[MBTI General] Following traditions

[Cimarron]

This is continued from a thread in another section. It had changed focus significantly, and I thought it would be useful to discuss it here:


**"NFs come up with their Ideals on their own, whereas SJs get their Values from somewhere else."**


The problem with this statement is that most SJs themselves do not agree with it. That's predictable; after all, society usually considers lack of independent thought a flaw. (And yet, they still expect you to follow rules. ) Is it that most SJs don't even realize they're doing it? Or could it often be much more subtle than the kind of "upholding traditions" that we're usually thinking about? Why is there a split between our theory and reality?

Unfortunately, it doesn't help that there are many more NFs than SJs on the board, so it's hard to get a general idea of the SJ interpretation. It's hard to see something through someone else's eyes... (not whining)

 

[colmena]

The abstract/concrete values are an interesting route. Loyalty/Trust/Honesty etc.

Implicit to the environment; focused on group preservation.

Unconscious preservation methods show strong and practical instinctual foresight.

This sort of traditionalism is romantic to me. I also trust what evolution in a constant environment would produce.

Although I don't believe the world's wisdom is accumulative; arts over time is indicative of this.

I've suggested how idealism may be beneficial for innovation and adaptation, but traditionalism I would think would be preferable in adverse reality.

Why is there a split between our theory and reality?

Because theory rarely accounts for context evolved cultures. Logic is too simplistic.

 

[Night]

**"NFs come up with their Ideals on their own, whereas SJs get their Values from somewhere else."**

The problem with this statement is that most SJs themselves do not agree with it. That's predictable; after all, society usually considers lack of independent thought a flaw. (And yet, they still expect you to follow rules. ) Is it that most SJs don't even realize they're doing it? Or could it often be much more subtle than the kind of "upholding traditions" that we're usually thinking about? Why is there a split between our theory and reality?

Unfortunately, it doesn't help that there are many more NFs than SJs on the board, so it's hard to get a general idea of the SJ interpretation. It's hard to see something through someone else's eyes... (not whining)

Independence in thought is a broad conceit many Ns try to sell as a redeemable commodity.

Truth is, all thought builds from existing soil. Can't have 1 without 0, right?

Most of the time, the N resistance to tradition is more a consequence of feeling isolated/different from those who champion it. It's a passive rejection of qualities unrelated to type distinction -- whether the N wishes to accept it or not is ultimately moot.

Values are under constant revision. Updating ethical expectations to match prevailing cultural attitudes. A good example of this in action was the Political Correctness movement that took shape in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

True to form, Political Correctness was a philosophical extension of the Women's Lib/Civil Rights movement of the 1960s/70s.

Simultaneously an example of N "independence" fused neatly to S "tradition".

 

[cascadeco]

**"NFs come up with their Ideals on their own, whereas SJs get their Values from somewhere else."**


The problem with this statement is that most SJs themselves do not agree with it.

Personally I think the statement is a bit deceiving, in that all types will in some way be influenced by the environment in which they were raised. Given this, NF's will initially receive their values 'from somewhere else'. But there's a second step, in which NF's will assess those values they have received from their environment or culture, and will then reject or accept based on their own analysis (or maybe this is just me speaking for myself ;-). Or they will look outside their immediate surroundings, to other cultures or philosophies, and then mishmash various beliefs/values together to come up with a construct of their own -- and the result might very well go against prevailing cultural norms and expectations.

I think it would be helpful to the discussion if you explain why you disagree with the statement in the OP, as an SJ, and also how you perceive yourself developing your value system, and where you did attain your values. As NF's, we might view SJ's as 'getting their values from somewhere else', or not really questioning societal values, simply because it looks that way from the outside, and that's the net result we are viewing. It's not like we can view the internal process of the SJ's though. You might be able to enlighten everyone!!

 

[Cimarron]

Wow! Thank you for the very helpful comments, people. This is the kind of discussion material I was trying to squeeze out of the other thread (in the NF forum). I am going to be very busy today, but I hope to get back to this soon.

 

[Clownmaster]

ironic that you get so many good answers from people who are not SJs.

I enjoy reading this thread on the NF section, and just found this here variation of the thread. I don't really think I have any more to elaborate on the subject, but if other ideas become presented down the line, my posts here will become common.

 

[Bella]

I get my values from God. I know this is not seen as sophisticated or philosophical or smart, but that's how it is for me.

 

[ArbiterDewey]

I get my values from God. I know this is not seen as sophisticated or philosophical or smart, but that's how it is for me.

As long as it works for you, that's perfect. The faith required is immense. For me it wouldn't work whatsoever, but I did try.

 

[Bella]

As long as it works for you, that's perfect. The faith required is immense. For me it wouldn't work whatsoever, but I did try.

Do you care to tell more?

 

[Giggly]

I don't know if this is answering the question but the biggest reason why I like traditional values is because I have analyzed them in detail and concluded that they are what is best for not only myself but everyone around me. They are best for society as a WHOLE. I have also analyzed values based on my own individual desires or needs and concluded that, although they may benefit me greatly, they may not be the best thing for other people around me.

 

[Condor]

My values come from me, and my experiences as I live. It may sound a bit off of my "type" but I do not believe that the "traditional" values of any society have any inherent validity to them. I believe in the individual - their right to experience life in their own way, and to take responsibility for their own actions. This is what I value in myself, and in others as well. The fact that I fight for everyone's ability to make their own decisions and not follow is counterbalanced by my (admittedly almost fanatical) insistence that they take responsibility for their own actions and not attempt to pass the consequences off to someone (or something) else.

