[ENFP] enfps are evil

[Jaguar]

That's bull and you know it. Some shit is just evil. Example:

Let's say some dude breaks into your house, fucks your 4yr old kid, and then breaks her neck afterward. He then blithely saunters off for a delicious fourth meal at Taco Bell and sleeps soundly afterwards.

Would you call this person evil or just misunderstood?

Neither. I'd call him a psychopath since, clinically, I think he'd fit the definition without a problem. There are people who don't buy into "good" or "evil" black and white thinking. Furthermore, I frequently find those who employ that word in a serious manner (I use "evil" and "wicked" jokingly) see themselves as judge and jury to everything and everyone in their life. The mind is so closed you'd need a crowbar to crack it open. As for your other comment, just because you label things and people as "evil" doesn't mean anyone who does not engage in the same behavior as you automatically makes their opinion "bull."

Some paint others as "evil" far too easily without realizing they, too, could easily be painted "evil" by another.

 

[Mane]

Attempts at revolution can end up resulting overwhelmingly positively, -ending of slavery, or can result overwhelmingly negatively, -the Holocaust. I suppose that is why sometimes it is necessary to have both traditionalists to remind of what was, and activists?, to see what the future could lay ahead. Weigh ending good gained against ending good sacrificed and then decide. Though the sacrifice of the individual for the good of the whole is a... Tricky thing in and of itself.

Those are very interesting examples you've stumbled on and are under utilizing here, because they provide the perfect counter argument: While we consider them negative (Most of us today), we are considering them negative on the basis of individual harm, while all the arguments in favor of them were ones rationalizing those actions on the basis of the greater good. Theoretical self-organizing principles in the case of the holocaust and traditional self-organizing principles in the case of slavery - the later of which extends to every successful society throughout human history in one form or another... And yet, we still condemn both as evil shameful aspects of our history.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] - Doesn't that indicate a valuable role in basic primitive instinctive empathy that overcomes the social evolution traditions behind morality? While at face value that might seem subjective and idealistic "personal wisdom", the reality is that humans are not that diverse, the chance that what is harmful for one of us is harmful to another is pretty high.


One simple way I find helpful in dealing with the problem of how morals can have objective values but relativistic in the same, is to manuver the focus to the relationship between people. Simply remembering to add "for who?" and asking other people to do the same when they make a statement of good or bad... "Good/bad for who?"

I just had fish, I have contributed my part to financing the machine that's murders billions of them every year and is bringing quite a few of their species closer to extinction. Saying whether I am a good or bad isn't particularly meaningful in itself, but saying that I am bad for fish is absolutely true.


Or:

Does ignorance make you evil? Does putting on your blinders so that you do not see the long reaching effects of your actions, or the actions your are contributing to, make you bad?

Ignorance in itself can never be truly helped, but to actively choose ignorance... Yes, specifically, it makes you bad to anyone who might be effected by your actions. Not inherently bad or evil on some absolute moral plane intrinsic to who you are, simply bad to other people you can effect.


I can't really argue with the notion that people use good and evil in a simplistic sense either... I desperately want too, because identifying with that position has the sentiment of "Give the plebs what they need", but... A couple of years ago I argued with someone who declared that the harm principle - that "No one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others" has become one of the basic principles of libertarian politics" - as an example of something which is self evident and axiomatic, a claim that IMO spits right in John Stuart Mill's work who has done an excellent job demonstrating how this is a direct logical extension from when utilitarian and existential principles... That whole thing made me a little bit sad. So yes, maybe some people do need those kind of simplifications, but I am not yet willing to generalize and say that's most people.

 

[uumlau]

uumlau - Doesn't that indicate a valuable role in basic primitive instinctive empathy that overcomes the social evolution traditions behind morality? While at face value that might seem subjective and idealistic "personal wisdom", the reality is that humans are not that diverse, the chance that what is harmful for one of us is harmful to another is pretty high.

