You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Yes i know that already .
A thing that the Fi descriptions have wrong though is that Fi judges things based on interval values .IMO this is wrong , fi judges things based on like/dislike and that is the core aspect of it.
Everyone judges things based on "like/dislike". It is everyone's "core aspect".
And no, I'm not drawing some sort of false equivalence here, I'm describing human beings. Typologies only classify human beings. Fi describes a particular way of processing judgments internally. It has nothing to do with being selfish, or being emotional, or being whiny, or whatever.
I have seen atrocious behavior from people of all function types. Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne, Si, Se. They can all be really crappy people. And they can all be emotional, whiny and selfish. Bitching, moaning and whining are universal human traits. This first post of this thread is an excellent example of bitching, moaning and whining.
At best, you can say something like, "Fe people being crappy doesn't annoy me nearly so much as Fi people being crappy." And where does that get you? Does it mean there's something wrong with Fi people?
It probably means that you don't understand Fi.
Fi is applied differently to abstract and literal things.The more abstract something is the more prone is Fi to elevate their Fi judgments about it to Objective values.And the less abstract something is the more prone is Fi to think of them as subjective opinions of themselves.
So Fi sees objective values when it judges abstract concepts (like war , hunger , etc) and subjective opionions(likes/dislikes) when it judges not so abstract things (like style of clothing etc).Thats why INFP's care more about values than ISFP's because INFP's are more likely to use their Fi to judge abstract concepts (Maybe it has do with Fi/Si too ?? i dont know) , while ISFP's use their Fi mostly in subjective things (like style , beauty etc..) thats why ISFP express mostly their subjective tastes , while INFP's tend to express mostly their *objective* values that apply to all.
INFPs are actually quite similar to INTPs, except w/r to emotional understanding instead of "logical" understanding. An INFP will nitpick your values to death if you let them, just as an INTP will nitpick your logic to death if you let them.
ISFPs and ISTPs also have such commonalities distinguished only by emotional vs "logical" understanding, where both are very present and very physical w/r to the world, and not so concerned with overall principles like INxPs. ISFP and ISTP understanding of practical matters is usually very good in pretty much all respects except things like money management where being a "J" appears to be more advantageous.
And all of these types are quite capable of being complete jerks.
As a general principle, I find it helpful to find and classify many good and bad real life examples of each type. What changes isn't "whether" they're good or bad, but "how".
Without diversity, we are just lemmings, right??? Because we never had progress in this world without diversity. And no Enlightenment, no Declaration of Independence, no abolition movement, no Industrial Revolution, etc.....
Racial and ethnic diversity don't bring a better society. They decrease civic involvement and increase crime and unhappiness.
There isn't diversity within diversity. There is individuality. Individuals coming together to form a society. There is no need to bring in lots of people just to disrupt the society and punish citizens. In the US, there is huge diversity between NYC and Mississippi, California and Kansas. We are already full of diverse people. We need common civic values to help us have a successful society. The weaker civic society, the weaker the country.
We are weaker today because we accepted the idea of radically increasing diversity for its own sake.
Exactly what? That we are lemmings without diversity? The idea is absurd.
Racial and ethnic diversity don't bring a better society. They decrease civic involvement and increase crime and unhappiness.
There isn't diversity within diversity. There is individuality. Individuals coming together to form a society. There is no need to bring in lots of people just to disrupt the society and punish citizens. In the US, there is huge diversity between NYC and Mississippi, California and Kansas. We are already full of diverse people. We need common civic values to help us have a successful society. The weaker civic society, the weaker the country.
We are weaker today because we accepted the idea of radically increasing diversity for its own sake.
It is not absurd at all. It is the people who see things differently that can often break an impasse, or figure out a creative solution to a problem that seems intractable to everyone else. Diversity within diversity means that there are many aspects to diversity. Humans differ on many yardsticks, from race* and ethnicity to gender to religion to physical (dis)ability to background/upbringing to the personality types that we often discuss here. Some years ago, my workgroup did the MBTI. We were advised always to pay attention to the outliers in our group: a lone ES and a lone NF. They would break our groupthink and show us perspectives that might not occur to the rest of us.
I'm not sure why you are so afraid of diversity. Do you simply find comfort in being around people like yourself?
*The term "race" is really a misnomer, as all people belong to the human race.
Exactly what? That we are lemmings without diversity? The idea is absurd.
Racial and ethnic diversity don't bring a better society. They decrease civic involvement and increase crime and unhappiness.
There isn't diversity within diversity. There is individuality. Individuals coming together to form a society. There is no need to bring in lots of people just to disrupt the society and punish citizens. In the US, there is huge diversity between NYC and Mississippi, California and Kansas. We are already full of diverse people. We need common civic values to help us have a successful society. The weaker civic society, the weaker the country.
We are weaker today because we accepted the idea of radically increasing diversity for its own sake.
Have you lived in both contexts? Have you lived in environments where everyone is the same culturally and religiously vs. environments with diversity? I would take diversity over unanimity any day of the week. It is so incredibly oppressive when everyone expects everyone to be the same. Every time I've been in those social environments, there are always a handful of tyrants that emerge to control everyone, and the field is ripe to accept that dynamic.
