[NT] Does an NT picture any ideal world at all ?

[meowington]

I have a lot of NT friends, so I could ask them straight away, but none of them are into psychology as much as the NTs on here.
So my question, out of curiosity, is pretty straight forward : Do you as an NT type sometimes picture an ideal world ?
Or is that an entirely alien concept, belonging strictly to NF types ?

 

[Vega Vex]

Yes. Well, I do. I just notice that most NTs just accept it will be near-impossible to achieve their "ideal world". So, for me, I just simplified my "ideal world" into something I know I can achieve.

 

[meowington]

Yes. Well, I do. I just notice that most NTs just accept it will be near-impossible to achieve their "ideal world". So, for me, I just simplified my "ideal world" into something I know I can achieve.

Ok thx Vega Vex !

Even as an idealist (NF), I feel I'm getting there : picturing an ideal but accepting/realizing at the same time that it is wishful thinking.

And yet at the same time :

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I'm so caught up in this paradox.

 

[Vega Vex]

lol. INxx are the most paradoxical of the types. Especially INxJs.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think some INTs create their own ideal world based on their ideas, reason, and logic. For some people their ideal world can be that state of mind when the external world is irrelevant. It will be interesting to hear more responses.

 

[Dreamer]

I have a lot of NT friends, so I could ask them straight away, but none of them are into psychology as much as the NTs on here.
So my question, out of curiosity, is pretty straight forward : Do you as an NT type sometimes picture an ideal world ?
Or is that an entirely alien concept, belonging strictly to NF types ?

I would say each type has their own version of idealism, but the NT idealism, through an NF's perspective may not register as such, so who knows, one of your NT friends may be spewing NT idealism all over the place but to you it just isn't recognized as "idealism". Sounds like a cop-out answer I know, but I'd be curious to see what the NTs of the forum have to say on the matter

 

[meowington]

so who knows, one of your NT friends may be spewing NT idealism all over the place but to you it just isn't recognized as "idealism".

Yeah that's prolly true when I come to think about it!

One INTJ colleague is always busy with perfecting certain business processes and automation, similar to things I do at work. Or seeing flaws in things that don't run well. I guess that's idealism too in a way. When we meet each other every week in a french fries restaurant we're both discussing how we would improve the restaurant processes lol.

 

[Dreamer]

Yeah that's prolly true when I come to think about it!

One INTJ colleague is always busy with perfecting certain business processes and automation, similar to things I do at work. Or seeing flaws in things that don't run well. I guess that's idealism too in a way. When we meet each other every week in a french fries restaurant we're both discussing how we would improve the restaurant processes lol.

Hmm, that may be an interesting thread topic. How each of the types define idealism, or really, what IS idealism? Is it simply aspiring to greater things?

 

[Agent Washington]

From the INTJs I know (small sample size ), an ideal world is one where they've taken over the world and potentially the universe.

 

[GavinElster]

I'm so caught up in this paradox.

Part of the thing is that paradox uses a very specific version of the word "reasonable." It uses a definition that sounds more like pragmatic in meaning: in other words, do what works.

The thing is that envisioning the ideal ethics is a quintessentially rational pursuit, one which many of the great philosophers have done. It may not be how things are done today, but that may be because the world is lagging behind the best thought out ideas, much as much of the theoretical physics discovered has not yet found an application....because we're stuck doing more basic things.

As answer to your question, "ideal" is more quintessentially NF, because it involves two things: envisioning what could be (possible~N) and envisioning value (which involves F-judgment).
I think when it comes to me, I do think I'm more idealistic than some NTs, because I'd call myself the N-subtype of my type, which is a softer balance of T and F (and gruesomely terrible S)...but ultimately, my values aren't what you'd call chasing the ideal so much as a combination of simple, basic values and a lot of complicated T thought into getting rid of the poorly defined, the contradictory, and the stuff that hasn't considered multiple perspectives (more N-ish).

Those who really want to show us how to live are ultimately engaging in complex value judgment that goes outside the scope of T judgment.

I'm idealistic in the sense not of seeking complex and tall values (what we really think of when we think the "ideal") so much as in that I don't accept pragmatic reality even a little. I'm more about envisioning ways to escape apparent constraints. Pretty stereotypical to my type I guess.

