[NT] NTs the most effective liars?

[Mycroft]

Night, what do you refer to when you talk of pruning idiosyncrasies?

 

[Night]

Night, what do you refer to when you talk of pruning idiosyncrasies?

Characteristics usually associated within subtypes.

Globally, I'd consider the following as approximate examples: ENFJ - charisma; ESFJ - concern; INTJ - competency.

The quirks I speak to are specific to variation within a regional type: ISTJ - tradition; ISTP - level-headedness.


Ultimately, I seek to find the logic in connecting entities like "morality" as a descriptor inside of regional types.

 

[substitute]

It's a case of being true to yourself Night. Some people find it easy to go against their own beliefs, by effectively adapting and changing those beliefs in order to support whatever action they wish to take. As I said, this kind of sophistry is something NT's can be very adept with - but not uniquely.

Ethics... hmm... well I don't believe in absolute morality, no. I probably share that in common with most NT's. But I've come in recent years (due to external pressures not giving me the room to weedle out with conceits) to see that an awful lot of what I thought was 'changing my views in light of new information', was actually 'shifting mental paradigm as it suits me to feel intellectually justified in whatever I want to do, because it's logical'.

You can use logic to justify just about anything, but that doesn't make it right. As for what 'right' is, I don't know... except that I know how I feel when I haven't done it. And rather than paper up that feeling with intellectual conceits and 'logical' justifications, I'm more likely these days to apologize and make amends.

It's a weird kind of marriage between the integrity of the T and the morality of the F. But I know it doesn't make me 'not an NT anymore' precisely because it's come so hard for me to learn it, and still doesn't always come naturally. Left to my own devices, I revert to the unscrupulous rat-bag I am by nature!!

Perhaps a difference I notice between SF's and NT's is that SF's have definite morals - they know what's right and wrong. They'd talk of "the difference between right and wrong", knowing what they mean. While an NT often doesn't really have any beliefs in particular - they just figure them out as they go, according to individual situations and objectives. And believing themselves to be more objective than they truly are most of the time, and prone to great arrogance, we have a tendency to evolve those beliefs in accordance with whatever suits us. Adapting our beliefs to our intended actions, as opposed to the SF who seems more to adapt their actions to their beliefs. Except ESFJ's maybe, who adapt their actions to others' beliefs. Sorta... maybe...

 

[Night]

It's a case of being true to yourself Night. Some people find it easy to go against their own beliefs, by effectively adapting and changing those beliefs in order to support whatever action they wish to take. As I said, this kind of sophistry is something NT's can be very adept with - but not uniquely.

Ethics... hmm... well I don't believe in absolute morality, no. I probably share that in common with most NT's. But I've come in recent years (due to external pressures not giving me the room to weedle out with conceits) to see that an awful lot of what I thought was 'changing my views in light of new information', was actually 'shifting mental paradigm as it suits me to feel intellectually justified in whatever I want to do, because it's logical'.

You can use logic to justify just about anything, but that doesn't make it right. As for what 'right' is, I don't know... except that I know how I feel when I haven't done it. And rather than paper up that feeling with intellectual conceits and 'logical' justifications, I'm more likely these days to apologize and make amends.

It's a weird kind of marriage between the integrity of the T and the morality of the F. But I know it doesn't make me 'not an NT anymore' precisely because it's come so hard for me to learn it, and still doesn't always come naturally. Left to my own devices, I revert to the unscrupulous rat-bag I am by nature!!

Thank you - I appreciate your concision, substitute.

 

[Mycroft]

Characteristics usually associated within subtypes.

Globally, I'd consider the following as approximate examples: ENFJ - charisma; ESFJ - concern; INTJ - competency.

The quirks I speak to are specific to variation within a regional type: ISTJ - tradition; ISTP - level-headedness.


Ultimately, I seek to find the logic in connecting entities like "morality" as a descriptor inside of regional types.

Isn't the goal to document common idiosyncrasies and organize them rather than "prune" them? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Night]

Isn't the goal to document common idiosyncrasies and organize them rather than "prune" them? I'm not sure I follow.

Perhaps.

Maybe my word choice is proving to be an encumbrance. Let's use yours, instead.

How might we document "morality" (can we?) as it pertains to type?

 

[SillySapienne]

My sister is the most cunning liar I have ever come across. She is a highly, socially intelligent SF.

 

[substitute]

Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.

What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.