What is helpful about diversity is that everyone has to maintain a level of consideration. People feel less entitled when they are required to accommodate a wide range of expectations. Entitled people are icky, horrible people. It's funny, but I noticed when teaching children that when they are first placed in a group, they behave wonderfully. Once it becomes too familiar, they behave horribly. Diversity is like humans continually being in a new group, and it places them on better behavior.
The violence you speak of is what happens when two or more groups encountered one another, each with the expectation of complete unanimity. It it the very entitlement produced in homogenous social environment that gives people the idea they even have a right to oppress others into their own group think. Take away those tight-knit cult-like group think dynamics and you take away the violence. You take away the entitlement to violate.
I think we forget, sometimes, that "diversity" is a politically loaded term, these days. I agree with you with respect to the literal sense of the word, but often "diversity" means anything but literal diversity, especially with respect to noncomformist ideas, that the ideas that don't conform to the ideal of "diversity". "Entitlement" and "privilege" are just new words used in the Marxist narrative of "oppressor vs oppressed", which seeks the overthrow of "the ruling class" by "the people", and woe betide anyone who does not march in lockstep with that narrative.
Have you lived in both contexts? Have you lived in environments where everyone is the same culturally and religiously vs. environments with diversity? I would take diversity over unanimity any day of the week. It is so incredibly oppressive when everyone expects everyone to be the same. Every time I've been in those social environments, there are always a handful of tyrants that emerge to control everyone, and the field is ripe to accept that dynamic.
No, it is culturally oppressive when people expect YOU to be like THEM, and they are not like you. If you actually do share that culture, it is not (as) oppressive. I find some cultures (I use the term very generally, including subcultures) to be less oppressive than others, because they are more accepting of who I am than other cultures. I do NOT find this to be a function of diversity.
What is helpful about diversity is that everyone has to maintain a level of consideration. People feel less entitled when they are required to accommodate a wide range of expectations. Entitled people are icky, horrible people. It's funny, but I noticed when teaching children that when they are first placed in a group, they behave wonderfully. Once it becomes too familiar, they behave horribly. Diversity is like humans continually being in a new group, and it places them on better behavior.
The bold is a real dynamic I have seen, and I concur. This isn't a function of diversity, though, I think. It's a function of familiarity with other people's buttons. Some people are natural bullies and push other people around, IF they can get away with it. When people are unfamiliar, they don't know the buttons yet, they don't know who is easy to bully. Once they are familiar, they bully.
In order to apply your prescription to solve this dynamic, you'd have to forcibly move people around so that they could never settle down, and that would be just as bullying as the bullying you disapprove of.
A dynamic that one does see is that "free" cultures tend to be composed of "ornery" people who don't tolerate being bullied, so the bullies simply can't get away with it.
The violence you speak of is what happens when two or more groups encountered one another, each with the expectation of complete unanimity. It it the very entitlement produced in homogenous social environment that gives people the idea they even have a right to oppress others into their own group think. Take away those tight-knit cult-like group think dynamics and you take away the violence. You take away the entitlement to violate.
The violence comes from so many other causes. First of all, there needs to be a common, uniform expectation that violence is bad, and such a common, uniform expectation is anything but diverse in the literal sense. If the culture believes that violence is OK, it will be a violent culture.
Another primary cause of violence is a clash between cultures, which is where I believe SearchingForPeace is coming from. Sometimes it looks like the "entitlement" that you cite, because one culture is much more technologically/economically advanced than the other, and the weaker culture cannot effectively fight back, and at best is absorbed into the more advanced culture. (Please understand I am not using "advanced" as a measure of morality or merit, but strictly as a technical advancement, as measured by the inability of one culture to resist the other.)
And then there's plain old conquest, which is as old as human history. Cultures clash, often violently, simply because that is what they do. See Thomas Sowell's book "Conquests and Cultures" for an in-depth discussion of the topic.
The notion that a culture or nation should refrain from conquest is very, very new in human history. I'm not saying that it's a bad notion - I kind of like it. But we need to realize that it's a very unnatural notion, because historically a diversity of cultures has been a source of conflict, not of strength. The end result of the new notion won't be diversity, per se, but a new culture built upon the idea of being accepting of diversity, especially a diversity of ideas, and accepting of disagreements. Such a culture will naturally conflict, often violently, with those cultures that don't share that vision.
Because it has to be a new culture, there will still be those bullies who will take the true ideal of diversity and pervert it into something that lets them bully other people. Such people are quite adept at taking the language of morality and twisting it to justify their actions. Even now, we have people arguing that they believe in "free speech", yet give all sorts of exceptions as to what ought to be allowed speech, because "diversity". They even argue that "free speech" is a source of "oppression", because if all speech is to be allowed, then "oppressive" speech is allowed.
And no this is not something that can be "fixed" in any permanent sense of the word. Culture is like a Ouija board, where we all get to push it a little bit, but no one has significant control over where it goes. At most, on a personal level, once can remember that we are not "victims" of culture. We are culture. We all have a hand on that Ouija board, even if we don't think so.
I have no fear of it. I am comfortable in every environment and culture. I have lived with great diversity. I enjoy spending time with people of all backgrounds and getting to understand them. I have had friends with people from seemingly every religious and cultural and racial and ethnic group
No, I just find those who worship so-called diversity want to destroy real diversity in the name of a superficial ideal.
For example:
Superficially, the Founding Fathers were non diverse, with common culture, education, etc. A bunch of white men of English heritage. They were all students of Enlightenment thinking. They were most all Protestants. Yet the reality was anything but lemmings. They were extremely diverse in their beliefs. They struggled to come to agreement many times.
