[ENTP] Are ENTPs aggressive/forceful?

[EcK]

so very true. people just don't understand.

and, frankly, i like it that way. let 'em wonder.

Well, I find that I can explain my views and actions in details but people generaly don't understand the full meaning of my mentality.
My anger is colder than ice, for all means and purposes, I wouldn't mind or care if my 'enemies' died, it's not emotional, it's cold and rational.
My happiness isn't emotional either. It simply is, like a stream of water doesn't need to be cold or warm to exist.

I don't exploit people and situation, that would imply a moral judgement, a choice to be dishonnest. I geniunely seek and see what my interest are and don't see the point of using some meaningless external reference as a model, a reason to act. but in my interactions I probably often bring more than any person who think they are being generous when they really are just paying in whatever currency for people's love and attention.

My behavior is a constant test of others' capacity to adapt and surprise, I give and share with the gifted and tend to take more than I give from the weak, unable to adapt; from the unjust and the philosophically cowardly - hiding behind religions, concepts they don't grasp, other people. Getting control over their lives by letting themselves be controlled.

I'm never aggressive. Aggression is violence, violence is the way of the weak. Langage and mind is on the other hand the basis of the human social structure. Every social structure in the end give people positions, creates leaders and followers.
What I get I win fairly, it's up to the loser to realise that if they expect to get love, attention and social status they must accept to face people for whom this is all a funny game. This isn't cruelty, it's just how the game is played. We all want the prize, therefore we all have to accept the rules. And what's done by the rules can in no way be considered as violence.

We're all the results of millions of years of biological evolution and thousands of years of social evolution. What survived is what works. What works is ultimately, what is right.
Wether it's what we call types, differences between male and female behaviors, the will to power or social inequalities.

 

[Eric B]

ENTP is a "San-Chlor". Both expressive and pragmatic, they seem to have a rambunctiousness about them, from what I have read in the descriptions, but they still have a "people-focused" Interaction Style, so are not as directive as "In Charge" types.

 

[Nocapszy]

Not agressive- tricky!

Really, sneakiness and such get you a lot farther than pure aggression- and you still have people's goodwill towards you so that you can work with them in the future to get your way again!

Aggression just isn't the smart approach- if you're going to steal someone's money you'll get a lot more by conning them than mugging them :rolli:

This is what I'm saying.

ENTP fights smarter.
Not just more than ENTJ -- all types.

And I'm not just stroking myself.

 

[Nocapszy]

And I would class Jack Sparrow as an ESFP. He's probably the most earthy character Depp has ever played.

Earthy maybe by today's standards.
Sparrow is ENTP.

And by the way, he has moments of aggression.

It's a farce to say aggression is a non-ENTP trait.
But it's not an identifier either...

Edit: wow this is an old fucking thread.

 

[EcK]

Earthy maybe by today's standards.
Sparrow is ENTP.

And by the way, he has moments of aggression.

If you define aggression as an attack against one's social status, yes, we are naturaly aggressive.
If you define aggression as a form of violence, I'd have to say no. Violence is breaking social codes and communication to show dominance.
Your everyday ENTP is exactly the opposite, we smoothly follow the rules when interacting with others. Let me rephrase, if entps did constantly lose arguments, would they be considered as aggressive. I can bet the answer is no.
This is all slave morality (read nietzsche), it's about making the strong guilty so they accept to relinquish power or fear some sort of punishement and show more humility than they should.

 

[Moiety]

I don't exploit people and situation, that would imply a moral judgement, a choice to be dishonnest.

You mean you don't make moral judgements of any kind?

I geniunely seek and see what my interest are and don't see the point of using some meaningless external reference as a model, a reason to act. but in my interactions I probably often bring more than any person who think they are being generous when they really are just paying in whatever currency for people's love and attention.

You don't think other people are driven to action by their interests? What makes your need for action different from other people? Your interests still are based on stuff like reciprocity etc nay? Why else would you feel compelled to talk with people...for example?

Oh, and why do you choose to bring something to table if not to be generous and profit from that?

 

[EcK]

You mean you don't make moral judgements of any kind?

Yes

You don't think other people are driven to action by their interests? What makes your need for action different from other people? Your interests still are based on stuff like reciprocity etc nay? Why else would you feel compelled to talk with people...for example?

Oh, and why do you choose to bring some to table if not to be generous and profit from that?