Yes, I believe there is a biological component to morality, in that humans evolved around being social animals, to a much greater degree than other primates. CS Lewis used that notion of a common personal morality to argue for his beliefs in Mere Christianity. I don't believe that argument proves that God exists or anything like that, but it is a very good argument, on the whole, that there is a shared value system of right and wrong, and while we might disagree about whether a particular thing is right or wrong, we do in principle generally agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

 

[Mane]

I thought we are disagreeing

Weren't you arguing in favor of a social Darwinism rationalization of ethics?

 

[violet_crown]

Neither. I'd call him a psychopath since, clinically, I think he'd fit the definition without a problem. There are people who don't buy into "good" or "evil" black and white thinking. Furthermore, I frequently find those who employ that word in a serious manner (I use "evil" and "wicked" jokingly) see themselves as judge and jury to everything and everyone in their life. The mind is so closed you'd need a crowbar to crack it open. As for your other comment, just because you label things and people as "evil" doesn't mean anyone who does not engage in the same behavior as you automatically makes their opinion "bull."

Some paint others as "evil" far too easily without realizing they, too, could easily be painted "evil" by another.

I elaborate on that inital comment in subsequent post.

 

[FemMecha]

...how can we be both so innocent and so destructive?

I haven't observed ENFPs being particularly evil, but the concept of innocent yet destructive is something I've encountered in people. It is so painful for everyone. To some extent there is a weird way that I think there is an element of innocence in evil. I never would have believed it when younger, but once you start exercising empathy with the people who hurt you, then you realize there is an innocence much like when people with personality disorders like narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy are thought to have their psychological development arrested at around age two. It can really be the case that there are these moments of toddler like innocence combined with rage. It is like taking the two-year-old tantrum combined with abstract reasoning, long-term planning, and execution. I have no idea how to process something like that and don't know if I've ever done it myself or not. People are generally really wretched, hurt, lost, angry, harmful, and yet strangely innocent too.

 

[Frosty]

I haven't observed ENFPs being particularly evil, but the concept of innocent yet destructive is something I've encountered in people. It is so painful for everyone. To some extent there is a weird way that I think there is an element of innocence in evil. I never would have believed it when younger, but once you start exercising empathy with the people who hurt you, then you realize there is an innocence much like when people with personality disorders like narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy are thought to have their psychological development arrested at around age two. It can really be the case that there are these moments of toddler like innocence combined with rage. It is like taking the two-year-old tantrum combined with abstract reasoning, long-term planning, and execution. I have no idea how to process something like that and don't know if I've ever done it myself or not. People are generally really wretched, hurt, lost, angry, harmful, and yet strangely innocent too.

Hm, I don't know if it is necessarily empathy, or more of a thought process for me that makes me question whether I can objectively condemn someone because I cannot completely understand their complexity of what makes them individual. This might sound like an overly innocent standpoint, arguably based on what I think as opposed to what is actual, but I would say theoretically the concepts of good and evil do not exist, but the judgements placed upon those concepts do.

In regard to ENFPs though, I would say that the general 'common cause' of what is understood as evil, could be need of novelty overshadowing 'intense feelings', though that explanation is pretty unsatisfactory.

 

[Cygnus]

In regard to ENFPs though, I would say that the general 'common cause' of what is understood as evil, could be need of novelty overshadowing 'intense feelings', though that explanation is pretty unsatisfactory.

I think you might be on to something.



Information Elements are just attitudes, on an equal plane with one another, taken up in cognitive processes, and are not cognitive processes themselves, correct? So it doesn't mean that everything Fi does is always "ethical" -- it just makes Introverted Judgments in the same style.

White (Introverted) Ethics
shorthand designation:

This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.

Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absense of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals.

When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

^ What does any of the bolded have to do with "ethics?" It sounds like what this is really describing is an ability to evaluate your own subjective desires and needs, which, with practice, might eventually allow one to extrapolate the desires of others. "Sense of attraction and repulsion between objects or carriers?" That sounds like a sense of appeal more than anything.


