• 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.

Mistyped TypeCentral Members

skimpit

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
717
I’m declaring myself ISFJ. I find it funny that people think I have a preference for intuition since even if I daydream, it’s all about practical matters. You are free to present arguments about the middle axis, but note I will evaluate you according to if you make logical sense and if you’re offending me, and I reserve the right to act like the snowflake I’m not ;) in response to supposed slights. :newwink:
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I’m declaring myself ISFJ. I find it funny that people think I have a preference for intuition since even if I daydream, it’s all about practical matters. You are free to present arguments about the middle axis, but note I will evaluate you according to if you make logical sense and if you’re offending me, and I reserve the right to act like the snowflake I’m not ;) in response to supposed slights. :newwink:

I invite you to try this:
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?
Maybe Im going to type you as XXXX again :D, just kidding, thats not likely.
Also, I already said to you that I was going to write you a special description, the hybrid text might do it.
 

batteries included

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
443
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Based on vibe alone, you come off indeed as XNFP-ish. Any conclusion would be presumptuous since I don't really have a lot of data about you.

Try doing a type me thread or contribute more.

Yeah, I did that a few months back I think? I remember ESTP being one of the theories, but I didn't really agree with that much.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.

I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.

From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).

I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?

I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.

All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.

There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)

Let me explain one of my key data points... myself.

Now, in my case, I have extensive knowledge, because I have a habit of checking my posts for function sequences. And let me tell you, usually my posts have the Ni-Fe-etc function order. Sometimes some other order is shown, sometimes it's hard to determine.

Exceptions to the general rule include:
- starting with a non-dominant function, e.g. I've observed INFJs skip to Ti when discussing politics (so it goes Ti-Se-Ne-etc.), or when writing non-seriously.
- writing from a secondary type. Sometimes I write as an INFP, or other types, which is part of my basis for the multi-type hypothesis which states we are not purely one type
- high level posts can be ambiguous because functions can be used simultaneously, e.g. sometimes I write the Si part in near the start (that's what I do when I'm being political)

Plus probably other things that aren't coming to mind right now.

But the point is that generally speaking, the INFJ function order is shown. That's how I know I'm an INFJ, and that's how I know that there is something to the function sequence approach.

If the rule applies to myself, then chances are it applies to a good many other people too, although I can't confirm that it applies to everyone I've looked at because I find some people hard to read for whatever reason.

I don't think you've really taken the time to understand this approach. If you try it, you'll see that it works, if you have the necessary insight to get it to work. You're an INFJ, so it should be comfortable for you to do.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
I know Im am kind of reinforcing the off topic but there are two things that I want to say. Ill be fast.

First, why do you guys seems so harsh sometimes? I wont quote directly but it is like, through a more indirectly manner... "your typing method is ridiculous", "you understand nothing", "I wonder how you...".
Well, to be honest this is wwaayy better than the brazilian right vs left discussion (or Messiah VS Messiah B), where not only they are rude but also quite stupid. Ok, ok, I really like when the community here points out when someone is not making any sense at all (while the brazilian right or left just praise with no use of logic), but, PLEASE, some people here have a hard time on your lives, sometimes just destroying one self-esteem is just not nice. The brazilians left and right desperately wants to destroy the other side self-esteem, because they just desperately needs to feel superior because otherwise their lives wont make sense, but, for you guys here, is that needed? I dont think so. I know that some typing methods are erroneous, but, please, be more sympathetic.

And second, do somebody know how to find your posts? Im saying that because my first post is about professions where shows the type distribuitions in some universities. Design students tends to be a lot ENTP and ENFP, in business we find a lot of ESTJs, ENTJs, ISTJs and ENTPs, in movie making we got a lot of INTJs and INTPs, and we I could go on. TypoC and PerC (Personality Cafe) is full of introverted intuitives, I think that also proceeds in some online sites such as OkCupid, but not social media. I could had a look and show all of this but I want to be fast and Im already off topic by the way, but, for PerC and TypoC, a good approach would be "Introverted Intuitive unless otherwise" (or disregard this previous typing by what is most common, it would be better).