What I mean by 'geniunely' is that it's a direct effect-consequence relation. Most people I know either outsource this (the use of external values rather than their own) or\and get through so many different unconscious influences that they don't fully realise what their own intention are.
If humanity is so proud of its conscience why would a higher role of conscious control over one's action be 'bad'\immoral(not to confuse with amoral)\whatever

 

[Moiety]

Yes

Why do you call someone an asshole then? I've seen you do it

What I mean by 'geniunely' is that it's a direct effect-consequence relation. Most people I know either outsource this (the use of external values rather than their own) or\and get through so many different unconscious influences that they don't fully realise what their own intention are.
If humanity is so proud of its conscience why would a higher role of conscious control over one's action be 'bad'\immoral(not to confuse with amoral)\whatever

Now I don't want to sound all mystical here (because quite frankly I'm skeptical ) but the subconscious does plays a huge role in human interaction. I'm generally an empathic character and I can't quite explain why.

In the end every single reason, for every single action, is selfish. When a person does an apparently selfless deed, it's to find some peace of mind - ultimately it's still for personal gain. That doesn't make that person a hypocrite or a follower of social codes or outside models. It's how that person is wired, what makes him/her tick. The way to that person's goal might be more or less conscious but it almost always retains a degree of reflex-ness.

Consciousness isn't immoral. But instinct and subconsciousness isn't either. Every human being is bound to both sides. You can have a little bit more than one or the other but that won't make you necessarily better in the end.

 

[EcK]

In the end every single reason, for every single action, is selfish. When a person does an apparently selfless deed, it's to find some peace of mind - ultimately it's still for personal gain. That doesn't make that person a hypocrite or a follower of social codes or outside models. It's how that person is wired, what makes him/her tick. The way to that person's goal might be more or less conscious but it almost always retains a degree of reflex-ness.

Consciousness isn't immoral. But instinct and subconsciousness isn't either. Every human being is bound to both sides. You can have a little bit more than one or the other but that won't make you necessarily better in the end.

Ur repeating what i said. The details such as the fact that we're evolutionary wired to seek our own interest and that most of the brain's output is unsconscious were implied.

 

[Moiety]

Ur repeating what i said. The details such as the fact that we're evolutionary wired to seek our own interest and that most of the brain's output is unsconscious were implied.

Well, you asked "If humanity is so proud of its conscience why would a higher role of conscious control over one's action be 'bad'\immoral?" which might have been a rhetorical question but my answer would be "It wouldn't be". I wasn't trying to imply it would, so I tried to clarify.


EDIT:Oh and edited my previous post. Dunno if you saw it or not.

 

[EcK]

Well, you asked "If humanity is so proud of its conscience why would a higher role of conscious control over one's action be 'bad'\immoral?" which might have been a rhetorical question but my answer would be "It wouldn't be". I wasn't trying to imply it would, so I tried to clarify.


EDIT:Oh and edited my previous post. Dunno if you saw it or not.

I just like bouncing ideas with interesting people.

And I'm often lazy with details cause i'm like 'it's all implied damn it', so you're right to underline these points.
I tend to expect everybody to be a psychic\a deductive genius.

Why do you call someone an asshole then? I've seen you do it

Mostly for fun\ an extreme simplification of my opinions 'caused by the universal tendency of matter to come back to a resting state

 

[Moiety]

I just like bouncing ideas with interesting people.

And I'm often lazy with details cause i'm like 'it's all implied damn it', so you're right to underline these points.
I tend to expect everybody to be a psychic\a deductive genius.


Mostly for fun\ an extreme simplification of my opinions 'caused by the universal tendency of matter to come back to a resting state

My point being that what makes two different people tick is basically the same if you zoom close enough. (which you already know, only you might not).And all the...er.... reality-warping in the world won't change that. Self-consciousness can be like drowning in a BS buffet cooked by ourselves.

 

[EcK]

My point being that what makes two different people tick is basically (the same difference?) if you zoom close enough. (which you already know, only you might not).And all the...er.... reality-warping in the world won't change that. Self-consciousness can be like drowning in a BS buffet cooked by ourselves.

Do you mean 'self difference' (I added it to your quote and will correct it if I got it wrong)

If yes then:
So we can say that if humans are all so alike: it's like saying that X+Y= 1 and only the values of X and Y change but the sum stays the same.
agree?

What about a more social vision of human society. Which is not purely factualy neutral but qualitative (I didn't say moral).
There the values of " X " and " Y " do matter.

This is why I used the example of consciousness, because it's one of the point that is supposed to make us radically different from other animals.
I didn't say I agree by the way, I don't, but it's one of the things that are pretty much universally accepted in one way or another wether its being called awareness\understanding\consciousness\intelligence, the basic idea is the same: a will and capacity to interpret and modify our environnement using abstract concepts (more or less).

 

[Tiltyred]

I'm an INFJ who spends 10 hours a day with an ENTP. He's like a boxer, always up on his toes, dancing around, faking punches, wanting somebody/anybody to punch back. It's very impersonal energy and it comes across as slightly manic. To say it messes with my vibe would be putting it mildly. I can't think with someone around like that, and on top of it, when I know that he's going to argue with every single thing I say (my ENTP does this), I completely lose motivation to initiate conversation. So that's how a doe-eyed waiting-for-you-to-entertain-me passivity comes about.