As we get older we usually seem to come to a realization that those principles, if truly adhered to, have a profound and rippling effect through all of our actions and choices, and to hold our choices up to them and remonstrate ourselves when they fall short, rather than hold the beliefs up to our actions and change the beliefs/interpretations. Then we can be really awesomely enlightened people with very strong senses of honour and integrity.

 

[Night]

Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.

What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.

Quite alright, my good man.

I know the NT mind fairly well - you've diagrammed it with a surgeon's touch.

Thanks again!

 

[Mycroft]

How might we document "morality" (can we?) as it pertains to type?

If you wanted to be scientific about it:

1.) Propose a definition of morality that could be agreed upon by other members of your field, or at the very least everyone else involved in the project.

2.) Determine the best way to measure the existence of your defined "morality".

3.) Gather a large group of subjects of equal representation of each of the types and set to work.

4.) Draw what correlations there are to be drawn.

...good luck on that first step.

 

[Night]

If you wanted to be scientific about it:

1.) Propose a definition of morality that could be agreed upon by other members of your field, or at the very least everyone else involved in the project.

2.) Determine the best way to measure the existence of your defined "morality".

3.) Gather a large group of subjects of equal representation of each of the types and set to work.

4.) Draw what correlations there are to be drawn.

...good luck on that first step.

Cheers -

This itemization is a far better proof against the notion of interrelated morality than what I could've hoped for via direct explication.

 

[Mycroft]

...you're welcome?

 

[Priam]

Perhaps I'm being redundant here, but I think there's a trait that both SPs and NTs share, though defining it somewhat differently: a love of "cleverness". Both enjoy having at least that little edge on everyone else, the sense of being a step ahead, and will often do what it takes to maintain it. This sense of outwitting another can easily be applied to lies, where the energy required to maintain even an elaborate facade is readily given so long as it's fun/serves its purpose.

 

[MX5]

Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.

What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.

I observe NTs to have strong core tenets that are broad in scope and "fluid" in definition. That seems to be a trademark of NTs; not to be "pinned down" to specifics or exactitudes. This "fluidity" gives the NT type the peculiar distinction of easily adjusting their morality to fit the circumstances without damaging their central beliefs. "It depends" is a watchphrase for the NT.

Is doing this "arrogance and egotism"? It certainly could be interpreted as such, especially when others are faced with the icy stare and cold-hearted "...because that's the only thing that made sense" of an INTJ. But I would offer that this is not because of a conscious decision to demean some other POV, or to foist their rationale above any other out of conceit; it is (in my case, at least) that - having considered other alternatives - this action is the most rational choice. Where we typically fail is in; a) recognizing that there might be alternative choices, and b) conveying interest in other's opinions.

As we get older we usually seem to come to a realization that those principles, if truly adhered to, have a profound and rippling effect through all of our actions and choices, and to hold our choices up to them and remonstrate ourselves when they fall short, rather than hold the beliefs up to our actions and change the beliefs/interpretations. Then we can be really awesomely enlightened people with very strong senses of honour and integrity.

Alas, many become embittered and isolated. Few achieve that place of enlightenment.

 

[Totenkindly]

Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.

Look, I've worked hard to be a ratbag, so no "NT-clever" apology is going to rob that from me.

What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.

As we get older we usually seem to come to a realization that those principles, if truly adhered to, have a profound and rippling effect through all of our actions and choices, and to hold our choices up to them and remonstrate ourselves when they fall short, rather than hold the beliefs up to our actions and change the beliefs/interpretations. Then we can be really awesomely enlightened people with very strong senses of honour and integrity.

But isn't everyone (NT and non-NT) like this? *confused*

I observe NTs to have strong core tenets that are broad in scope and "fluid" in definition. That seems to be a trademark of NTs; not to be "pinned down" to specifics or exactitudes. This "fluidity" gives the NT type the peculiar distinction of easily adjusting their morality to fit the circumstances without damaging their central beliefs. "It depends" is a watchphrase for the NT.

Well, okay, if this is explaining sub's post better, this seems more distinct to me.

NTs basically operate in "principles," not specifics. I am not a situation ethicist in the sense the term was used disparagingly to criticize people who just did whatever they felt like doing in each new situation, but I am definitely a person who believes in "context." The more specific the rule, the less chance for it to be the best solution in all situations. Principles are what I carry around with me, then I figure out how to apply the principle.

Applying the principle does seem to produce specific actions for me: When I determine what to do, I do often find that there is a "best way" to apply it, and it is also very clear to me what other actions/applications will result in. If this sense of "seeing all the outcomes" is arrogance, then there is not much I can do about it.

