An interesting thought.
If the mind leads the body, does the mind decide to feel pain?
yes.
An interesting thought.
If the mind leads the body, does the mind decide to feel pain?
An interesting thought.
If the mind leads the body, does the mind decide to feel pain?
Actually, that's how I think most of the time, which is why I thought I had an idea of the NT perspective. But then I kind of worried... well, what if I don't really have an idea of it, because an NTs Feeling is more tied up with inferior or tertiary Sensing, and thus they experience emotions in a completely different way than NFs do? Or what if my Thinking works very differently than theirs because it's more tied to Sensing rather than any form of Intuition?
So basically, I guess was trying to figure out if NTs have feelings about ideas and abstractions like NFs do, or whether their feelings are limited to underdeveloped versions of SF-style feelings and values (even though I wouldn't have considered this before).
It was mostly prompted by simulatedworld, I guess... because he implied that NTs don't think about guilt, and since he sees being bothered by crime having positive results as lamenting an amoral world, he even made me question whether they even value justice, security, and consistency (which I know is ridiculous, but it crossed my mind for a moment).
Ah, this is reassuring. He really did make me afraid that NTs experience Ni THAT differently
Here's what I wrote on INTJf when I went there to ask how they'd describe impersonal Ni:
"My impression was that it just sounds like a lot of cathartic, pseudo-intellectual nonsense that glorifies idealizing and striving for the sake of the object rather than the idea... in other words, Ne in a different form with Ti or Fi mixed in. It just seems to glorify purposeless expansion and striving, and it truly annoys me to have this associated with Ni."
It's funny. When I talk to INTJs, or some INTPs, I'm left with the impression that NTs are awesome, interesting, likable, and easy to relate to... just a little oblivious to their own and/or other people's feelings. But when I talk to some ENTx types, or a very particular kind of crude INTx, I think their motivations are totally alien and scary (though some ENTPs give me the same impression as an INTx).
NTs believe more in social darwinism, and that morality is subjective.
NFs I don't know what they believe in, but they seem to have a strict sense of right and wrong and have more compassion than their T counterparts.
The best example of an NT who lacks faith in morality is machievelli, who said the ends justify the means.
As for having evil thoughts and wishing malice on other people, all human beings have those once in awhile, so you should not view yourself gulity for this.
Without NTs, the world would not have towering achievements like buildings,telecommunications , missiles, and all sorts of advance technology.
Without NFs, the world would be cold and ruthless, no one would care for other people other than themselves, and there would be no moral justice.
So the two balacne each other out.
It's funny. When I talk to INTJs, or some INTPs, I'm left with the impression that NTs are awesome, interesting, likable, and easy to relate to... just a little oblivious to their own and/or other people's feelings. But when I talk to some ENTx types, or a very particular kind of crude INTx, I think their motivations are totally alien and scary (though some ENTPs give me the same impression as an INTx).
If the mind leads the body, does the mind decide to feel pain?
I don't think social Darwinism is a product of the NT mind. A truly rational person should understand how untenable that belief is.
Actually, I don't think that's the case. My F isn't tied with S, and your T isn't tied with S.
For me, ideas are just ideas and they either make sense or not. Actions though, can be good or bad. It's ok to think about killing someone, as long as you don't actually do it. Ideas are fun to play with and explore and think about and are ultimately just ideas and can't harm anyone. Actions though, can affect others and can do things and actually cause harm. Ideas can influence behaviour, but isn't the behaviour itself. What actually happens is what's important. That's my perspective at least.
Simulatedworld is not representative of all NTs and is not our spokesman. I for one disagree with him on quite a few things.
Yup, us Ne peeps often think we know what Ni is.
Well that's rather judgmental!
WHY DO YOU HATE US?!?!
That might be our sense of humor manifesting itself. Think Monty Python. They talk about some absolutely horrifying and offensive stuff, but it's always to point out the mundane and absurd quibbles that these things include. If Hannah Arendt wasn't an ENTx, she had to at least gain an understanding of our way of looking at things to come up with a concept like the banality of evil.
What is scary about our motivations?
Well... that's understandable. You analyze everything so much, you think you'll get it eventually. But Ni isn't about analysis.
Yeah, but those are my feelings. I'm a Judge, so it surprising I'd be judgmental?
That judgment was only in the frame of it being used to claim to understand Ni, though. Not an absolute one about the nature of the song.
I don't. Why do you think I do?
Oh, I find Monty Python amusing. One of my favorite types of humor, actually. It's not that.
Well, what's scary about your motivations is that from what I can tell (from that one song simulatedworld gave and a few others), there's this insane drive for expansion, pushing, growing, and imposing without purpose. That's what scares me... so much undirected drive and willpower being taken for granted, assumed to have an inherent meaning without even being looked at or examined.
If NTs didn't have emotions, that actually wouldn't bother me. They'd just be computers then. Computers aren't scary. They have no will. What bothers me is the fact that they DO have emotions, but the thought that those emotions work in ways that don't make any sense, can't be modified by experience or appeal, and which they have no control over. Is it not frightening to imagine a being with a giant intellect and several capabilities being powered and directed by a simplistic, unyielding will that has no idea of the impact it's causing? It's the stuff of sci-fi horror.
That was an extreme idea, though. Definitely not true of individuals. And also, I should emphasize it would really only apply to the nature of an archetype, not of real people. Real people don't have a single type.