[ENFP] enfps are evil

[uumlau]

Let's keep things civil, please. Thanks.

 

[evilrubberduckie]

 

[andresimon]

Let's keep things civil, please. Thanks.

This thread to begin with isn't civil. And how do you define "civil" anyway. I probably don't subscribe to your view. As far as what you were saying about "developed" vs "developing." You should write Websters and ask them to remove a bunch of words from the English language, because considering almost everything in the world is in constant flux, using any word that implies "an end" would go against the underlying structure of how things work.

A thread was created asking if ENFP's are evil...lol And you are now asking for things to be civil?

 

[magpie]

Got it so based on your thinking intentions don't impact outcomes. Or do they, just completely randomly? Intentions and outcomes show a 50/50 correlation, not measurable bias or impact?

lol...Your link/example of Through Line is an interesting one since you are making my point and thinking you are making your own point.

Er, I do think intentions impact outcomes. But I don't think having positive intent will necessarily make a positive outcome more likely. Which I think is pretty easy to understand, actually, even if you don't agree.

Why do you think that about the link? Is it because the a through line is used to help understand objective? That is an example of action being used to parse out objective, not the other way around. I think if you actually applied the excercise to something you might find that positive actions don't necessarily mean positive objective. But if we both agree then I'm glad.

 

[andresimon]

Er, I do think intentions impact outcomes. But I don't think having positive intent will necessarily make a positive outcome more likely. Which I think is pretty easy to understand, actually, even if you don't agree.

Why do you think that about the link? Is it because the a through line is used to help understand objective? That is an example of action being used to parse out objective, not the other way around. I think if you actually applied the excercise to something you might find that positive actions don't necessarily mean positive objective. But if we both agree then I'm glad.

Huh? So you are saying positive intentions or negative intentions do have an impact but that the impacts are random... For example...If my purpose and goal is to hurt you, I'm no more likely to succeed in doing so then say if my goal was to help you, I could just as easily hurt you as the 1st scenario, where I REALLY want to hurt you super duper badly, right? M Y GOAL, MY INTENT, MY PURPOSE, is to HURT YOU and that does NOT make it any more likely that I would do so then say if MY GOAL, MY INTENT, MY PURPOSE was to HELP YOU, right?

As far as your link...I'm saying it again. You are not proving your point about actions with it, you are proving my point about intentions. Through-line could easily be replaced by the word "intent." It is the underlying force that drives actions and not the other way around. It guides the entire "narrative" and overtime it becomes very apparent. Sometimes this "through-line" or "intent" could actually be revealed to be false and the "true through-line" or "intent" is revealed. In either case I have no clue how you think using "through-line" as an example prove your point.

You can however say that actions do speak louder than words. That would work. Your statements unfortunately...do not. Intentions have a MASSIVE impact on outcomes and actions. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

 

[ceecee]

And then I realized that one of my close friends was a raging ENFP, and that part of him was exactly what I despised. One time, he panicked and melted down repeatedly over the possibility of "the sun blowing up". I told him he wouldn't have to worry about it, because it wouldn't happen for "billions and billions of--" and then he started SCREAMING, POUNDING on the walls, and then ran out of the room crying; he was at least 13, if not older, when this happened.

Oh. Yeaaaah. I've seen this.

All of these combined factors can make ENFPs look Borderline; a lot of people think Borderline people are "evil", since they defined by their emotional instability and self-serving behaviors.

I agree. My two ENFP friends "can" look borderline. Of course I've told them - you act fucking mental, people will think you are mental. Even at their worst, I never thought they were evil but to the uninitiated - yes I can understand why they would think it.

My experience says 'yes, they look sweet at first, but when true hardship arises, they eventually show their true colors'.

Yes, unfortunately. Every time.

 

[Ribonuke]

Huh? So you are saying positive intentions or negative intentions do have an impact but that the impacts are random... For example...If my purpose and goal is to hurt you, I'm no more likely to succeed in doing so then say if my goal was to help you, I could just as easily hurt you as the 1st scenario, where I REALLY want to hurt you, super duper badly, right?

As far as your link...I'm saying it again. You are not proving your point about actions with it, you are proving my point about intentions. Through-line could easily be replaced by the world "intentions." It is the underlying force that drives actions and not the other way around. It guides the entire "narrative" and is the underlying force that becomes very apparent overtime. Sometimes this "through-line" or "intent" could actually be revealed to be false and the "true through-line" or intent is revealed. In either case I have no clue how you think using "through-line" as an example you would provide your point.