INFJ likes harmony more than we like to argue.

Do you not notice from her body language that she's turning off, becoming overstimulated? She spends a lot of time watching you -- do you watch her? You have to actually interact with her rather than just display all the time. And I think the things you find exhiliarating in the world of discourse are not exhiliarating to her -- they make her tired.

I think INFJ talks to share feelings and insights and it's a big deal to share with somebody else. ENTP doesn't take it as a big deal at all -- it's not self-disclosure -- as you said, you're embodying the idea you're exploring. But I think for INFJ, that is so impersonal it's almost impossible to respond to. If your conversations with her are not sometimes more personal, intimate, and genuinely relating on a feeling level, then she's going to feel unsatisfied and yeah, will at the least ask you to at least back off so she gets a rest from what feels like continually being stuck with a pin. It starts to feel like being talked at rather than with.

(I could be entirely wrong and only talking about my own relationship, but anyway, hope it's helpful.)

Oh, p.s. -- the only time my ENTP is at a pace I'm comfortable with is when he's been up for three days. :-D

 

[entropie]

I really never got the point about ENTPs being constantly on the search for arguements. Either some guys mistype people or I am not an ENTP.

ENTPs want harmony above it all. Harmony is when the system works, alle the knobs turn and the machine makes a sound while giving off steam.

 

[EcK]

I really never got the point about ENTPs being constantly on the search for arguements. Either some guys mistype people or I am not an ENTP.

ENTPs want harmony above it all. Harmony is when the system works, alle the knobs turn and the machine makes a sound while giving off steam.

that's coz ur a rational enfp
*poke* *poke*

I can be VERY acceptant, chilled out and so on. And I am most of the time. Well I'd like to keep talking but my dog wants to go out, brb

 

[entropie]

I wouldnt call it rational. I would call it to be at peace with yourself. Someone who is constantly challenging others, obviously has to compensate something. And I dont think to not do so automatically means that you are a logical rational.

 

[EcK]

I wouldnt call it rational. I would call it to be at peace with yourself. Someone who is constantly challenging others, obviously has to compensate something. And I dont think to not do so automatically means that you are a logical rational.

Yeah but then there's the concept of drive. The basic set of base instincts that come from our reptilian brain, those will get complexified following the neural pathways to the external evolutionary more rescent outskirts of the brain.
1 base impulse will pass throw xxxxx neurons, connect and interact at different levels with other base impulse and so on.
I'm not going to start about external stimuli because of course the brain is an input\output system but that'd make the explanation too long.

So yeah you can define the 'peace with yourself' thing a stable and quasi self substained input\output. And a need to compensate would come from some sort of 'lack'.

On the other hand the asumption that there's some ideal 'at peace' state is inherently wrong.
Why?
Because if you stay 'stable' in a biosphere that is built for competition, for the survival of the fittest, you'll soon be overthrown by the desire, the "will to power" of every other creature. This opposing force, in our society, is constituted of all the other human or rather their will to power, their desire to thrive.

The need to conquer and to challenge is in fact, the very property of every human and every living creature.
And the ability to do so is what causes some creatures and species to survive rather than others. Including the human species.

 

[jenocyde]

I'm also baffled abt argument question. Talking about the world events of the day, or whatever, does not mean you are looking for an argument, just a discussion. NFs want discussions about feelings *shudder*, I want discussions about events... Is that so wrong? I'm not challenging anyone. If I didn't care what someone has to say, I wouldn't initiate a conversation at all.

 

[entropie]

Yeah but then there's the concept of drive. The basic set of base instincts that come from our reptilian brain, those will get complexified following the neural pathways to the external evolutionary more rescent outskirts of the brain.
1 base impulse will pass throw xxxxx neurons, connect and interact at different levels with other base impulse and so on.
I'm not going to start about external stimuli because of course the brain is an input\output system but that'd make the explanation too long.

So yeah you can define the 'peace with yourself' thing a stable and quasi self substained input\output. And a need to compensate would come from some sort of 'lack'.

On the other hand the asumption that there's some ideal 'at peace' state is inherently wrong.
Why?
Because if you stay 'stable' in a biosphere that is built for competition, for the survival of the fittest, you'll soon be overthrown by the desire, the "will to power" of every other creature. This opposing force, in our society, is constituted of all the other human or rather their will to power, their desire to thrive.

The need to conquer and to challenge is in fact, the very property of every human and every living creature.
And the ability to do so is what causes some creatures and species to survive rather than others. Including the human species.

Reads beautiful .

Of course there is no such thing like being at peace with yourself. Especially not if you are insane in the membrane. But I dont have the urge to project that onto other people, to drag them down aswell into my pit of doom.

Maybe that's the fact which makes me a rational entp or entj, I dont know