Constructive criticism is ok, and mean-ness is disheartening, but I've learnt not to be held back by it.

The thing about ideas is this...

When an idea is first presented
It enters into the awareness of others
Then it is deconstructed, criticised
If it passes this phase,
Interest is shown in it, and people consider it within themselves,
Then they may be able to acknowledge it for what it is and refine it,
Hence the idea comes to life.

I do not lament the presence of criticism, but rather the lack of honest interest.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Constructive criticism is ok, and mean-ness is disheartening, but I've learnt not to be held back by it.

The thing about ideas is this...

When an idea is first presented
It enters into the awareness of others
Then it is deconstructed, criticised
If it passes this phase,
Interest is shown in it, and people consider it within themselves,
Then they may be able to acknowledge it for what it is and refine it,
Hence the idea comes to life.

I do not lament the presence of criticism, but rather the lack of honest interest.

I hope this doesn't come across as following you around the forum, but you seem to pop up in threads I'm interested in and make posts I find interesting, even if we hold different views and positions.

In any case, despite my sometimes emotional outbursts on here that can be harsh, I do have an interest in your journey with type. I feel like you are in a similar position to myself around 7-8 years ago when I first decided to get more into it and I hungrily went about reading and absorbing every scrap of information on typological systems. At that point in time I had an extremely good working memory of the structures, meanings and my ideas/insights of type.

But over time I went in a different direction, I became more disillusioned and a bit more cynical, because I had found it to be utterly inadequate for use in my actual life. This was primarily because people, despite surface appearances, are often less easy to predict and pin down than you might think and most of all I found this inconsistency in myself.
Type ended up just being a way to hide from my problems and issues, a way to stay stagnant and static without growing. Instead I had to go out into the world and put myself at risk, take chances, fail and suffer mental and physical pain in order to learn about myself and others. And it proved what I had suspected (but feared) was true, that all of our ideals of virtue and conceits of well-meaning were just very thin barriers against human cruelty. I'm not saying they aren't true factors of nature, but they are much harder to maintain when placed in the actual situations of a living, moving world.

And I realised type was the same way, that those cognitive habits that are so easily used to define the shape of behaviour, could be discarded by trauma, circumstances and other factors like mental illness. And the more detail I opened myself to understanding and the less uncomfortable thoughts I stopped ignoring, the smaller typological influence became until it turned into a whisper that I cannot find faith in, but which I have the smallest amount of hope for. Although that's getting smaller.

And I'm not saying you will go the same way, I'm just interested to see what happens. So in my case I have honest interest, just not with much hope for type, I'm now more interested in the people who get wrapped up in it, than the systems themselves.

After all, this has always been about people.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
I hope this doesn't come across as following you around the forum, but you seem to pop up in threads I'm interested in and make posts I find interesting, even if we hold different views and positions.

In any case, despite my sometimes emotional outbursts on here that can be harsh, I do have an interest in your journey with type. I feel like you are in a similar position to myself around 7-8 years ago when I first decided to get more into it and I hungrily went about reading and absorbing every scrap of information on typological systems. At that point in time I had an extremely good working memory of the structures, meanings and my ideas/insights of type.

But over time I went in a different direction, I became more disillusioned and a bit more cynical, because I had found it to be utterly inadequate for use in my actual life. This was primarily because people, despite surface appearances, are often less easy to predict and pin down than you might think and most of all I found this inconsistency in myself.
Type ended up just being a way to hide from my problems and issues, a way to stay stagnant and static without growing. Instead I had to go out into the world and put myself at risk, take chances, fail and suffer mental and physical pain in order to learn about myself and others. And it proved what I had suspected (but feared) was true, that all of our ideals of virtue and conceits of well-meaning were just very thin barriers against human cruelty. I'm not saying they aren't true factors of nature, but they are much harder to maintain when placed in the actual situations of a living, moving world.

And I realised type was the same way, that those cognitive habits that are so easily used to define the shape of behaviour, could be discarded by trauma, circumstances and other factors like mental illness. And the more detail I opened myself to understanding and the less uncomfortable thoughts I stopped ignoring, the smaller typological influence became until it turned into a whisper that I cannot find faith in, but which I have the smallest amount of hope for. Although that's getting smaller.