But it's not based on an assumption of what will happen (more "moralistic" people will say, "Don't do that, it'll ruin your life!" because they are assuming it's wrong, and a wrong choice always has a bad outcome! self-fulfilling prophecy), it's based on actual projection if nothing changes, based on the info I have.

I suppose I should read the OP now.

 

[Geoff]

But isn't everyone (NT and non-NT) like this? *confused*

Healthy people, maybe...

 

[Night]

Where we typically fail is in; a) recognizing that there might be alternative choices, and b) conveying interest in other's opinions.


Alas, many become embittered and isolated. Few achieve that place of enlightenment.

This is a curious realization, as it implies willful stagnation.

I struggle to imagine a premise where I would remain satisfied with the corpus of my ignorance, such that I currently realize to be (as yet beyond my acuity) and, if only to protect some shadow of psychological independence, I imprison myself within it.

Perhaps this isn't the case with you, but I assure you it is with me.

Do you foresee yourself ever ascending into "enlightenment" wherein yours is instead a multitude of sharpened perspectives cooperating into a visceral, intellectual sledgehammer?

 

[Totenkindly]

I think the one great advantage for NTs and lying is our sense of "The Big Picture" and coordinating details so that no conflicts between our statements occur. P's in particular have a good sense of how to say "just enough" without committing to unnecessary detail, J's I think are more bold enough to lie outright if need be and put up a confident front.

So that, coupled with my ability to poker-face things I say if necessary, allow me to obfuscate very well when I want to or need to.

The thing is that I really do not like to lie. I don't like to utter mistruth. I like to be honest and open. So the worst I usually do is allow ambiguity to exist in a situation where I am afraid someone will try to restrict/control me if I tell them too much.

I agree with your general type assessments. SPs (E's and F's especially) tend to rely on charm and often can make contradictory statements, but will then just hedge or change their story or fix their tracks somehow, if possible. The F's tend to be more illogical in their lies and get caught more; at earlier ages, I think they also get caught because their facial expressions are hard to rein in, but once they practice over time, they can start to believe their own lies (changing the past) as they go, which lets them become heavy-duty liars. They seem to become the sort of liars whom you KNOW are lying... but you just can't actually prove it or get them to confess. ("If caught, deny deny deny!" is the rule of the game.)

A good example of an ESTP liar is Scott Peterson (Lacey's husband). He used confidence, charm, and persuasiveness to think he could just about say anything and get away with it... but once his story was actually examined, while he continued to deny and obfuscate, it was clear that things just did not mesh up. (In contrast, an NT will usually have more support between the story and the discernable details -- they are prone to avoid the obvious missteps in the lying.)

SJs have that "assumption" thing built into their lying technique. "He is my husband," for example, "so he would never lie to me." Or, "I voted for that person to be president, so of course he would have my best interests in mind and not lie about why we entered the war." And so on. SJs victims make assumptions that allow themselves to be exploited, because they won't suspect the lie sometimes even if it's blatant; SJ liars will play into those assumptions by default or not worry about covering in case the assumption is not made by the potential victim.

Some more canny SJs (ESxJs, probably) once they experience the world do have a BS meter; still, they tend to come up with more false positives (i.e., being cynical of someone even when they're telling the truth). I don't know. I'm still thinking this one out, obviously.

One funny thought: xNTJs, I think, are not necessarily good liars because I think they have the self-confidence and assertiveness enough to just do whatever they'd like and not make excuses for it or feel the NEED to lie. They're more apt to say, "Yeah, I did it... and it was the right thing to do, and who cares what you think?"

 

[Night]

One funny thought: xNTJs, I think, are not necessarily good liars because I think they have the self-confidence and assertiveness enough to just do whatever they'd like and not make excuses for it or feel the NEED to lie. They're more apt to say, "Yeah, I did it... and it was the right thing to do, and who cares what you think?"

Haha...hey!

What I lack in immediate sincerity, I make up for in humility.

Jurisprudence, my friend!

 

[substitute]

Yeah sorry, I tried to be specific and clear earlier but I'm having a bit of an off day generally, so...

Yeah, MX5 basically said better what I was trying to say... plus, I wasn't saying that the fluidity was arrogance and egotism, but that it can be misused out of arrogance and egotism, when the person believes it's being rightly used out of integrity (that's what they tell themselves).