Fi may result in "ethics," but so could Ti, if used properly.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I haven't observed ENFPs being particularly evil, but the concept of innocent yet destructive is something I've encountered in people. It is so painful for everyone. To some extent there is a weird way that I think there is an element of innocence in evil. I never would have believed it when younger, but once you start exercising empathy with the people who hurt you, then you realize there is an innocence much like when people with personality disorders like narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy are thought to have their psychological development arrested at around age two. It can really be the case that there are these moments of toddler like innocence combined with rage. It is like taking the two-year-old tantrum combined with abstract reasoning, long-term planning, and execution. I have no idea how to process something like that and don't know if I've ever done it myself or not. People are generally really wretched, hurt, lost, angry, harmful, and yet strangely innocent too.

I still have to respond to other posts in this thread, but I wanted to back this point up.

Intensive analysis of my own life experiences, the major sociopolitical currents of our time, and the sweep of history have all convinced me that there is an element of ignorance, often a willful ignorance, behind acts that I consider to be morally wrong.

 

[uumlau]

I haven't observed ENFPs being particularly evil, but the concept of innocent yet destructive is something I've encountered in people. It is so painful for everyone. To some extent there is a weird way that I think there is an element of innocence in evil. I never would have believed it when younger, but once you start exercising empathy with the people who hurt you, then you realize there is an innocence much like when people with personality disorders like narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy are thought to have their psychological development arrested at around age two. It can really be the case that there are these moments of toddler like innocence combined with rage. It is like taking the two-year-old tantrum combined with abstract reasoning, long-term planning, and execution. I have no idea how to process something like that and don't know if I've ever done it myself or not. People are generally really wretched, hurt, lost, angry, harmful, and yet strangely innocent too.

I still have to respond to other posts in this thread, but I wanted to back this point up.

Intensive analysis of my own life experiences, the major sociopolitical currents of our time, and the sweep of history have all convinced me that there is an element of ignorance, often a willful ignorance, behind acts that I consider to be morally wrong.

Yes. Every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians. We call them "children."

A lot of those disorders in the DSM, especially things like narcissism, are perfectly normal in children. The problem is not growing out of such attitudes as an adult. ENFPs are naturally kind of childlike in their approach to the world. On the one hand, the world is blessed that such people bring the heart of a child into adulthood, the problem is when they retain the moral discernment of a child. That said, a responsible ENFP is marvelous to behold. (Yes, they do exist. The OP is one of them.)

 

[Frosty]

Mistakes seem to be a pretty big driving force behind human experience. There are those who seem to be able to learn from them and eventually in the future hopefully implement something that ends up generally valuing the simple long term good over immediate rewards. Of course, as I said before, it is most likely impossible to see every long term implication and relate it to the now, the more experience you have the more you are able to discern what would be considered the worst things to do.

Though I would not consider myself an expert on typology in any way, forewarning, I would say that as people continue to develop they would try to rely less completely on their dominant functions to shape their entire perspective, but would instead use their dom to push and strengthen their lesser functions to gain perspective. So while a younger ENFP might rely nearly completely on their Ne having Fi be more of a backthought, as they mature, unless something they view as traumatic causes them to digress, Fi would begin to show more and more influence.

 

[Poki]

Mistakes seem to be a pretty big driving force behind human experience. There are those who seem to be able to learn from them and eventually in the future hopefully implement something that ends up generally valuing the simple long term good over immediate rewards. Of course, as I said before, it is most likely impossible to see every long term implication and relate it to the now, the more experience you have the more you are able to discern what would be considered the worst things to do.

Though I would not consider myself an expert on typology in any way, forewarning, I would say that as people continue to develop they would try to rely less completely on their dominant functions to shape their entire perspective, but would instead use their dom to push and strengthen their lesser functions to gain perspective. So while a younger ENFP might rely nearly completely on their Ne having Fi be more of a backthought, as they mature, unless something they view as traumatic causes them to digress, Fi would begin to show more and more influence.