And I'm not saying you will go the same way, I'm just interested to see what happens. So in my case I have honest interest, just not with much hope for type, I'm now more interested in the people who get wrapped up in it, than the systems themselves.

After all, this has always been about people.

It's all good. I like your posts too though I find them difficult for me to understand. You seem to have a good connection to your unconscious.

I haven't really absorbed new information on typology in terms of descriptions made by other people for a while. I think I've gathered most of what I can. My approach lately has been more along the lines of directly reading people from video or text, and refining my approaches for doing so. I'm furthering my knowledge of the functions, but one of my primary resources for developing said understanding is simply by paying attention to my own cognitive processes and going by that.

The real life application of type, from my experience, largely consists of noting the energetic preferences people have and how those might not be optimal. So an N-dom might be using too much S, or interacting with too many S types (that applies to myself), and thus be energetically taxed. The answer is not to ignore S altogether, but to give precedence to engaging the N, and letting the S arise naturally from there.

Regarding mental illness, an interesting and to be honest rather scary thing that I've found, is that when I'm being particularly INFJ - which basically means having a lot of energy and living in a fantasy world - this is seen as being mania/psychosis by the mental health system, as far as I can tell, and to them mental health would consist of being "in touch with reality" by turning up the Se, and suppressing the Ni. Really, what they seem to be suggesting is the actual mental illness, and what they're saying is the mental illness is actually mental health. So a major insight that typology can bring to the mental health system is that mental health isn't about everyone fitting into a box of "normal", "mentally healthy", but rather will be expressed in a very different way by two people of two different types. The same behaviour could be a sign of one person being healthy and engaging their natural preferences, but for another it may mean that they're going against what is going to give them the most energy, and suffering as a result. It's not about segregating people or forbidding people from engaging certain processes. Harmony is to be achieved between all types, and it is best to be able to engage all 8 of one's cognitive processes. However this needs to be done properly, with more emphasis being placed on what energises a person. The mental health system unfortunately doesn't seem to have caught onto this, and in mainstream psychology, individual differences are focused on more when it comes to diagnosing illness rather than forming a picture of how someone would look if they were healthy. So in that regard I find typology to be important, and will need to be incorporated into approaches for treatment, if not explicitly then implicitly (for instance, it might not be necessary to type a person in order to treat them, but it would be necessary to recognise that people are very different from each other, and can unhealthily alter their behaviour to fit in, and thus could be helped by being given tips as to how to naturally be oneself, rather than fighting against it).

Of course there's much more to a person than type. When I consider my own growth, I think more in terms of self-transcendence, which are levels of operating beyond the 8 cognitive functions. The human cruelty issue is one of my main concerns nowadays, and I find it more important whether someone is acting with good intention, as opposed to knowing what type they are, and that's a separate issue. So I'm looking for ways to "type" a person or "rank" them on a division/continuum of good and bad, and I focus on moral teachings which should apply to any person. Although people can be cruel, I think cultivating virtue within oneself is of utmost importance. Loving one's neighbour as oneself is logical as well as ethical.

I'm interested in the question of to what degree people will become wrapped up in typology in the future, once it gains more traction in a scientific sense, as well as having more clear spiritual teachings placed alongside it. Things will change soon, or I predict that they will, and being able to preempt those changes and work with a future scenario is part of what I seek to do. So I'm verifying and expanding upon the theory, trying to see how it can be applied, and trying to focus on the things I see as being more important than type, as well as seeing how typological/Jungian models fit into the big picture.

Could you expand on this line: "all of our ideals of virtue and conceits of well-meaning were just very thin barriers against human cruelty"? It's an interesting point, tied into my current investigations.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I'm interested in the question of to what degree people will become wrapped up in typology in the future, once it gains more traction in a scientific sense, as well as having more clear spiritual teachings placed alongside it. Things will change soon, or I predict that they will, and being able to preempt those changes and work with a future scenario is part of what I seek to do. So I'm verifying and expanding upon the theory, trying to see how it can be applied, and trying to focus on the things I see as being more important than type, as well as seeing how typological/Jungian models fit into the big picture.