 

[Abendrot]

I do believe that NTs are often idealistic, but I agree with [MENTION=25763]Enthusiastic_Dreamer[/MENTION] that their idealism is often not perceived as such. If I were to guess, I'd say that the quintessential NT idealism typically has a more practical and rational tone than NF idealism, and even paradoxically blends with cynicism.

[MENTION=4299]meowington[/MENTION]'s Shaw quote, I think, ties in with NT idealism quite well.
In my case at least, my idealism is one which embraces reality, instead of rejecting it. To illustrate, the focus of my idealism has less to do with ridding the world of suffering and more to do with ensuring that the suffering is not meaningless, and is ultimate worthwhile; I see suffering as something which is not necessarily evil, because it can be utilized to realize potential. For indeed, how could there be greatness and progress if not for suffering and struggle?

This reminds me of that ironic quote from Robert Browning: "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world".
Sometimes, I wonder if the world is just as it should be right now, precisely because it is such an flawed and awful place. Maybe that is just the kind of world that humans belong in.

 

[GavinElster]

I'd almost reverse the Shaw quote, because from my perspective, idealism is actually MORE conducive to working with the reasonable; if someone asks questions like "do we do X bad option or Y bad option" and forces me to make a decision, that's pragmatism, being forced to act because you just have to, can't wait for the data. I find such situations (as we're confronted with in politics every day) unreasonable, because reasonable people can easily disagree, meaning there's just no such thing as "the reasonable option."

Pure reason has no incompatibility with idealism, and in fact, this is why theoretical fields like physics sometimes work with "Idealized" conditions to shed conceptual insight on the picture in question. Things are less messy, and the math can determine everything in idealized conditions, rather than messy reality. EVENTUALLY we can subsume messy reality under purely rational frameworks, in fact the success of models in physics in totally capturing the laws of nature is testament to this...but on the other hand, when we lack the computational power to calculate every outcome, then we are forced to acknowledge uncertainty despite theoretically having control over what's going on.

In fact, sticking to working with what makes sense, what explains, rather than a "swallow the brute facts and make a decision and be tough" is precisely one variety where idealistic, impractical attitudes actually work *better* with rationality.

I think the short way to put it is there's rationality a-la pure knowledge, and then there's practical decision-making. The former can't possibly be incompatible with idealism. The latter often is.

 

[thetk]

Well, I guess my biggest sub-question is "ideal for whom?" Can I imagine a world that is ideal for me? Sure—not too many variables to manage, there. Can I imagine a world that is ideal for everybody? Eeh... unlikely. Too many points of view and limited resources.

Although a truly ideal world may very well be undefinable... As an semi-optimistic NT, I do think the attempt to define it and accordingly optimize what you can is worth it—if not for making the world work better, at least for the intellectual exercise and the purpose.

We're living in the only world we get to experience, so let's try occasionally. I think that's the most ideal we can get.

...Lol. Yeah, I should probably leave the "ideal world" thing to the NFs and go back to assisting with the logistics...

 

[ceecee]

Yeah that's prolly true when I come to think about it!

One INTJ colleague is always busy with perfecting certain business processes and automation, similar to things I do at work. Or seeing flaws in things that don't run well. I guess that's idealism too in a way. When we meet each other every week in a french fries restaurant we're both discussing how we would improve the restaurant processes lol.

I can understand this. You know that "wheel of confusion" carousel bagging system they seem to prefer at most stores? I hate them, they save no time, they don't allow the customer to bag their own stuff and if the cashier is slow to scan it slows the entire process down. They were created to save space and probably someones' idea of aesthetics. However, there are self scan lanes where the old fashioned belt system is used. This is beyond stupid. It should be the exact opposite. For these reasons, I have chosen to use shopper services and pick up at the door or delivery and avoid the system altogether.

So to answer the OP, yes I have thoughts on my ideal world. I've just lived long enough to know that will never happen. Only my own environment.

 

[violet_crown]

I have a lot of NT friends, so I could ask them straight away, but none of them are into psychology as much as the NTs on here.
So my question, out of curiosity, is pretty straight forward : Do you as an NT type sometimes picture an ideal world ?
Or is that an entirely alien concept, belonging strictly to NF types ?

What do you mean by "ideal"?

 

[EcK]

What do you mean by "ideal"?