Part of that was a product of Enlightenment thinking and Western culture. The intellectual goal was not lock step thinking, but thinking for yourself. The traditional liberal arts college education represented that goal, that each person could be educated and follow their own intellectual paths, and that would strengthen the society, after giving people a common foundation.
Today, with trigger warnings, safe zones, and such, we see the destruction of that model. The Closing of the American Mind called the problem out almost 30 years ago. We have the results from superficial diversity.
Western civilization has been the target of Leftists for decades. They deride it, attack it, minimize it, and try to repress it. Yet the civilization with its heritage back to Greece and Rome is responsible for more individuality and scientific progress than any other from a reason. Democracy is a direct product of this civilization. The idea of individual rights comes from this civilization.
By throwing out the civilization and culture, we have lost that which made us great, that made us the example to the world.
Instead we have superficial diversity and people promoting the idea we are better if we have food from 175 countries available rather than 60. By no longer having the common foundation, the society is adrift. Demagoguery rules. Greed controls.
Instead of valuing true individuality and diversity, we value multiculturalism and consensus.
It is just sad.
Some values are better than others, as much as this might be appalling to hear. Not that every culture doesn't have some things we can value.
Another example: One professor told me many years ago: China has a great problem with the concepts of freedom and democracy because the words denote licentiousness and selfishness. The language and culture is designed against individuality and in favor of conformity.
Diversity worshiping types are unwittingly ignoring individuality and are intentionally destroying the foundation of the most freedom producing culture in world history.
Tldr: individuality and having a strong liberal education is much more important than so-called diversity.
I believe that under multiculturalism and diversity there is an underlying force , that existed and exists in every society ,behind it is the principle that "every man should be equal" but people from different cultures can;t get along with each other (human nature) so thiswould be problematic since the principle of equality in a society wouldnt be true if there existed in this society 2 different cultures that aren't alike with one another.The cultures would clash.So what happens naturally is that the cultures mix.
That is what multiculturalism and diversity is all about , its about the equality of every human being and for that to happen there must be one mega-culture that contains every culture within it, so ultimately everyone will be in a world-culture that encompasses many cultures and that in turn will get simplified as time passes.
So what happens naturally is that people become more and more alike instead of maintining diversity...the goal of today isn't to maintain diversity , it is to accept diversity for this mega-culture to happen.
Also the same force is behind democracy too so saying things like Greece (You mean Athens , since Athens had democracy) is responsible for individuality more than any other culture is a fallacy.Remember individuality has nothing to do with scientific progress , you could have a culture where everyone have the same opinions and find the same things right and wrong , but science would advance greatly as long as it doesnt clash with the culture...but that happens rarely since the first is more on the philosophy side and the other is science.
An example in Athens is Socrates, who promoted individual thinking more than any philosopher i have read about and when he crossed the boundaries and attacked Athenian culture he was persecuted by Athenians.
I believe that under multiculturalism and diversity there is an underlying force , that existed and exists in every society ,behind it is the principle that "every man should be equal" but people from different cultures can;t get along with each other (human nature) so thiswould be problematic since the principle of equality in a society wouldnt be true if there existed in this society 2 different cultures that aren't alike with one another.The cultures would clash.So what happens naturally is that the cultures mix.
That is what multiculturalism and diversity is all about , its about the equality of every human being and for that to happen there must be one mega-culture that contains every culture within it, so ultimately everyone will be in a world-culture that encompasses many cultures and that in turn will get simplified as time passes.
So what happens naturally is that people become more and more alike instead of maintining diversity...the goal of today isn't to maintain diversity , it is to accept diversity for this mega-culture to happen.
A mega culture would be about conformity and group think, not individuality. We see this already with what is happening on college campuses. In the name of diversity, intellectual freedom and curiosity is stifled. A mega culture means destruction of the right to free association. It would punish people who want to hold onto their own culture. It would destroy the best things about true culture, instead providing a Disneyland version of culture, fake and superficial
For decades, people have criticized the Coca-Cola-ization of the world, derided cultural imperialism, yet you advocate for the end of cultural diversity, destruction of cultural uniqueness.
Also the same force is behind democracy too so saying things like Greece (You mean Athens , since Athens had democracy) is responsible for individuality more than any other culture is a fallacy.
Have you an awareness of the intellectual heritage of the American Revolution? Do you lack basic understanding of the Enlightenment? Have you never stuided the Renaissance? Sorry to play intellectual snob here, but your ignorance is profound.
Remember individuality has nothing to do with scientific progress , you could have a culture where everyone have the same opinions and find the same things right and wrong , but science would advance greatly as long as it doesnt clash with the culture...but that happens rarely since the first is more on the philosophy side and the other is science.
The advancement of science requires people to question established truths. Cultures that stifle individuality stagnant. A great example is the Qing dynasty. China in 1700 was far more advanced than the West by almost any measure. But the society stagnanted and ultimately was dominated by Western powers because it created a culture of conformity and resistant to new ideas. The effort in China to make up for that after the Opium Wars faced tremendous institutional and cultural opposition.
An example in Athens is Socrates, who promoted individual thinking more than any philosopher i have read about and when he crossed the boundaries and attacked Athenian culture he was persecuted by Athenians.