Could you expand on this line: "all of our ideals of virtue and conceits of well-meaning were just very thin barriers against human cruelty"? It's an interesting point, tied into my current investigations.

I think you're right about the future of typology, but my position is that this would be a result of accepting more and more nebulous and unscientific ideas into the realm of the soft sciences, which has been an ongoing trend for a while now. Though empiricism has its limitations and flaws, it is still probably the best method for helping to develop out and determine ideas, even for less hard science areas. My issue with type is that all the data seems to rely upon a set of assumptions, such as people of a certain job testing as certain types more frequently, but the problem is that descriptions of those types and their cognitive functions are conveniently set up to match the kinds of mentalities that one would have to adopt in order to perform certain tasks and jobs. And people can be more adaptable than we give credit for, not to mention a lack of self-awareness leading to incorrect assumptions about your own nature.

This leads into expanding on what you asked about. So what I mean is (probably disappointingly) simple. The abstract ideals a person might hold, like not harming others, not being underhanded, lying or manipulative, treating others with dignity, respect, fairness and equality, not letting your worst emotions and excesses get the better of you etc.... and then the higher ideals for the benefit of human beings in general, which tend to arise out of those personal virtues, well I've come to understand through exposure that they often don't always hold up in the face of the actual world in which we have to live.

This is not to say one should abandon virtue or higher ideals, but that they are very easy to corrupt and the most rigid ones do not survive contact with certain situations. For example, sometimes you find yourself moved to a violence you might abhor due to the circumstances you find yourself in.

And in general I find people are more given to abandoning those ideals than holding onto them and it seems very easy, on average, to discard them when necessary. Picture the nightmare scenario of having to save either yourself or someone else, now imagine that this came about because of a sudden and terrifying event, whether man-made or natural, it doesn't matter. If you've ever seen people trying to get away from something and trampling each other to do so, it's hard to imagine turning back the tide with good words and intentions.

I'm not saying that we are inherently evil or good, just that we are extremely flawed and a lot of the ideals people hold are untested against that flawed nature and would have to either adapt or break under certain circumstances. Another problem is that intelligence is not always a barrier against cruel acts, character matters as much, if not more.

From a neurological point of view our frontal lobes play an important part in determining, and actually inhibiting, the other more primitive areas of the brain which give rise to these cruel and often desperate acts, from areas like the amygdala that, under duress, can suddenly consume the more reasonable functioning areas of the brain with fight or flight responses. Hence why it's called an amygdala hijack.

And we have the power of denial, which is incredibly strong in human beings and I think that allows us to build civilisations while having large swathes of the population who can barely function in a civil manner. But most survive through denial, by avoiding situations that would challenge any ideas of civility and notions of virtue, by putting our faith in systems that rely on bureaucracy and precedence, which are lumbering and slow to act and even slower to resolve.

We exist in a flawed relationship with ourselves and that needs to be taken into account when considering virtues, ideals, ethics and morality. And maybe the endless struggle is to fight with those cruel parts of our nature, perhaps never knowing any peace from it.
 

???

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
107
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
954
Not sure what Lark self-types as, but as a prolific poster I've seen enough of his posts and how he clashes in thinking with other posters to get an impression. In a nutshell, I think he often holds traditionalist views. Seeing virtue in the good versus evil or in being creative over destructive, and with a reverence for religion as a positive and necessary force in people's lives. And reverence in general for what he believes is life-affirming or positive. I think this is at odds with the more neutral, not taking-sides, synthesizing of opposites, and kind of removed, pattern-seeking or prophetizing stance that Ni types are known for. Lark seems to value Si subjectivity and devalues Ni subjectivity from what I've read.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
I think you're right about the future of typology, but my position is that this would be a result of accepting more and more nebulous and unscientific ideas into the realm of the soft sciences, which has been an ongoing trend for a while now. Though empiricism has its limitations and flaws, it is still probably the best method for helping to develop out and determine ideas, even for less hard science areas. My issue with type is that all the data seems to rely upon a set of assumptions, such as people of a certain job testing as certain types more frequently, but the problem is that descriptions of those types and their cognitive functions are conveniently set up to match the kinds of mentalities that one would have to adopt in order to perform certain tasks and jobs. And people can be more adaptable than we give credit for, not to mention a lack of self-awareness leading to incorrect assumptions about your own nature.