I have read that the key to growth is our secondary because its in opposition to our normal mode in regard to E vs I. I believe this to be true, but I also believe that it needs to be more in the direction of the weaker function so we can grow it. So for me its to be more ESTP like and less introverted. Instead of supporting who I am growing inwards, I need to grow outwards and fill the void in my life that has been created due to my introverted side. So for me I am working on my social side and using Se to put myself out there in a way to help bring Fe more up to par.

 

[Frosty]

I have read that the key to growth is our secondary because its in opposition to our normal mode in regard to E vs I. I believe this to be true, but I also believe that it needs to be more in the direction of the weaker function so we can grow it. So for me its to be more ESTP like and less introverted. Instead of supporting who I am growing inwards, I need to grow outwards and fill the void in my life that has been created due to my introverted side. So for me I am working on my social side and using Se to put myself out there in a way to help bring Fe more up to par.

Hm, so maybe it is sole reliance on a dominant function that could make someone appear 'evil'. Willful ignorance and an inability to judge your actions through the eyes of something else could lead an inability to attempt to understand other perspectives, see what others view as an absolute wrong, and learn how to tie together both the inner you and the outer you. I guess this could be true for any dominant function soley supported by itself, if introverted leading to inner chaotic 'evil', if extroverted leading outwards. Ugh

 

[Poki]

Hm, so maybe it is sole reliance on a dominant function that could make someone appear 'evil'. Willful ignorance and an inability to judge your actions through the eyes of something else could lead an inability to attempt to understand other perspectives, see what others view as an absolute wrong, and learn how to tie together both the inner you and the outer you. I guess this could be true for any dominant function soley supported by itself, if introverted leading to inner chaotic 'evil', if extroverted leading outwards. Ugh

I don't think we can completely get away from our Dom, but it would be nice to have a more developed side that is in opposition to our inner side. Kinda going about this 2 ways, first is being able to easily identify with people I get along with the best. To me best are people who are not a drain or a struggle. To me these are bad struggles that knock you down. For example if I try to find people I actually enjoy it gives me a much easier chance to bring out my extroverted side. Kinda like taking baby steps IMO and not get knocked over by the flood of people who would just knock you over. I enjoy people who are different and who are like me, so its just more or less people who I see as types that knock people down...evil side of ENFPs can knock people down, but when dealing with ENFPs I generally don't face their evil side, even the ones who would be considered "evil". Evil is based on perception, not a particular action. Its also learning who people are and understanding each persons evil(what they do to try and be evil) and whats not evil to that person. Yes ENFPs are hard because they will flip back and forth and play stupid and such to hide their evil side.

 

[Redbone]

But couldn't their wanting to do something be caused by what someone wanted to to do to them? If they were pushed in the wrong direction as a kid, and the hole was dug deeper and deeper until you could only see down and not up, it might be easier for you to do 'evil' things.

That isn't to justify anything, because I am pretty sure my cousin in law is a sociopath and a dangerous one at that, but there are even things to him that are... Tolerable. But even though the past should not be used as a measure of which to absolve the need for punitive action, it can be used to understand reasons and motivations for behaviors.

Horrible actions can be caused by a horrible childhood, or they could just be the result of a heavily disturbed individual, but fighting fire with fire just causes more fire, blaming the fire doesn't help, but understanding from where the fire originated and what it involves can help to put it out.

Wanting to? Oh yes...most definitely! Taking the desire and turning it into an action? That is a choice. Always. No one makes another do anything.

 

[Frosty]

Wanting to? Oh yes...most definitely! Taking the desire and turning it into an action? That is a choice. Always. No one makes another do anything.

But couldn't the choices that are forced upon you, influence future behavior. If you were poisoned by the bad in the world, how can you recognize or do what is 'good'?

 

[Redbone]

But couldn't the choices that are forced upon you, influence future behavior. If you were poisoned by the bad in the world, how can you recognize or do what is 'good'?

Not necessarily. I think we can recognize that how we are treated, what is being forced on us, isn't good, isn't healthy. That it's wrong. It's there...it just 'rings' wrong...like a bad note, you know?