So to address the OP, I don't get my values from others, or society as a whole. Perhaps because I'm expected to (as an upstanding, conservative member of that same society) would be a reason for the split between reality and theory.

 

[ArbiterDewey]

Do you care to tell more?

About which part?

I used to be a Christian preacher, but, through logic, a lot of skepticism and research, came to the conclusion that I couldn't accept Christ as God because I couldn't revere God as God.

I'll post in my blog my argument against God.

 

[tenINsFJ]

QUOTE FROM DEWEY:
Dewey's God Breaker

Instructions: Accept these truths:
1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscient
3. God is Omnipresent
4. God is good
5. Jesus is God

Based on the above, God cannot exist.

If God is omnipresent, or in/of/around everything always, he cannot be Jesus, who occupies only the space he fills. If Jesus and God are the same, and God is Omniscient, how can one know something the other does not. Near the time of Christ's death, or maybe shortly after He mentions that only "the Father" knows the time of His Second Coming. Fallacy/Contradiction = Yes.

This is where you are wrong Dewey, Jesus is referred to as the SON of god over 200 in the New Testament. In addition, God is referred to as the FATHER well over 200 times, while both Son and Father are mentioned over 50 times in the N.T. to show a distinction.
Sources:
John 10:30 - says they are ONE.. one as in UNITED.
John 16:3
John 20:17
John 20:31
Just to mention a few... many more in the other gospels QUOTING Jesus regarding his status to the father.
-TenINsFJ


If God is Omnipotent, or having unlimited time and authority, Omnipresent, in/of/around everything always, past/present/future, and Omniscient, knowing all things, human minds inclusive, why can evil like rape exist? It can if the above is true, but with the kicker, God is good, it cannot.

For example, God knows the thoughts of the rapist before he has them, has the ability to stop a rapist in action, because he's there, and chooses not to do so. Thus, God is responsible for all sin.

Humans have the free will. If you think about the bigger picture, the whole point of religion(Christianity in this case) is to be different from the world. When the Bible points out that there will be evil, it's our job to not be like that, it's our job to be role models. God is not responsible for sin, it is the devil, much like how the serpent tempted Adam and Eve.. Satan merely tempts rapists(we'll use your example) with a sexual impulse, and let's the human decide whether or not to fall into that temptation. The will to resist temptation is Christianity. By God, I will never have a temptation to "rape" anyone, and even though the thought never crosses my mind, I would never ever follow through with such a temptation. By immersing myself in the Word, I resist those temptations without hesitation, and by that, God is not responsible for sin, it is the human.

In addition to that, examples of when God stopped unruly behavior
Genesis 6
9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence.
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
Then we know what happens.
Until the entire world becomes bad, it is up to us(Christians) to represent him.
-TenINsFJ

IF, however, you eliminate one of the accepted truths, God can exist, but he self-destructs his own image. With the example with the rapist, if you delete any of God's powers, he no longer bears the mantle of God. Unless you remove God is Good.

That allows the equation to work...until you add:
6. God cannot lie
7. The Bible is God's Word

BANG! Contradiction! The Bible says that God is good, so really: God says that God is good, but God can do a non-good thing, so either God does not exist, allowing for the Bible to be wrong because he wouldn't be around to lie in a book about it, or the Bible is wrong, but God cannot lie, thusly not God.

Don't know if I need to reply to this, you have no examples of him lying so far.

Hell, lol. Then throw in:
8. God is perfect

So now, not only is God a liar, but if He is a liar, he cannot be perfect because He's wrong about Himself as transcribed in His, all-knowing, perfect Word. This process carries on redundantly for some time, each time I add a new accepted truth.

Again, haven't posted anything regarding a lie, so no need to reply here.

This is why I am a theist. I only believe the first three points on the God Breaker. This is also why I say, "The more you define God, the vaguer he becomes."

Apparently you said you gave sermons(I skimmed through, I might have mis-read, but sounds like you need to do more research. #4 and #5 are also truths.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

It's all just up to us.. we're the ones that need work.

 

[Bella]

About which part?

I used to be a Christian preacher, but, through logic, a lot of skepticism and research, came to the conclusion that I couldn't accept Christ as God because I couldn't revere God as God.

I'll post in my blog my argument against God.

Okay.

I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.
I'm sorry it went wrong for you, and it's a pity that those who claim to love God sometimes do so much harm.

 

[ArbiterDewey]

Sorry if this steps on some toes. Do note, however, that I don't wish to argue about this whatsoever.

Please...I don't want to hear it.

 

[ArbiterDewey]

(in response to a reply that was deleted)

You know...you've just about pissed me off... Stop discussing this shit, asshole. I asked nicely. I knew that it could offend, so I put a fucking disclaimer. I also said nicely that I don't want to discuss it. I've come to resolution, and religious fanatics like yourself wont listen to anything but that which you want to hear. So, in conclusion, STFU please.

My next response will be out of hand and filled with cursing and CAPITAL letters...stop now. (my disclaimer to the admin/mods keeping an eye out for stuff like this)

 

[Night]

For those who blindly believe and don't question their own fallacy within their own thoughts, what justified conclusion came they come to?

Kind of a ballsy remark, as you haven't any real insight into the context of Dewey's thinking.

Who are you to think you can objectively assert an alogical concept like the existence/non-existence of God...?



Man -- what a disappointing derail...

 

[Jack Flak]

Lol alogical OMG.

 

[Clownmaster]

Lol alogical OMG.

a⋅log⋅i⋅cal [ey-loj-i-kuhl]
–adjective
beyond the scope of logic or logical reasoning: alogical philosophical speculations.

 

[Jack Flak]

alogical=illogical