This leads into expanding on what you asked about. So what I mean is (probably disappointingly) simple. The abstract ideals a person might hold, like not harming others, not being underhanded, lying or manipulative, treating others with dignity, respect, fairness and equality, not letting your worst emotions and excesses get the better of you etc.... and then the higher ideals for the benefit of human beings in general, which tend to arise out of those personal virtues, well I've come to understand through exposure that they often don't always hold up in the face of the actual world in which we have to live.

This is not to say one should abandon virtue or higher ideals, but that they are very easy to corrupt and the most rigid ones do not survive contact with certain situations. For example, sometimes you find yourself moved to a violence you might abhor due to the circumstances you find yourself in.

And in general I find people are more given to abandoning those ideals than holding onto them and it seems very easy, on average, to discard them when necessary. Picture the nightmare scenario of having to save either yourself or someone else, now imagine that this came about because of a sudden and terrifying event, whether man-made or natural, it doesn't matter. If you've ever seen people trying to get away from something and trampling each other to do so, it's hard to imagine turning back the tide with good words and intentions.

I'm not saying that we are inherently evil or good, just that we are extremely flawed and a lot of the ideals people hold are untested against that flawed nature and would have to either adapt or break under certain circumstances. Another problem is that intelligence is not always a barrier against cruel acts, character matters as much, if not more.

From a neurological point of view our frontal lobes play an important part in determining, and actually inhibiting, the other more primitive areas of the brain which give rise to these cruel and often desperate acts, from areas like the amygdala that, under duress, can suddenly consume the more reasonable functioning areas of the brain with fight or flight responses. Hence why it's called an amygdala hijack.

And we have the power of denial, which is incredibly strong in human beings and I think that allows us to build civilisations while having large swathes of the population who can barely function in a civil manner. But most survive through denial, by avoiding situations that would challenge any ideas of civility and notions of virtue, by putting our faith in systems that rely on bureaucracy and precedence, which are lumbering and slow to act and even slower to resolve.

We exist in a flawed relationship with ourselves and that needs to be taken into account when considering virtues, ideals, ethics and morality. And maybe the endless struggle is to fight with those cruel parts of our nature, perhaps never knowing any peace from it.

What I gather from your post is that being good is immensely difficult, which it is. In Christian teaching, it is regarded that only one man was able to be good at all times, and that man was Jesus. All others have given into sin at various points.

Jesus asked why he was called "good", stating that there is one alone who is good (God), though in another place spoke of the good drawing on their store of goodness, and the bad drawing on their store of badness. I suspect that there two different words being used both translated as "good", but it might be that they were the same word, and it is the context which distinguishes them.

I conclude from these passages that we as people cannot be perfect, but there are still those of us who are good, and those who are bad. But in Ezekiel it is written that a good man can turn from his goodness and start doing evil, and thus lose his life, and a wicked man can turn from his wickedness and start doing good, and thus save his life. So even in the Old Testament we see the story of redemption - of turning from sin to goodness.

The important point to note, I think, is that although it is difficult, being good, being virtuous, is simply the best thing to do. Always. It may be that people have a tendency to act otherwise, but this is in error. So though we may do bad, it would be better were we to do good.


--

In regards to the future of typology, it is my opinion that the 8 cognitive function model will be accepted on grounds that are as well established as the vast body of teaching in psychology. I have at this point more reason to see the 16 type model as valid, than I do the 10 personality disorder model, for instance, and if the clumsy DSM has been able to flourish, the 16 type model should have greater grounds for doing so.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
What I gather from your post is that being good is immensely difficult, which it is. In Christian teaching, it is regarded that only one man was able to be good at all times, and that man was Jesus. All others have given into sin at various points.