No, it is culturally oppressive when people expect YOU to be like THEM, and they are not like you. If you actually do share that culture, it is not (as) oppressive. I find some cultures (I use the term very generally, including subcultures) to be less oppressive than others, because they are more accepting of who I am than other cultures. I do NOT find this to be a function of diversity.
This may be hard for me to get my head around because I have never found an environment in which I am much like THEM. My experience is based on moving around so many times in my early life and also as an adult that I have lived in dozens of locations throughout the U.S. During much of it I was exposed to many small communities, and in particular, many churches and school environments.
Basically every church I attended (between 1-2 dozen in total) sought to have everyone believe the same. The more tight-knit the group, the more certain individuals would emerge to impose their ego/self onto the group. It is constant in the smallest life habits. When people feel comfortable and at home, they extend their ego expectations outward. I believe that the sense of self is expanded first to include family and pets, then further out into these tribal sized groups. Once a sense of self is expanded onto the group, there is the assumption that every detail will be agreeable and comfortable and under the control of the individual. This includes the color of the church carpet, what is served at church dinners, what music is performed, etc. When these personal assumptions are questioned in the slightest manner, people have chased off pastors with their shovels, they have said degrading, demeaning things, they become deeply angry because their entitlement is questioned. I've heard people tell others, 'no you cannot sing that song in church, it sounds like someone having sex in the back of a car." Little old ladies hide potato chips others bring because they "aren't healthy". The assumption to intrude into the space of others is so deeply engrained. I would describe that ego expansion onto the group much like a pair of enormous buns expanding to fill an easy chair.
It is healthiest when people don't feel too comfortable socially. They need to be slightly on edge. They need to be in a state of continually learning and evaluating. Once a social dynamic fits so closely that one can completely rest in a sense of self, that is the moment the dynamics become extremely unhealthy, dysfunctional, even narcissistic. I will run from every environment like that for as long as I live.
When I attended a large public university, the individual departments had some of that inbred thought/feeling assumption, but in the larger context, that slight social uneasiness to maintain tolerance and equal opportunity for diverse populations, gave a feeling of health and freedom socially that I had never witnessed throughout all the years and all the small cohesive societies of my childhood.
The fact that people feel socially comfortable around me is the one primary bane of my existence. If I could find a way to change that I would because it is rarely reciprocal. Social comfort nearly always equals ego entitlement in everything I have ever witnessed in the world -the only exception is personal relationships and even there complete comfort and assumption often results in people taking each other for granted. We should always be mindful of consequences of our "comfort" and assumptions.
This may be hard for me to get my head around because I have never found an environment in which I am much like THEM. My experience is based on moving around so many times in my early life and also as an adult that I have lived in dozens of locations throughout the U.S. During much of it I was exposed to many small communities, and in particular, many churches and school environments.
Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from. I was never the one to fit in, either. At school, I didn't even fit in with the "outcast" group. Not until late in high school (5000 students, so 1200 or so per grade) did I find a group that I fit in, and it was the brainy-nerdy group. After that I went to a prestigious technical college where everyone was brainy-nerdy. I didn't fit in with EVERYONE there, but I fit in enough.
Until I had those experiences, I felt alienated.
Basically every church I attended (between 1-2 dozen in total) sought to have everyone believe the same. The more tight-knit the group, the more certain individuals would emerge to impose their ego/self onto the group. It is constant in the smallest life habits. When people feel comfortable and at home, they extend their ego expectations outward. I believe that the sense of self is expanded first to include family and pets, then further out into these tribal sized groups. Once a sense of self is expanded onto the group, there is the assumption that every detail will be agreeable and comfortable and under the control of the individual. This includes the color of the church carpet, what is served at church dinners, what music is performed, etc. When these personal assumptions are questioned in the slightest manner, people have chased off pastors with their shovels, they have said degrading, demeaning things, they become deeply angry because their entitlement is questioned. I've heard people tell others, 'no you cannot sing that song in church, it sounds like someone having sex in the back of a car." Little old ladies hide potato chips others bring because they "aren't healthy". The assumption to intrude into the space of others is so deeply engrained. I would describe that ego expansion onto the group much like a pair of enormous buns expanding to fill an easy chair.
Oh, church is where everyone gets picky about everything. The infighting and politics can get pretty bad at times. It helps to have a pastor/rector/priest who is good at mediating disputes and behaves like a reasonable adult. A weak rector lets the politics go too far and hurt the church. A strong, kind rector will pull people to work together.
It's a night and day sort of thing.
I'm also reminded of this joke, which I have told on this forum before:
A man has been marooned on an island for many years, when finally a passing ship spots his bonfire and picks him up. Before he leaves the island, the captain of the ship asks the man to show him around the structures he has built on the island.
"What's this building?" he asks, standing near a smaller structure.
"That's my home," the man replies proudly.
"And this one?" gesturing at a much larger structure.
"That is my church!" he beams.
"And what about that big one over there?"
The man gets a grimace of disgust on his face and replies
"That's the church I used to go to."
It is healthiest when people don't feel too comfortable socially. They need to be slightly on edge. They need to be in a state of continually learning and evaluating. Once a social dynamic fits so closely that one can completely rest in a sense of self, that is the moment the dynamics become extremely unhealthy, dysfunctional, even narcissistic. I will run from every environment like that for as long as I live.