You can however say that actions do speak louder than words. That would work. Your statements unfortunately...do not.

One can desire/intend to something all they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will succeed in following through, in spite of their intentions; they can still fail. For instance, one can intend to be polite all the want, but still only succeed in offending someone. One can feel they are operating on the best of intentions, yet still be extremely destructive.

My reason for agreeing with the Thread title's statement; in my experience, ENFPs can be prone to failing to realize when they're committing atrocious acts, the reason being that they don't want to be evil. I personally find this more dangerous than the ones who fathom what they're doing.

 

[magpie]

Huh? So you are saying positive intentions or negative intentions do have an impact but that the impacts are random... For example...If my purpose and goal is to hurt you, I'm no more likely to succeed in doing so then say if my goal was to help you, I could just as easily hurt you as the 1st scenario, where I REALLY want to hurt you super duper badly, right? M Y GOAL, MY INTENT, MY PURPOSE, is to HURT YOU and that does NOT make it any more likely that I would do so then say if MY GOAL, MY INTENT, MY PURPOSE was to HELP YOU, right?

Yes, I actually agree with (most) of this. But then, I have been hurt far more by peoples' intentions to help then I have been at any other time. So maybe this is based off past experience. If it's an experience you haven't had, then I guess it makes sense that you wouldn't understand.

As far as your link...I'm saying it again. You are not proving your point about actions with it, you are proving my point about intentions. Through-line could easily be replaced by the word "intent." It is the underlying force that drives actions and not the other way around. It guides the entire "narrative" and overtime it becomes very apparent. Sometimes this "through-line" or "intent" could actually be revealed to be false and the "true through-line" or "intent" is revealed. In either case I have no clue how you think using "through-line" as an example prove your point.

You can however say that actions do speak louder than words. That would work. Your statements unfortunately...do not. Intentions have a MASSIVE impact on outcomes and actions. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

Through line could not be replaced with the word intent. Intent = objective. Through line is an analysis of a pattern of objectives. Objectives are figured out by analysing a pattern of actions. The through line does drive actions, just as objective or intention drives actions but I think you're being very simplistic. We can acknowledge that an objective influences an action without knowing whether or not harm will come from that action. We can see harmful actions and realize that there was a non-harmful objective. Or vise versa. Again, I don't think it's that complicated and I think we are almost saying the same thing.

 

[andresimon]

Yes, I actually agree with (most) of this. But then, I have been hurt far more by peoples' intentions to help then I have been at any other time. So maybe this is based off past experience. If it's an experience you haven't had, then I guess it makes sense that you wouldn't understand.



Through line could not be replaced with the word intent. Intent = objective. Through line is an analysis of a pattern of objectives. Objectives are figured out by analysing a pattern of actions. The through line does drive actions, just as objective or intention drives actions but I think you're being very simplistic. We can acknowledge that an objective influences an action without knowing whether or not harm will come from that action. We can see harmful actions and realize that there was a non-harmful objective. Or vise versa. Again, I don't think it's that complicated and I think we are almost saying the same thing.

For the first part. You are clueless if you think goals, objectives, and intentions don't shape outcomes. The goal or purpose can at times guarantee the outcome if the outcome was achievable in the first place (if you stick to it), because even if you fail you can adjust course and try again, eventually achieving your desired outcome. Does that hold true in every situation, of course not. You are operating at a very surface level if you think this isn't the case in your experiences. You should take a note from the link you sent me and realize that the true intent often isn't obvious and often isn't what people say it is. By looking at actions you can discover someones true intent.

Regarding the 2nd half. You are missing the point of a through-line. Just like in life, the through-line or maybe call it the "true intent" is hidden and not always obvious. But as things progress the CONSISTENT ACTIONS point towards it. Actions are an excellent source of information but they are not the driving force. Intentions are. The example you are using is a PERFECT example of what I've been saying. The over arching motive of the emperor was to continuously gain more power, this was the overarching purpose of all of his actions, even if in the micro level their were other things happening.

May the force be with you.

 

[andresimon]

One can desire/intend to something all they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will succeed in following through, in spite of their intentions; they can still fail. For instance, one can intend to be polite all the want, but still only succeed in offending someone. One can feel they are operating on the best of intentions, yet still be extremely destructive.