Jesus asked why he was called "good", stating that there is one alone who is good (God), though in another place spoke of the good drawing on their store of goodness, and the bad drawing on their store of badness. I suspect that there two different words being used both translated as "good", but it might be that they were the same word, and it is the context which distinguishes them.

I conclude from these passages that we as people cannot be perfect, but there are still those of us who are good, and those who are bad. But in Ezekiel it is written that a good man can turn from his goodness and start doing evil, and thus lose his life, and a wicked man can turn from his wickedness and start doing good, and thus save his life. So even in the Old Testament we see the story of redemption - of turning from sin to goodness.

The important point to note, I think, is that although it is difficult, being good, being virtuous, is simply the best thing to do. Always. It may be that people have a tendency to act otherwise, but this is in error. So though we may do bad, it would be better were we to do good.


--

In regards to the future of typology, it is my opinion that the 8 cognitive function model will be accepted on grounds that are as well established as the vast body of teaching in psychology. I have at this point more reason to see the 16 type model as valid, than I do the 10 personality disorder model, for instance, and if the clumsy DSM has been able to flourish, the 16 type model should have greater grounds for doing so.

Well, obviously I don't share your faith. I was raised Protestant, Anglican, but even from a very early age I had little interest in the religion of our church and was always more fascinated with its workings, the organ, the structure of the building, the placement of certain objects, the meaning of symbolism and the architecture.

In other words I had a yearning to comprehend and in doing so I had to open a lot of metaphorically dangerous doors which meant I couldn't rely upon the comforts of faith. Sadly I also learned with time that empiricism is inherently wrapped up with the senses and can be as easily fooled as they are.

I'm not sure what should or shouldn't be forgiven, I've not been directly faced with the unforgivable crime, have you?
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
Well, obviously I don't share your faith. I was raised Protestant, Anglican, but even from a very early age I had little interest in the religion of our church and was always more fascinated with its workings, the organ, the structure of the building, the placement of certain objects, the meaning of symbolism and the architecture.

In other words I had a yearning to comprehend and in doing so I had to open a lot of metaphorically dangerous doors which meant I couldn't rely upon the comforts of faith. Sadly I also learned with time that empiricism is inherently wrapped up with the senses and can be as easily fooled as they are.

I'm not sure what should or shouldn't be forgiven, I've not been directly faced with the unforgivable crime, have you?

I'm not sure what you mean by the last line; are you referring to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?


It's not necessary to "share the faith" in order to consider the possibility that various aspects of Biblical teachings may have merit. "Share the faith" sounds like an all or nothing thing, where anything Biblical is either accepted or rejected, but perhaps you could see it as a collection of wise teachings and prophecies (relating both to past and future) and see what is said in it. After all, 10 years ago I was not "of the faith", but now the Bible is the main book I read.

--

I feel the need to make a mention of off-topic posts: is it a productive requirement that posts be on topic? Should it not be, rather, that wisdom is to be shared when the opportunity arises?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I'm not sure what you mean by the last line; are you referring to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?


It's not necessary to "share the faith" in order to consider the possibility that various aspects of Biblical teachings may have merit. "Share the faith" sounds like an all or nothing thing, where anything Biblical is either accepted or rejected, but perhaps you could see it as a collection of wise teachings and prophecies (relating both to past and future) and see what is said in it. After all, 10 years ago I was not "of the faith", but now the Bible is the main book I read.

I'm not talking about blasphemy, I'm talking about the viscerality of human activity, that's easy to intellectualise, but difficult to experience. As for what I said about faith, that was more the observation of what is required for appreciating religious messages, whether intended in a black and white matter or not.

Though you are right, you can take a good virtue or message from any source and there is a strong underpinning, particularly in the West, of morality that owes its proliferation to the Bible, if not necessarily it's origins.

I guess this is a bit off-topic. Ok, I'm mistyped as nobody when I ought to be somebody.
 

