[INTP] INTP's and relationships

[RaptorWizard]

Ya, the poster who just came before me may have been more concise with their question than a lot of the other responces here, but a still can't follow that kind of deductive chain of reasoning. It makes my brain hurt!

I mean what are you trying to say? You start off with some strange definition on liking people, and then connect that to a lack of like for humanity as a whole. I guess though the conclusion may be that people by their true and independent natures are better than how they come together on a global level.

You may like relationships more than universal acceptance. I like the latter more though, as it sees and appreciates diverse points of view.

 

[INTP]

Ya, the poster who just came before me may have been more concise with their question than a lot of the other responces here, but a still can't follow that kind of deductive chain of reasoning. It makes my brain hurt!

I mean what are you trying to say? You start off with some strange definition on liking people, and then connect that to a lack of like for humanity as a whole. I guess though the conclusion may be that people by their true and independent natures are better than how they come together on a global level.

You may like relationships more than universal acceptance. I like the latter more though, as it sees and appreciates diverse points of view.

humans as a species are rotten shit who are destroying the earth and fucking up the balance of the nature(and yes we as humans are part of nature, but we are modifying the other parts of it to the extend that is not natural for other animals), a large part of people are stupid sheep, selfish or just plain evil sons of bitches.

but then there is another side to this, which is that humans have potential to be good/fun/whatevernicethings, so there are individuals who stand out positively from all the shit we are surrounded by, they may or may not get a hug, but nevertheless are accepted.

 

[Salomé]

 

[Standuble]

humans as a species are rotten shit who are destroying the earth and fucking up the balance of the nature(and yes we as humans are part of nature, but we are modifying the other parts of it to the extend that is not natural for other animals), a large part of people are stupid sheep, selfish or just plain evil sons of bitches.

but then there is another side to this, which is that humans have potential to be good/fun/whatevernicethings, so there are individuals who stand out positively from all the shit we are surrounded by, they may or may not get a hug, but nevertheless are accepted.

What's inherently wrong with destroying the Earth or fucking up nature? Does any balance in nature exist considering any life form can undergo a population explosion in the right conditions, leading to the eventual point where their demands on the food chain results in a population die-off? Sounds a little bi-polar to me. Nature doesn't seem to care, she enjoys a bit of the "olde mass extinction" [sic] game every 100 million years or so. In the past she has turned planet Earth into the stinkiest shithole imaginable; a crapsack world complete with methane and sulphur, barren fields and dead seas. How is anything we can do unnatural to the other life on the planet?

Does good or evil exist? Is acceptance of others inherently good? Are misanthrophy or philanthropy irrational and if yes are they more irrational than liking or disliking someone purely on the basis of their character?

Please excuse the above. I could have resisted but I chose not to.

In regards to this thread, I myself have found what I have read of it fascinating. I could relate to a lot of it as well; a lot of their concerns including those mentioned on the previous page were ones I could identify with. Relationships are IMO one of the human race's biggest banes. IMO It is an opiate which draws two people together and encourages reproduction but IMO the evolution of our brains has distorted it to the point where it has become a superfluous ritual which we crave on some level. Perhaps it was only those who chose to entertain in the past passed it on but in a hypothetical world where total dog eat dog doesn't exist it could eventually lessen due to becoming less of a pre-requisite to reproduction (e.g. artificial insemination) and its influence could become majorly diluted over time. Perhaps sex on its own is the better path.

Relationship partners (especially feelers) would be wise to listen to you as if the people in this thread are a good sample of the INTP population's general understanding of the subject then your type has much to teach the less knowledgable. I myself will try taking notes. Excuse the feeler intrusion and any smoke blowing, I am off.

 

[Salomé]

What's inherently wrong with destroying the Earth or fucking up nature?

To the extent that "wrong" has any meaning in a moral sense (and essentially, its meaning derives from "that which is harmful") it is wrong. Tautologically.

 

[Standuble]

To the extent that "wrong" has any meaning in a moral sense (and essentially, its meaning derives from "that which is harmful") it is wrong. Tautologically.

What if it is harmful but creates a greater benefit as a result? An example would be destroying a section of rainforest. The habitat of many animals are destroyed however the increased exposure to sunlight on the surface allows for a development of greater flora diversity and population growth of a number of small animal species which were previously preyed on by the larger animals which were booted out? In my view this is what the fucking up of nature has done throughout history. How does one measure "harmful" when resulting benefits cannot be measured? Perhaps you know because its quite the conundrum to me which influences essentially my whole moral outlook.

