Mort Belfry
Rats off to ya!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,238
- MBTI Type
- INTP
Well how many of you NFs believe conspiracy theories?
I don´t believe that only things exist which can be proven.
i agree. in contrast to what most people tell me, i think it is very logical to believe in things that are conceptually strong but not physically proven (yet). surely, before anyone proved that the earth was round, it wasn't false to believe that the earth is round. i hold a similar position to religion. the analogy's not perfect, but you get the picture.
Yet is a good word.
Well how many of you NFs believe conspiracy theories?
I believe some things that cannot be proven.
I am talking about beleiving in things that cannot be proven. Religion, spirituality, metaphysical, supernatural, etc. Not that you necessarily believe in all of those, but that you believe in something that cannot be proven.
I am not implying that all NFs believe, just whether they are more likely to. I think that a strong N would make someone more likely to believe. It seems like the vast majority of NTs are pretty skeptical. "I don't belive it because you can't prove it." So I was thinking maybe NFs would be more open to believe?
I am an NT but also a metaphysical gal, a "New Age type." It really puts me at odds with the majority of NTs. Sometimes I wonder if I am more like NF than NT.
Ilah
I'm just so P that I find it difficult to believe that we necessarily know everything, or can understand and explain everything, entirely, already. It just seems so arrogant.
Being a dominant intuitive means that I definitely have the tendency to have and believe hunches about things that are yet to be proven. (Um, isn't that a given ).
We actually interviewed people with different types from around the world to find out what draws them toward spirituality, what pushes them away. A couple findings:
- ESTP, ESFP, ISTP, ISFP, ENTP, INTP aren't very common in any organized Western religious communities (Protestant, Catholic, Fundamental, Unitarial, Ba'Hai, Jewish) but for very different reasons
- For the rest, it seemed to matter whether their early religious experiences honored their dominant function. For example if dominant Intuitives got to come up with their own insights and also hold contrary positions; if Dominant Sensing types were part of practical traditions that helped them with the here and now, if dominant Feeling types were part of places where grace instead of judgment was shown; if dominant Thinkers were allowed to question and argue (kinda rare environments...)
- Some types don't question family traditions until they're older. Some question during adolescence or before
- NTs who grew up without a family religion often see no need. They may study religions (a ton of INTPs had read all kinds of sacred texts more than once; ENTPs had visited all kinds of different communities or experiential stuff) but they don't make it personal unless they've come to the end of every other resource--or someone whose wisdom they trust shows them logical reasoning
Workshops on type and spirituality are a blast to lead because people fall out of their chairs when they see what other types consider spiritual/sacred/meaningful/prayerful/whatever you want to name it.
I'm not an NF, but I think the examples are somewhat loaded. I think many of those things can be proven, but they use a different standard of proof than some might be used to. For example since religion has a moral component, then proof of valid religion or spirituality would be if a person's character was changed in a way that the religion teaches.
I am talking about beleiving in things that cannot be proven. Religion, spirituality, metaphysical, supernatural, etc. Not that you necessarily believe in all of those, but that you believe in something that cannot be proven.