that real people are suffering. Suffering gets reduced to a mere variable in an equation and you do lose your humanity. To me, this isn't really rationality. Rationality involves how you see patterns in the world. But you need to be open to seeing and experiencing what's real on a personal, intimate basis, not just as a philosophical game you play with your college friends.

Best
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I get what you're saying, Ezra. It's not that you don't know that there's suffering, you just know that some suffering has to happen for anything to change. Compassion has nothing to do with sensitivity.

You don't have to be anything that you're not. If you don't feel an emotion, you don't have to fake the funk. But realize that if you speak about any sensitive subject, you will have to defend yourself from people who don't understand you. It's our choice: speak on, knowing your principles are intact vs. keep quiet and pick your battles. I know it's tough. I've also had to learn to adapt to overly sensitive people, also, and it always feels like I've lost a part of myself. I don't feel that people ever meet me halfway, either.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Is there an observer/participant distinction to draw?

Compassion in an observer is one thing. It might well motive that observer to begin seeking better solutions across the board. If you see what I mean. They'd vote for different candidates based on those kinds of preferences, influence others over some beers, possibly promote different outcomes by exercise of their consumer choices.

ENTJ might find more it compelling to be compassionate as a participant. Either by considering the emo-pleas of other observers and taking some actions they suggest, or by joining the UN or the military or the government, or by using their own likely position in business.

Compassion is a fine thing, but perhaps disabling if there are no actions attached. And for something as big as, say, Gaza, perhaps the deal is not how much you can feel for the suffering of others, but how many meaningful actions you can attach to the emo-pleas of people you know.

To reach a decision about which action will be meaningful, you'll need to exercise both rationality and compassion.

Something like that, maybe.
 

Jeremy

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
426
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?

I think you need to get over yourself a little bit (not trying to be mean, but just saying). I mean, "sacrificing your intellectual integrity?" Are you saying it's impossible for an F type to be rational / intellectual? I consider myself both of those things. Being rational and being compassionate are two different spheres, but not necessarily opposites, and they can be blended together without sacrificing the integrity of each.

You are a human, and humans are, regardless of what you may believe, inherently subjective. We ain't machines. Even your fear of losing your "intellectual integrity" is based off of feelings. You can't run away from them, they're always gonna be there. Yes, there is an objective standpoint which would say that, for instance, the Gaza crisis is unavoidable and cannot be "won". But most people have an opinion on it. And that objective standpoint that seems so "right" might just be wrong. Making your own opinion based on how you feel about things is not inherently irrational - you can blend them together.

Being too "objective" often leads to people believe that there is actually a "right" answer to every question, and there just isn't. No one has sufficiently proven to me yet that 2+2=4. And your opinions are valid, regardless of whether they're based on feelings or facts (or, as is most likely the case, both), because both of those things are taken internally and processed based on how they make sense to you. Don't run away from either of them - embrace them both, and be who you want to be!
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.

The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.

Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?

First, at the basis of any rational thought lies assumptions which cannot be demontrasted. A rational thinking based on invalid assumptions may be perfectly logical but still invalid. As such, there is no such thing as perfectly rational thinking, but at best "logical" thinking that is more or less rational depending on the subjective evaluation of the basic assumptions.

Philosophers such as Kant arrived at views of moral behavior that state that people should treat others as they would like to be treated and act with others in such a way that their actions could become a universal law. Following this view, it is logical to want to help those people because that is treating others in a way in which you would like to be treated and that could be made into a universal law at the benefit of all.

Correct me if I'm wrong and if you would prefer not being helped if you were in Gaza.
 
Top