My reason for agreeing with the Thread title's statement; in my experience, ENFPs can be prone to failing to realize when they're committing atrocious acts, the reason being that they don't want to be evil. I personally find this more dangerous than the ones who fathom what they're doing.

Very enlightening. You can have a goal and still fail to achieve it? Breakthrough thought.

I'm sure you have a "reason" for agreeing with the thread. But guess what, your conclusions, and the lessons you have gained through your extensive experiences, are wrong. As far as intentions go. If someone does not WANT to be evil, they are FAR less likely to be evil than someone who DOES want to be evil. Simple as that. So the entire argument is mute. Everyone including those that are well intentioned can commit evil acts, I'm guessing you don't think every other type is evil, and so somehow you guys are trying to make the argument that good intentions have a higher likelihood of generating evil outcomes. Your argument breaks down on so many levels it's laughable. I'd imagine YOUR reasons for believing what you do ARE valid but they don't generalize and at this point, I question your judgement because of the things you have said.

Anyway, this is getting old.

 

[andresimon]

Oh. Yeaaaah. I've seen this.



I agree. My two ENFP friends "can" look borderline. Of course I've told them - you act fucking mental, people will think you are mental. Even at their worst, I never thought they were evil but to the uninitiated - yes I can understand why they would think it.



Yes, unfortunately. Every time.

The point is. That in your experiences they are not evil. At least that's what I think you meant. It's useful to be more clear because this thread is absurd. Isn't that the point though that people see certain behavior and then reason backwards towards "evil." And then people view other types of behavior that are GENUINELY "evil" and reason backwards to rationale. It's a fucking joke. Such a poor characterization. lol...ENFP's are AMAZINGGGGGGG K? THX!

 

[magpie]

For the first part. You are clueless if you think goals, objectives, and intentions don't shape outcomes. The goal or purpose is in fact the only thing that can virtually guarantee an outcome because even if you fail you can adjust course and try again, eventually achieving your desired outcome. Does that hold true in every situation, of course not. You are operating at a very surface level if you think this isn't the case in your experiences. You should take a note from the link you sent me and realize that the true intent often isn't obvious and often isn't what people say it is. By looking at actions you can discover someones true intent.

Regarding the 2nd half. You are missing the point of a through-line. Just like in life, the through-line or maybe call it the "true intent" is hidden and not always obvious. But as things progress the CONSISTENT ACTIONS point towards it. Actions are an excellent source of information but they are not the driving force. Intentions are. The example you are using is a PERFECT example of what I've been saying. The over arching motive of the emperor was to continuously gain more power, this was the overarching purpose of all of his actions, even if in the micro level their were other things happening.

May the force be with you.

I do think goals, objectives and intentions shape outcomes. But at this point we are both just repeating ourselves. But a goal doesn't guarantee an outcome. Failing and adjusting course to try again means you have already failed once. This has implications on other people beside just yourself. You are self focused and not considering other people. If my intention is not to harm someone, and I fail once, then I have harmed them. I may not harm them again, but I already have once. The final outcome for you is different than the final outcome for the person or people receiving an action. The true intent isn't often obvious nor is it often what people say it is. I agree. So... you determine the true intent by looking at actions. Again, I'm not entirely sure what our disagreement is, since that's what I've been saying all along, and you seem to agree.

Intentions are the driving force of actions. But there is no way to determine an intention without looking at an action, which, again, you seem to agree with based off what you've written. Therefore I would say that intention does not always equal action and that it is very possibly to intend something positive and do something negative or intend something negative and do something positive. But the way in which a person does an action can help determine whether they achieved what they intended. And the emperor could have a purpose for his actions (to gain power) and not actually gain power. This is human nature.

 

[miss fortune]

intentions and goals are not needed to be able to accomplish destructive acts... do glaciers and volcanoes have intent behind their actions? How about someone who loses consciousness whole driving and mows into a crowded market and kills and injures a good number of people? They don't have any intentions or goals to do so... it just happens

also, I believe you were being informed that your tone was less than civil [MENTION=24698]andresimon[/MENTION] ... whether the thread is about ENFPs being evil or not, it's still on a private forum

 

[andresimon]

I do think goals, objectives and intentions shape outcomes. But at this point we are both just repeating ourselves. But a goal doesn't guarantee an outcome. Failing and adjusting course to try again means you have already failed once. This has implications on other people beside just yourself. You are self focused and not considering other people. If my intention is not to harm someone, and I fail once, then I have harmed them. I may not harm them again, but I already have once. The final outcome for you is different than the final outcome for the person or people receiving an action. The true intent isn't often obvious nor is it often what people say it is. I agree. So... you determine the true intent by looking at actions. Again, I'm not entirely sure what our disagreement is, since that's what I've been saying all along, and you seem to agree.