Luminous

༻✧✧༺
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
10,235
MBTI Type
Iᑎᖴᑭ
Enneagram
952
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Someone is mistyped as a "new" member.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Well, maybe I am quite a crazy guy, I had come from sciences related to math area, and althought a lot of people which I studied with would get sick with [MENTION=15392]Cellmold[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] discussion, I quite enjoy this philosophical discussion, this is the second topic which it happens and I am a happy reader on these off-topics. I quite appreciatte the tolerance for MODs for this.

I think you're right about the future of typology, but my position is that this would be a result of accepting more and more nebulous and unscientific ideas into the realm of the soft sciences, which has been an ongoing trend for a while now. Though empiricism has its limitations and flaws, it is still probably the best method for helping to develop out and determine ideas, even for less hard science areas. My issue with type is that all the data seems to rely upon a set of assumptions, such as people of a certain job testing as certain types more frequently, but the problem is that descriptions of those types and their cognitive functions are conveniently set up to match the kinds of mentalities that one would have to adopt in order to perform certain tasks and jobs. And people can be more adaptable than we give credit for, not to mention a lack of self-awareness leading to incorrect assumptions about your own nature.

This leads into expanding on what you asked about. So what I mean is (probably disappointingly) simple. The abstract ideals a person might hold, like not harming others, not being underhanded, lying or manipulative, treating others with dignity, respect, fairness and equality, not letting your worst emotions and excesses get the better of you etc.... and then the higher ideals for the benefit of human beings in general, which tend to arise out of those personal virtues, well I've come to understand through exposure that they often don't always hold up in the face of the actual world in which we have to live.

This is not to say one should abandon virtue or higher ideals, but that they are very easy to corrupt and the most rigid ones do not survive contact with certain situations. For example, sometimes you find yourself moved to a violence you might abhor due to the circumstances you find yourself in.

And in general I find people are more given to abandoning those ideals than holding onto them and it seems very easy, on average, to discard them when necessary. Picture the nightmare scenario of having to save either yourself or someone else, now imagine that this came about because of a sudden and terrifying event, whether man-made or natural, it doesn't matter. If you've ever seen people trying to get away from something and trampling each other to do so, it's hard to imagine turning back the tide with good words and intentions.

I'm not saying that we are inherently evil or good, just that we are extremely flawed and a lot of the ideals people hold are untested against that flawed nature and would have to either adapt or break under certain circumstances. Another problem is that intelligence is not always a barrier against cruel acts, character matters as much, if not more.

From a neurological point of view our frontal lobes play an important part in determining, and actually inhibiting, the other more primitive areas of the brain which give rise to these cruel and often desperate acts, from areas like the amygdala that, under duress, can suddenly consume the more reasonable functioning areas of the brain with fight or flight responses. Hence why it's called an amygdala hijack.

And we have the power of denial, which is incredibly strong in human beings and I think that allows us to build civilisations while having large swathes of the population who can barely function in a civil manner. But most survive through denial, by avoiding situations that would challenge any ideas of civility and notions of virtue, by putting our faith in systems that rely on bureaucracy and precedence, which are lumbering and slow to act and even slower to resolve.

We exist in a flawed relationship with ourselves and that needs to be taken into account when considering virtues, ideals, ethics and morality. And maybe the endless struggle is to fight with those cruel parts of our nature, perhaps never knowing any peace from it.

I know Im going to be a little bit shallow here, but I think that you always expect people who try to be good, virtuous and idealists are trying to be perfect people, like there is a chained link between being perfect and being good, virtuous, idealistic, which is not actually realistic (ok, maybe the entire discussion isnt much realistic at all but I think you get the point). Being good or virtuous or idealistic is not really about being perfect, so, even in the Jesus example you were most talking about perfection than being good.

In this good/evil discussion, there is always an expectancy of good to be perfect and evil to be flawed, but the flawed and perfection, in most terms, arent related to this. Someone that does quite a perfect work can be evil, and someone who does a poor work, has his own struggles, difficulties, can be a good person either. It is realistic to expect a good, virtuous person or whatver, has his own flaws, her own weakness, and etc..
 
Top