Hmm. I don't think "healthiest" is the right word. I will say that, historically, societies tend to advance very quickly when there is a large mix and interaction with other cultures, and tend to stagnate when this doesn't happen. Europe around the enlightenment is a good example. The enlightenment came from that interaction of cultures. That interaction of cultures was also the source of many wars.
As an analogy, it's "healthy" in terms of being exposed to lots of diseases, because then your immune system can resist them all. But that's not how natural selection works: the diseases first kill off a bunch of people, and only those who are left are resistant.
I would suggest that, in a way, you were exposed to many "isolationist" subcultures. And yeah, those are going to be very cliquish. But humans are humans, and cliques are going to form whether you join them or not.
When I attended a large public university, the individual departments had some of that inbred thought/feeling assumption, but in the larger context, that slight social uneasiness to maintain tolerance and equal opportunity for diverse populations, gave a feeling of health and freedom socially that I had never witnessed throughout all the years and all the small cohesive societies of my childhood.
Universities are interesting in that the faculty politics very much resembles church politics. Universities talk the language of diversity, but there is a strong tendency towards groupthink.
The fact that people feel socially comfortable around me is the one primary bane of my existence. If I could find a way to change that I would because it is rarely reciprocal. Social comfort nearly always equals ego entitlement in everything I have ever witnessed in the world -the only exception is personal relationships and even there complete comfort and assumption often results in people taking each other for granted. We should always be mindful of consequences of our "comfort" and assumptions.
I have many INFJ friends, in part because I can reciprocate with them, as you put it. They tend to be among my best friends. The irony of INFJs is that they're really good at making other people feel comfortable, but most others don't know how to make them feel comfortable. It's an Ni thing, I think, as I feel just as alienated, with the difference that I don't put that much effort into trying to help others feel comfortable except in very specific cases.
In particular, I understand how many INFJs (and INFPs, too) feel alienated by the people around them, where they feel like they are making accommodations for others, but others aren't making accommodations for them in return. I believe you might need to filter out this overall dynamic from the rest of your analysis.
I think it's hard for us Ni doms to see how all these things that make us feel uncomfortable (Si and Se things especially) actually make other people feel comfortable. Church is a good example: I believe most churches are oriented to making the "abstract" more available to those who think "concretely". I usually get an "N" vibe from most clergy I've met, and several I've met are almost certainly INTJ or INFJ, but the parishioners are almost all "S" and tend to take things quite literally. It's an interesting dynamic, where each type needs the other. But even though the rector giving the sermon might be "N", the way he has to make things literal sometimes tends to make me cringe. His expressions don't make ME comfortable, they're there to help the rest of the congregation understand.
The pattern is clear: I fit in with "N" types (more or less), but not so much with "S". There are two solutions, and it helps to follow both. One is to find more "N" people in your life. The other is to learn to enjoy more "S" kinds of things in a way that you don't feel resentful for accommodating others. Dancing managed to accomplish the latter for me.
A lot of those people that aren't reciprocating are very often trying to make you feel comfortable and included, it's just that it is necessarily in their terms. I'm usually one of the first to step into a thread and say "That's not a typology thing," but in this case, I think it is. There are just a lot more "S" people out there.
Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from. I was never the one to fit in, either. At school, I didn't even fit in with the "outcast" group. Not until late in high school (5000 students, so 1200 or so per grade) did I find a group that I fit in, and it was the brainy-nerdy group. After that I went to a prestigious technical college where everyone was brainy-nerdy. I didn't fit in with EVERYONE there, but I fit in enough.
Until I had those experiences, I felt alienated.
Oh, church is where everyone gets picky about everything. The infighting and politics can get pretty bad at times. It helps to have a pastor/rector/priest who is good at mediating disputes and behaves like a reasonable adult. A weak rector lets the politics go too far and hurt the church. A strong, kind rector will pull people to work together.
It's a night and day sort of thing.
I'm also reminded of this joke, which I have told on this forum before:
A man has been marooned on an island for many years, when finally a passing ship spots his bonfire and picks him up. Before he leaves the island, the captain of the ship asks the man to show him around the structures he has built on the island.
"What's this building?" he asks, standing near a smaller structure.
"That's my home," the man replies proudly.
"And this one?" gesturing at a much larger structure.
"That is my church!" he beams.
"And what about that big one over there?"
The man gets a grimace of disgust on his face and replies
"That's the church I used to go to."
Hmm. I don't think "healthiest" is the right word. I will say that, historically, societies tend to advance very quickly when there is a large mix and interaction with other cultures, and tend to stagnate when this doesn't happen. Europe around the enlightenment is a good example. The enlightenment came from that interaction of cultures. That interaction of cultures was also the source of many wars.
As an analogy, it's "healthy" in terms of being exposed to lots of diseases, because then your immune system can resist them all. But that's not how natural selection works: the diseases first kill off a bunch of people, and only those who are left are resistant.
I would suggest that, in a way, you were exposed to many "isolationist" subcultures. And yeah, those are going to be very cliquish. But humans are humans, and cliques are going to form whether you join them or not.
Universities are interesting in that the faculty politics very much resembles church politics. Universities talk the language of diversity, but there is a strong tendency towards groupthink.
I have many INFJ friends, in part because I can reciprocate with them, as you put it. They tend to be among my best friends. The irony of INFJs is that they're really good at making other people feel comfortable, but most others don't know how to make them feel comfortable. It's an Ni thing, I think, as I feel just as alienated, with the difference that I don't put that much effort into trying to help others feel comfortable except in very specific cases.