 

[Salomé]

What if it is harmful but creates a greater benefit as a result? An example would be destroying a section of rainforest. The habitat of many animals are destroyed however the increased exposure to sunlight on the surface allows for a development of greater flora diversity and population growth of a number of small animal species which were previously preyed on by the larger animals which were booted out?

That isn't destruction. That's renewal and is inherent in the ecosystem. Destruction implies permanently altering the habitat such that regeneration is unlikely, if not impossible. Eg slash and burn agriculture.

How does one measure "harmful" when resulting benefits cannot be measured? Perhaps you know because its quite the conundrum to me which influences essentially my whole moral outlook.

Loss of biodiversity is one way to measure it. There are no resulting benefits from permanent species loss, IMO.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Animals attack and eat each other alive, and I think that's just as bad as what we people do to animals; the conclusion is inescapable - the natural order is evil!

 

[Standuble]

That isn't destruction. That's renewal and is inherent in the ecosystem. Destruction implies permanently altering the habitat such that regeneration is unlikely, if not impossible. Eg slash and burn agriculture.

Fair enough. Note: My example was built around the assumption that it was a human-caused deforestation of said area and the notion of destruction as limited to the trees themselves (and not necessarily to the soil and land) with nature taking advantage of this new vacuum. Plus on a long enough timeline renewal can take root in slash and burn regions although with a different composition of flora and fauna by it gradually creeping in over the course of many years if not millennia.

Loss of biodiversity is one way to measure it. There are no resulting benefits from permanent species loss, IMO.

What if the species lost was a primary consumer/predator and carried considerable influence in the ecosystem e.g. humanity itself? Numerous species can come to exist in the future which otherwise may not of been possible. An ending creating a new beginning. Supposedly 99% of all species that have existed are extinct and yet new bio-diversity is created which otherwise could not have occurred. That's why I don't think it can be measured as future benefits cannot be predicted.

 

[INTP]

What's inherently wrong with destroying the Earth or fucking up nature? Does any balance in nature exist considering any life form can undergo a population explosion in the right conditions, leading to the eventual point where their demands on the food chain results in a population die-off? Sounds a little bi-polar to me. Nature doesn't seem to care, she enjoys a bit of the "olde mass extinction" [sic] game every 100 million years or so. In the past she has turned planet Earth into the stinkiest shithole imaginable; a crapsack world complete with methane and sulphur, barren fields and dead seas. How is anything we can do unnatural to the other life on the planet?

"if you watch the land, you'll see all this plant life, but the poison plants have no friends. look at all the friends here, they all coexist with one another, with the bees, with the birds, with the worms, with the snakes, preria dogs, everything, the antilopes, grasses, bushes, all coexist to help one another. you get to a poisonous plant and they have no friends, its bare around the poisonous plants. thats natural law; you can blend in with everything and everyone if you are friendly and you share and you sacrifice. thats what you can learn from just plant life and if you are a poisonous person, you are not going to have any friends. period. so why be that person?"
-Russel Means

people and their ways are poison to other life that doesent benefit them(and even to many that would benefit them).

 

[Standuble]

"if you watch the land, you'll see all this plant life, but the poison plants have no friends. look at all the friends here, they all coexist with one another, with the bees, with the birds, with the worms, with the snakes, preria dogs, everything, the antilopes, grasses, bushes, all coexist to help one another. you get to a poisonous plant and they have no friends, its bare around the poisonous plants. thats natural law; you can blend in with everything and everyone if you are friendly and you share and you sacrifice. thats what you can learn from just plant life and if you are a poisonous person, you are not going to have any friends. period. so why be that person?"
-Russel Means

people and their ways are poison to other life that doesent benefit them(and even to many that would benefit them).

Fascinating. I will need to reflect on that I think. I occasionally walk through the woods as its a nice place to think and over time I came to see an immense crucible where life fought to survive and could not assert its will far. I came to see humanity as merely the animal which found a way around its limitation and asserted its will first over its immediate habitat and eventually its entire world, still forever an animal at heart. Had the roles been reversed then I believe it would merely have been another animal to have become a menace to its environment - increases in carrying capacity increases its population. I believe that all life exploits each other but the exploitation merely does not usually become heavy enough to break the exploitee's back. If humanity is like the nettles and the poison plants it is only because like the nettles it has grown strong enough to dominate so others cannot exploit it.