I know for myself, what I received when I was growing up, I knew it was wrong to pay that out, pay it forward to my own children. It was wrong even if it was a pattern of what was 'normal'. Normal equaled wrong. So I made a choice not to be that kind of parent to my children. I won't go into details explaining how difficult it was to break that pattern because of the damage done. My feelings often wanted to lead me away from doing the right thing...still do. But I have to make choices and I do so based on right and wrong, not based on my feelings that arise from the damage that was done to me.

Or maybe that is just my Fi talking.

 

[Frosty]

Not necessarily. I think we can recognize that how we are treated, what is being forced on us, isn't good, isn't healthy. That it's wrong. It's there...it just 'rings' wrong...like a bad note, you know?

I know for myself, what I received when I was growing up, I knew it was wrong to pay that out, pay it forward to my own children. It was wrong even if it was a pattern of what was 'normal'. Normal equaled wrong. So I made a choice not to be that kind of parent to my children. I won't go into details explaining how difficult it was to break that pattern because of the damage done. My feelings often wanted to lead me away from doing the right thing...still do. But I have to make choices and I do so based on right and wrong, not based on my feelings that arise from the damage that was done to me.

Or maybe that is just my Fi talking.

Not necessarily feelings of what was done to you, but more of not being able to have the chance to develop those feelings at all. If you were born in a vacuum with no outside influences, would you be able to instinctively know 'right' from 'wrong'?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I knew that it wouldn't be long before some diligent Ti user got uncomfortable with such wanton use of a concept without explicit definitions.

Glad to nitpick!

I've always been taken by the idea that if one were to translate "sin" directly from Hebrew, it means to "to err" or "to fall short of the mark". I think that it's a useful idea because, as you pointed out, words like "evil" are so loaded that it denies the possibility that even when someone does fuck up, those actions are still completely in dialogue with this greater, more loving notion of how folks can relate to each other. "Sinning" is inevitable because everyone you meet is just another fucked up, exhausted individual trying to make it through the day.

That's an interesting perspective. A "sin" as an instance of falling short of the mark makes sense to me. And nobody is going to hit that mark all the time, or maybe not even most of the time.

Why should we bother to hit that mark, then? I think we should try to do it for our own sake. Ultimately, it can help us feel better.

A good person is someone who, on average, attempts to do the best they can with the circumstances they are dealt with. This is my current thinking on the matter, at any rate.

Having said that, I don't deny the reality of evil. If you accept the idea that the most loving actions are the ones that deliberately enhance the connections we share, then there have to be those that are actively destructive towards them as well. Realistically, most actions probably fall somewhere in-between. But I think it's fair to say that things which are serve no other purpose than to undermine the dignity of life, or harm our ability to relate to each other, are probably evil.

I think if we use the emotional states of people (including our own) as an end goal, and treat emotional states people prefer as desirable (vs. ones they despise), we can judge actions as good or bad based on which emotional states they create. Does an action enhance consciousness, or impede it? And of course, the complete negation of any cognition or any emotion (death) is the worst thing of all.

 

[Poki]

Not necessarily. I think we can recognize that how we are treated, what is being forced on us, isn't good, isn't healthy. That it's wrong. It's there...it just 'rings' wrong...like a bad note, you know?

I know for myself, what I received when I was growing up, I knew it was wrong to pay that out, pay it forward to my own children. It was wrong even if it was a pattern of what was 'normal'. Normal equaled wrong. So I made a choice not to be that kind of parent to my children. I won't go into details explaining how difficult it was to break that pattern because of the damage done. My feelings often wanted to lead me away from doing the right thing...still do. But I have to make choices and I do so based on right and wrong, not based on my feelings that arise from the damage that was done to me.

Or maybe that is just my Fi talking.

Or if someone took reality and twisted it so badly that your reality was skewed and you were fighting against good people. They pushed so many buttons and blamed it on a certain group that you went to fight tooth and nail against that group. Twisted to a point where nothing they said was taken in and evaluated. Steered to where up was now down and down was now up.