In particular, I understand how many INFJs (and INFPs, too) feel alienated by the people around them, where they feel like they are making accommodations for others, but others aren't making accommodations for them in return. I believe you might need to filter out this overall dynamic from the rest of your analysis.
I think it's hard for us Ni doms to see how all these things that make us feel uncomfortable (Si and Se things especially) actually make other people feel comfortable. Church is a good example: I believe most churches are oriented to making the "abstract" more available to those who think "concretely". I usually get an "N" vibe from most clergy I've met, and several I've met are almost certainly INTJ or INFJ, but the parishioners are almost all "S" and tend to take things quite literally. It's an interesting dynamic, where each type needs the other. But even though the rector giving the sermon might be "N", the way he has to make things literal sometimes tends to make me cringe. His expressions don't make ME comfortable, they're there to help the rest of the congregation understand.
The pattern is clear: I fit in with "N" types (more or less), but not so much with "S". There are two solutions, and it helps to follow both. One is to find more "N" people in your life. The other is to learn to enjoy more "S" kinds of things in a way that you don't feel resentful for accommodating others. Dancing managed to accomplish the latter for me.
A lot of those people that aren't reciprocating are very often trying to make you feel comfortable and included, it's just that it is necessarily in their terms. I'm usually one of the first to step into a thread and say "That's not a typology thing," but in this case, I think it is. There are just a lot more "S" people out there.
I wish I fit in with the nerdy group, I had the bra8ns, but not the desire or passion. I spent my extra time in high school rebuilding a truck. Working with tools, learning how to sand blast, weld, etc. And then did martial arts 2-3 classes a day, 3-4 days a week. I fit in everywhere if inwas an extrovert, but due to introverted I fit in nowhere.
I wish I fit in with the nerdy group, I had the bra8ns, but not the desire or passion. I spent my extra time in high school rebuilding a truck. Working with tools, learning how to sand blast, weld, etc. And then did martial arts 2-3 classes a day, 3-4 days a week. I fit in everywhere if inwas an extrovert, but due to introverted I fit in nowhere.
I fit in with multiple groups. I had the nerdy smart kids (most others besides me were extremely socially awkward). I had my jock group. I had my church friends. And my core best friends from childhood. These groups rarely interacted. And I could adopt the different demeanor with each.
Oh, then there were the adults, that I treated as peers as well, more or less. And treated me the same, so yet another group.
For people who value homogeneity in groups, can you provide concrete examples where this works and is stable and positive, whether anecdotal or conceptual? I can only think of Walnut Grove from "Little House on the Prairie", but in all honesty the show is based on that community being on the verge of dysfunction in every episode, but then miraculously the Ingalls fix it with their enlightened compassion. It makes the show quite addictive, but unrealistic imo.
Edit: there is also the conceptual context of a survival scenario. But in that case the focus is outward on problem solving. It isn't the easy chair expansion of self. It serves as a positive temporary measure.
Also for the record - I'm definitely not using Fe to make people feel comfortable. Even if I am a Fe-aux, that is not an example of it. With the worst offenders I mostly just sit there and I don't punish them. That's all it takes - silence and non-punishing while they fart away and say rude things. Waaaaaaaay too many people think it's okay to fart in front of me.
I fit in with multiple groups. I had the nerdy smart kids (most others besides me were extremely socially awkward). I had my jock group. I had my church friends. And my core best friends from childhood. These groups rarely interacted. And I could adopt the different demeanor with each.
Oh, then there were the adults, that I treated as peers as well, more or less. And treated me the same, so yet another group.
Lol, yeah...kinda. my ex really tried to pull me into groups, but it seemed way to superficial for me which is why as an introvert I didn't fit in. It's like that superficial bouncing didn't really allow me to connect and learn anyone in particular at the level I normally do. I play and meld with whow a person is and learn them beyond they know themselves. I can't do that and be a social butterfly. I want that deeper connection. My ex did that and she thought she knew me, except people who heard her talk about me and then met me were like what the hell, he is nothing like you say. She ran on some pseudo meaning based of some stereotypical shit she learned from interacting with people. Yet as I explain her and they meet her they agree I am dead on accurate.
My estp niece is like that as well. She actually used to be part of a group that dI'd group events with socially challenged and retarded kids. She really we enjoyed that connection with them that the world couldn't see and rejected.
I fit with many groups too altough i am not very social , in school i used to hang out with the nerds that were ISxJs and INxPs(you will surprised how many nerds are actually ISxJ thats why they are all conservative on the internetz lol) and with the cool kids , ESxPs.
I actually get along really well with ESxPs especially ESFPs although i have read that ENTP and ESFP are not very compatible with each other, but imo ENTPs and ESFPs are like twin brothers set in two different worlds , when these two worlds overlap they make a very good team.
I also got along with some leftists but this group was full of feeling dominants(ENFJs ,and IxFPs mostly) so i left after a while.
I have no fear of it. I am comfortable in every environment and culture. I have lived with great diversity. I enjoy spending time with people of all backgrounds and getting to understand them. I have had friends with people from seemingly every religious and cultural and racial and ethnic group
No, I just find those who worship so-called diversity want to destroy real diversity in the name of a superficial ideal.