I think he means when people make up imaginary totalitarian alternative histories / dystopian futures based on the mistakem assumption that their morals are well thought out or that they are in any way more ethically sophisticated than their meager cognitive skills would suggest

does that cover it ?

 

[violet_crown]

I think he means when people make up imaginary totalitarian alternative histories / dystopian futures based on the mistakem assumption that their morals are well thought out or that they are in any way more ethically sophisticated than their meager cognitive skills would suggest

does that cover it ?

It's uncomfortable for me to say that anything should normatively be any one way. It feels like a very obvious thing to say that the world is overwhelmingly complex. Perhaps what is less obvious to a lot of people is that a lot of what some would consider "evil" in this world sprang out of very understandable, human and even noble motivations. It's more productive to me to think about what the problems are, and how I can contribute to addressing those.

Not to say I don't have opinions on how people do certain things. But that's less to do with "making the world a better place", and more to do with "things that get on Rex's last nerve".

So no? I think maybe the INTJs do that sort of thing. They have a more feelings in general, though.

 

[thetk]

It's uncomfortable for me to say that anything should normatively be any one way. It feels like a very obvious thing to say that the world is overwhelmingly complex. Perhaps what is less obvious to a lot of people is that a lot of what some would consider "evil" in this world sprang out of very understandable, human and even noble motivations.

Exactly. It's hard to design a single, ideal world where no one is "evil." "Evil" comes from from a very human place, and sometimes from just perception itself. You'd probably have to eliminate subjectivity and/or disagreement to eliminate "evil."

(You know, I quite enjoy having a discrete consciousness.)

 

[violet_crown]

Exactly. It's hard to design a single, ideal world where no one is "evil." "Evil" comes from from a very human place, and sometimes from just perception itself. You'd probably have to eliminate subjectivity and/or disagreement to eliminate "evil."

(You know, I quite enjoy having a discrete consciousness.)

I mean, you could potentially approach it from the opposite direction. As in, taking a more utilitarian approach. Then the problem becomes how do we most efficiently allocate resources to maximize our utility as a species. Simply put, that boils down to reproductive success. Utility at that level is potentially at odds with individual quality of life.

Also, from a very different direction, I was listening to one of my more hand wave-y podcast, and they had someone on there who was talking about forgiveness. His approach to the concept was kind of a New Age-y take on the idea of providence. Basically, every experience we have in life--even the most brutal and miserable ones--are things that we've chosen to experience in this life. The suffering we experience as a part of living are inextricable from how we'll ultimately define meaning in our own lives. I don't remember if the guy went so far as to say there is no evil as a result, or if we understand things in this way we have to let go of the idea of being "wronged", and try to spot the greater wisdom in our experience instead. Obviously, how much you actually believe any of that depends on how much you subscribe to a lot of surrounding equally hand wave-y concepts, but it's still interesting to me.

 

[thetk]

I mean, you could potentially approach it from the opposite direction. As in, taking a more utilitarian approach. Then the problem becomes how do we most efficiently allocate resources to maximize our utility as a species. Simply put, that boils down to reproductive success. Utility at that level is potentially at odds with individual quality of life.

Also, from a very different direction, I was listening to one of my more hand wave-y podcast, and they had someone on there who was talking about forgiveness. His approach to the concept was kind of a New Age-y take on the idea of providence. Basically, every experience we have in life--even the most brutal and miserable ones--are things that we've chosen to experience in this life. The suffering we experience as a part of living are inextricable from how we'll ultimately define meaning in our own lives. I don't remember if the guy went so far as to say there is no evil as a result, or if we understand things in this way we have to let go of the idea of being "wronged", and try to spot the greater wisdom in our experience instead. Obviously, how much you actually believe any of that depends on how much you subscribe to a lot of surrounding equally hand wave-y concepts, but it's still interesting to me.

/Chuckles

(Maybe not too much reproductive success, unless we really start annexing Mars.)

And bad experiences are indeed a richness of their own, if you're willing to introspect.

Perhaps, as we efficiently allocate these resources, we should also make sure to allocate bad experiences evenly across the board as well. "Sir, you're due for your quarterly crisis. This is for the purpose of your personal growth and to promote adaptive behavior of the species."

(I'm just joking. Mostly. I think Murphy's law and general causality does a fine job on its own.)