Night, what do you refer to when you talk of pruning idiosyncrasies?
It's a case of being true to yourself Night. Some people find it easy to go against their own beliefs, by effectively adapting and changing those beliefs in order to support whatever action they wish to take. As I said, this kind of sophistry is something NT's can be very adept with - but not uniquely.
Ethics... hmm... well I don't believe in absolute morality, no. I probably share that in common with most NT's. But I've come in recent years (due to external pressures not giving me the room to weedle out with conceits) to see that an awful lot of what I thought was 'changing my views in light of new information', was actually 'shifting mental paradigm as it suits me to feel intellectually justified in whatever I want to do, because it's logical'.
You can use logic to justify just about anything, but that doesn't make it right. As for what 'right' is, I don't know... except that I know how I feel when I haven't done it. And rather than paper up that feeling with intellectual conceits and 'logical' justifications, I'm more likely these days to apologize and make amends.
It's a weird kind of marriage between the integrity of the T and the morality of the F. But I know it doesn't make me 'not an NT anymore' precisely because it's come so hard for me to learn it, and still doesn't always come naturally. Left to my own devices, I revert to the unscrupulous rat-bag I am by nature!!
Characteristics usually associated within subtypes.
Globally, I'd consider the following as approximate examples: ENFJ - charisma; ESFJ - concern; INTJ - competency.
The quirks I speak to are specific to variation within a regional type: ISTJ - tradition; ISTP - level-headedness.
Ultimately, I seek to find the logic in connecting entities like "morality" as a descriptor inside of regional types.
Isn't the goal to document common idiosyncrasies and organize them rather than "prune" them? I'm not sure I follow.
Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.
What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.
How might we document "morality" (can we?) as it pertains to type?
If you wanted to be scientific about it:
1.) Propose a definition of morality that could be agreed upon by other members of your field, or at the very least everyone else involved in the project.
2.) Determine the best way to measure the existence of your defined "morality".
3.) Gather a large group of subjects of equal representation of each of the types and set to work.
4.) Draw what correlations there are to be drawn.
...good luck on that first step.
I observe NTs to have strong core tenets that are broad in scope and "fluid" in definition. That seems to be a trademark of NTs; not to be "pinned down" to specifics or exactitudes. This "fluidity" gives the NT type the peculiar distinction of easily adjusting their morality to fit the circumstances without damaging their central beliefs. "It depends" is a watchphrase for the NT.Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.
What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.
Alas, many become embittered and isolated. Few achieve that place of enlightenment.As we get older we usually seem to come to a realization that those principles, if truly adhered to, have a profound and rippling effect through all of our actions and choices, and to hold our choices up to them and remonstrate ourselves when they fall short, rather than hold the beliefs up to our actions and change the beliefs/interpretations. Then we can be really awesomely enlightened people with very strong senses of honour and integrity.
Maybe I've painted a too negative picture of the NT there... I don't mean to say that we're all totally amoral rat-bags with no central ethics or beliefs to our worldviews.
What I meant was more that we have a few core tenets, a few principles, which are pretty minimalist and very open to interpretation. And when young/immature/unhealthy (not equating those three except in that they can all lead to this) have a tendency to interpret those tenets, or to interpret our actions, in such a light as they can be believed to support or be supported by those tenets. Thereby believing ourselves to be acting with integrity, when in fact, it's arrogance and egotism.
As we get older we usually seem to come to a realization that those principles, if truly adhered to, have a profound and rippling effect through all of our actions and choices, and to hold our choices up to them and remonstrate ourselves when they fall short, rather than hold the beliefs up to our actions and change the beliefs/interpretations. Then we can be really awesomely enlightened people with very strong senses of honour and integrity.
I observe NTs to have strong core tenets that are broad in scope and "fluid" in definition. That seems to be a trademark of NTs; not to be "pinned down" to specifics or exactitudes. This "fluidity" gives the NT type the peculiar distinction of easily adjusting their morality to fit the circumstances without damaging their central beliefs. "It depends" is a watchphrase for the NT.
But isn't everyone (NT and non-NT) like this? *confused*
Where we typically fail is in; a) recognizing that there might be alternative choices, and b) conveying interest in other's opinions.
Alas, many become embittered and isolated. Few achieve that place of enlightenment.
One funny thought: xNTJs, I think, are not necessarily good liars because I think they have the self-confidence and assertiveness enough to just do whatever they'd like and not make excuses for it or feel the NEED to lie. They're more apt to say, "Yeah, I did it... and it was the right thing to do, and who cares what you think?"