For example:
Superficially, the Founding Fathers were non diverse, with common culture, education, etc. A bunch of white men of English heritage. They were all students of Enlightenment thinking. They were most all Protestants. Yet the reality was anything but lemmings. They were extremely diverse in their beliefs. They struggled to come to agreement many times.
Part of that was a product of Enlightenment thinking and Western culture. The intellectual goal was not lock step thinking, but thinking for yourself. The traditional liberal arts college education represented that goal, that each person could be educated and follow their own intellectual paths, and that would strengthen the society, after giving people a common foundation.
Diversity of beliefs, perception, and judgment is diversity, just as are other forms of diversity. They are all part of what make individuals different one from another. It is not necessary to attempt to devalue one form of diversity in order to recognize and encourage another. I agree, that is what colleges are doing when they stifle debate on controversial topics in the name of maintaining "safe space" for a broad spectrum of individuals. But that is not what I am advocating.
There was plenty of lockstep thinking in colonial days. People like John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were different from the average colonist. They saw events in a different way, and were willing to take risks where others hesitated. In some respects, they were the outliers, preventing the possibility of a fear-based groupthink from stifling the voices that called for American independence. This is a good thing. Every society needs people like this, and needs others to be open-minded enough to give them a fair hearing, and perhaps play that role themselves in a different context.
To call all other forms of diversity superficial, however, ignores their real impact on human lives and interactions. To further label that impact as negative is presumptive, and indeed becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. All values may not be equally good, but no culture has a monopoly on good - or bad - values. Those cultural aspects that you deride as superficial offer far more than the pleasure of exotic entertainment or unfamiliar food and drink. They represent often radically different ways of approaching universal human concerns like nutrition, medicine, child-rearing, education, etc. Rather than assume our way is always best, we should consider what we might learn from other ways, especially when they present themselves.
You might consider, for instance, that the sort of university education you favor seems to be valued more highly by many of our immigrant populations than by established Americans. In fact, the opportunity for their children to receive that kind of education is a strong motivator for many immigrants. Similarly, the African immigrants I know are rather appalled at the way black Americans behave, especially young ones. They see no regard for the family and the community. A sense of entitlement rather than personal responsibility. They see elders not taking their rightful place as respected leaders, bringing the younger folks in line. Then there are the new citizens who faithfully go to the polls every single election, because where they came from participating in the political process was either risky or outright impossible. Unlike many Americans, they understand the value of the right to vote and are eager to participate in the democratic process. In this respect, these immigrants may lead us back to an appreciation of "American values", much as the campaign for gay marriage has reminded people of the importance of marriage overall.
A strong liberal education is predicated on an understanding and appreciation of diversity in its many forms. The two are not to be contrasted, but rather are inextricably connected.
That is what multiculturalism and diversity is all about , its about the equality of every human being and for that to happen there must be one mega-culture that contains every culture within it, so ultimately everyone will be in a world-culture that encompasses many cultures and that in turn will get simplified as time passes.
So what happens naturally is that people become more and more alike instead of maintining diversity...the goal of today isn't to maintain diversity , it is to accept diversity for this mega-culture to happen.
This is why I never liked the "melting pot" analogy for immigration. My Baha'i friends, who greatly value diversity, compare it to a "fruit smoothie", which is just as bad. In either picture, the originally diverse elements are blended together into a homogeneous mush. I prefer the analogy of a fruit salad, where everything is mixed up and surrounded by a matrix of ginger yogurt sauce, but each individual piece retains its individualty. I don't know how well this will correspond to reality, though. The paradox of diversity is that, by making it easier for diverse populations to intermix, we risk losing what makes each one unique.
It is healthiest when people don't feel too comfortable socially. They need to be slightly on edge. They need to be in a state of continually learning and evaluating. Once a social dynamic fits so closely that one can completely rest in a sense of self, that is the moment the dynamics become extremely unhealthy, dysfunctional, even narcissistic. I will run from every environment like that for as long as I live.
I think one benefit of diversity is that it ideally stops people from assuming that the other person is just like them. Rather than assuming what they think and like, and how they are going to react, we have to ask and listen and observe, and give them space to be who they really are. I find this a much more respectful attitude to have toward others.
For people who value homogeneity in groups, can you provide concrete examples where this works and is stable and positive, whether anecdotal or conceptual? I can only think of Walnut Grove from "Little House on the Prairie", but in all honesty the show is based on that community being on the verge of dysfunction in every episode, but then miraculously the Ingalls fix it with their enlightened compassion. It makes the show quite addictive, but unrealistic imo.
Edit: there is also the conceptual context of a survival scenario. But in that case the focus is outward on problem solving. It isn't the easy chair expansion of self. It serves as a positive temporary measure.
Also for the record - I'm definitely not using Fe to make people feel comfortable. Even if I am a Fe-aux, that is not an example of it. With the worst offenders I mostly just sit there and I don't punish them. That's all it takes - silence and non-punishing while they fart away and say rude things. Waaaaaaaay too many people think it's okay to fart in front of me.
I'm jumping into the conversation, and so may be wayyyyy off base, but homogeneity tends to work really well in Japanese culture provided you aren't the black sheep. It has its problems, for sure, but it leads to positive outcomes as well. People are often on the same track a lot faster due to similarity of culture; there's less time spent trying to navigate differences and more time spent on being together.
It's a bit like playing a sport where everyone already knows all the rules of the game and acts accordingly. In other words, you get to the game a LOT faster.