 

[Salomé]

^That's an empty old chestnut.
Man cannot triumph over nature, he is part of it, interdependent upon it, although, as a top predator, his loss from the earth would be non-catastrophic.

Fair enough. Note: My example was built around the assumption that it was a human-caused deforestation of said area and the notion of destruction as limited to the trees themselves (and not necessarily to the soil and land) with nature taking advantage of this new vacuum. Plus on a long enough timeline renewal can take root in slash and burn regions although with a different composition of flora and fauna by it gradually creeping in over the course of many years if not millennia.

What if the species lost was a primary consumer/predator and carried considerable influence in the ecosystem e.g. humanity itself? Numerous species can come to exist in the future which otherwise may not of been possible. An ending creating a new beginning. Supposedly 99% of all species that have existed are extinct and yet new bio-diversity is created which otherwise could not have occurred. That's why I don't think it can be measured as future benefits cannot be predicted.

I see where you are coming from. But your question was specifically about the "wrongness" of an action. Right and wrong are entirely human concepts. To the extent that harming biodiversity / destroying habit threatens the existence of the human species which depends on the interconnectedness of all things, it is wrong. And only in this sense. It has no meaning outside of this anthropocentric context, which is why you will struggle to give it one.

 

[Lumpet]

I'll move it to the NT forum in a moment.

EDIT: Or, uh, Night will move it.
thanks dude!



Anyhoo...!



You're probably dealing with INTPs without a lot of relational experience.

It's been mentioned before that the undeveloped feeling functions tend to be pure, simplistic, direct, sweet. Not a lot of nuance.

For the negatives, you can easily get clingy, whiny, and paranoid. This would be technically labeled the "Fe inferior" at work, but it's basically saying that because INTPs focus so much and have gotten so skilled at their rational detached thinking that once they get ATTACHED, they have no experience nor any idea what to do with all the triggered emotion.

So the positive emotion comes out purely and simply.
But so does the negative.

Ti coupled with Ne, if it is driven by feelings of abandonment and relational inexperience, can come up pretty neurotic in trying to draw conclusions from every little sign and piece of information that appears. ("Oh no, she did not answer the phone when I called this time -- but she always answers at this time -- is she dumping me, cheating on me, does she hate me? Augh!") INTP naturally tries to unpack information from a single piece of data; it has a rational framework to do this with impersonal (aka scientific or rational) info but it usually has little experience or intuitive understanding of RELATIONAL info.

For example, you might just make assumptions about your bf because he is your bf, and you think your commitment is obvious -- in relationships people just assume the other person loves them, or thinks they're important to them, etc -- but INTPs by nature avoid assumptions, so sometimes they look for data to prove things to themselves that other people assume naturally. hence, they can seem more paranoid and demanding of unnecessary information in order to trust, if they start to have doubts. (INTPs usually have doubts about many things, all conclusions are open to challenge. Relationships are not rationally derived, they're more of personal commitments; hence the rational process doesn't work so well, and they are helpless until they get relational experience.)

I can witness this kinda. From my own experience.
When i was in my first relationship i was dragging rational conclusition like them and looking for evidence and proof of everything.
And yeah i was often dragging conclusions from only one action. The typical was what you mentioned abotu phone calls. It's completely paranoid but i always have some consiperecy theory in my head.
And my mind doesn't assume that being in a relationship with someone means someone really cares. For the reason, many people have been in a relationships when people stopper caring or any other of irregular reasons to enter a relationship. So honestly i do think, that is not be assumed.

Later on i did learn to be more healthy about my emotions but ina way of controlling them. Paranodi approach doesn't pay off very well and i don't wanna suffocate anybody. Basically i tried to learn them things through my first serious relationships.
Though, it's very hard for me to be aware of my own emotions it seems. It always looks like im thinking about things and in case of relationships i get emotional reactio and i don't pay attention that reaction and i continue thinking and being confused why i even have them reactions (or better say i do know i have them but i don't understand why are they suddenly interfering with my judging process).
In addition...you mentioned some good examples here...but we all learn...i hope. And one more thing...i missed my cool and calmed self when i was in a relationship. I found my new emotional trait as a certain disturbance.