Intentions are the driving force of actions. But there is no way to determine an intention without looking at an action, which, again, you seem to agree with based off what you've written. Therefore I would say that intention does not always equal action and that it is very possibly to intend something positive and do something negative or intend something negative and do something positive. But the way in which a person does an action can help determine whether they achieved what they intended. And the emperor could have a purpose for his actions (to gain power) and not actually gain power. This is human nature.

You have already changed what you are saying. Earlier I asked you to clarify. You wrote "Er, I do think intentions impact outcomes. But I don't think having positive intent will necessarily make a positive outcome more likely. Which I think is pretty easy to understand, actually, even if you don't agree."

It's easy to see the flip side of the argument being ABSURD because our cognitive biases won't stop us from seeing it. If I want to hurt you, I'm more likely to hurt you. If I want to help you, I'm more likely to help you. The operative word her is likely. Intentions don't always lead to better outcomes. The operative word in that sentence being always.

Additionally, people have multiple layers of intent. But in any given situation usually a few are the main drivers of behavior/actions. The point is, or my point is, that intentions matter A LOT. You started off saying they do not. Actions matter as well. Which is exactly what I started off saying. To me though, over any sustainable period of time, in any relationship, I would take intentions over outcomes any day of the week. Does that change the fact that something bad might have happened, NO. ... no one is arguing that. Anyway this is absurd why am I even talking about this for this long. You will cherry pick the conversation anyway.

 

[andresimon]

intentions and goals are not needed to be able to accomplish destructive acts... do glaciers and volcanoes have intent behind their actions? How about someone who loses consciousness whole driving and mows into a crowded market and kills and injures a good number of people? They don't have any intentions or goals to do so... it just happens

also, I believe you were being informed that your tone was less than civil [MENTION=24698]andresimon[/MENTION] ... whether the thread is about ENFPs being evil or not, it's still on a private forum

IC. We can call an entire group of people Evil. And not get warned of being civil because we used happy words while doing so. Got it. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with what I said. If you are an admin or if an admin thinks I was not "civil" then by all means do what you think is appropriate.

 

[miss fortune]

IC. We can call an entire group of people Evil. And not get warned of being civil because we used happy words while doing so. Got it. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with what I said. If you are an admin or if an admin thinks I was not "civil" then by all means do what you think is appropriate.

personally, I think that all of humanity is pretty self serving and asshole-ish in general... but at least they are fascinating and capable of some amazingly kind acts as well

and I was responding to your reaction there

 

[andresimon]

intentions and goals are not needed to be able to accomplish destructive acts... do glaciers and volcanoes have intent behind their actions? How about someone who loses consciousness whole driving and mows into a crowded market and kills and injures a good number of people? They don't have any intentions or goals to do so... it just happens

also, I believe you were being informed that your tone was less than civil [MENTION=24698]andresimon[/MENTION] ... whether the thread is about ENFPs being evil or not, it's still on a private forum

As far as your argument goes.

The point is, we are all subscribing to different definition of what "evil" is with the illusion that we somehow all agree. But the arguments that people have presented are wrong, regardless of the definition they are using. By YOUR definition EVERY type could or would be evil based on what happened. Why single out ENFP's?

 

[miss fortune]

As far as your argument goes.

The point is, we are all subscribing to different definition of what "evil" is with the illusion that we somehow all agree. But the arguments that people have presented are wrong, regardless of the definition they are using. By YOUR definition EVERY type could or would be evil based on what happened. Why single out ENFP's?

read my previous reply

 

[andresimon]

read my previous reply

Right, so back to what I'm saying. They are somehow trying to point out the specific nature of "ENFP EVIL" and frankly, I know this to be untrue. If we want to talk about stereotypes, they are using the wrong stereotype with the wrong type. Nothing more to it than that. So at this point, case closed, thread closed.

 

[miss fortune]

Right, so back to what I'm saying. They are somehow trying to point out the specific nature of "ENFP EVIL" and frankly, I know this to be untrue. If we want to talk about stereotypes, they are using the wrong stereotype with the wrong type. Nothing more to it than that. So at this point, case closed, thread closed.

you are an emotional porcupine