Diversity of beliefs, perception, and judgment is diversity, just as are other forms of diversity. They are all part of what make individuals different one from another. It is not necessary to attempt to devalue one form of diversity in order to recognize and encourage another. I agree, that is what colleges are doing when they stifle debate on controversial topics in the name of maintaining "safe space" for a broad spectrum of individuals. But that is not what I am advocating.
But that is the net effect of your beliefs, that you can't see. Artificially increasing etnic and racial diversity decreases is antagonistic to the civic society basis required to actually have true individualism. Democracy needs a specific set of core principles and values, which seem to rest on the heritage of Enlightenment thought. As we have seen from the misguided neocon efforts to push democracy in the Middle East, democracy without such rapidly falls apart.
Colleges have created this monster by making racial diversity a goal. Justice Scalia's recent controversial remarks are backed by rigorous research on the topic. So, colleges have lost political and intellectual and economic diversity in favor of racial diversity, resulting in frustration among affirmative action minorities.
Or, as I read one African-American scholar today state, he taught at an Ivy League school a few decades ago and 80% of the African-American students were on academic probation. Why? Because they were in the 75th percentile when all the other students were in the 99 percentile. 75th percentile students of any race or ethnic group were going to struggle in such an environment. And those very students are today angry and bitter. At the University of California, once quotas were banned, students from disadvantaged groups saw their grades improve. Why? They stopped going to UCLA or Berkeley and instead went to another UC with slightly easier pace.
There was plenty of lockstep thinking in colonial days. People like John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were different from the average colonist. They saw events in a different way, and were willing to take risks where others hesitated. In some respects, they were the outliers, preventing the possibility of a fear-based groupthink from stifling the voices that called for American independence. This is a good thing. Every society needs people like this, and needs others to be open-minded enough to give them a fair hearing, and perhaps play that role themselves in a different context.
Actually, no. They were no that different from the average colonist. They were remarkably representative, though perhaps superior in some ways. People were generally well informed and politically active. It was the era of pamphlets and Committees of Correspondence.
There was some real differences though, as the colonists came from 4 different regions in Britain and settled in 4 different regions of the country, generally. They had different faiths. They built their homes differently The New England Puritans were very different from the Southern plantation owner. What they shared was a common intellectual background. They all were educated in republicanism and the Enlightenment.
To call all other forms of diversity superficial, however, ignores their real impact on human lives and interactions. To further label that impact as negative is presumptive, and indeed becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Actually, no. We have the research to prove it. History has shown over and over again that increased racial and ethnic diversity weakens a society. It isn't supposition or conjecture.
All values may not be equally good, but no culture has a monopoly on good - or bad - values.
No, there are some cultures with bad values. There are some with a mix of good and bad. Personally, I feel that Western civilization is becoming much weaker for many reasons.
Those cultural aspects that you deride as superficial offer far more than the pleasure of exotic entertainment or unfamiliar food and drink. They represent often radically different ways of approaching universal human concerns like nutrition, medicine, child-rearing, education, etc. Rather than assume our way is always best, we should consider what we might learn from other ways, especially when they present themselves.
The best way to experience such is to study and visit there. No matter how many Japanese restaurants someone goes to eat sushi, it will never be the same as visiting Japan and spending serious time there.
The Western world had plenty of cultural imports from Asia.
You might consider, for instance, that the sort of university education you favor seems to be valued more highly by many of our immigrant populations than by established Americans. In fact, the opportunity for their children to receive that kind of education is a strong motivator for many immigrants. Similarly, the African immigrants I know are rather appalled at the way black Americans behave, especially young ones. They see no regard for the family and the community. A sense of entitlement rather than personal responsibility. They see elders not taking their rightful place as respected leaders, bringing the younger folks in line. Then there are the new citizens who faithfully go to the polls every single election, because where they came from participating in the political process was either risky or outright impossible. Unlike many Americans, they understand the value of the right to vote and are eager to participate in the democratic process. In this respect, these immigrants may lead us back to an appreciation of "American values", much as the campaign for gay marriage has reminded people of the importance of marriage overall.
The ones who immigrate legally are often the best and the brightest of Third-world countries. That talent is being siphoned off, weakening the home country. The illegals, not so much. I know two African families, recent immigrants. One was extremely well off in Zaire, sent their children to South African boarding schools. They came legally. The children were shocked how easy American high school was compared to their experience. They hurt their country by leaving. They sound like the families you know. The other family, also from Zaire, are illegal, overstaying a tourist visa. The son is in trouble nonstop and failing in school. The father is not a good person, to put it mildly.
We get a similar result in many of those who cross the Southern border. There isn't a great respect for elders or society or education.
The problem you address with widespread failures in the African-American community have many sources, including the results of decades of poor policy. It has only gotten worse with the destruction of blue collar middle class jobs. But there is also a cultural effort against education and success promoted by demogogues and the entertainment industry, trying to make them feel like incapable victims. In my sons' school, many of the African-American children oppose the concept of education in a misguided form of entitlement and rebellion. They mock academic success, pulling down the more diligent children.
A strong liberal education is predicated on an understanding and appreciation of diversity in its many forms. The two are not to be contrasted, but rather are inextricably connected.
I appreciate diversity. I just know what results from certain types of diversity. And there is no national interest to bring in a single immigrant, especially uneducated ones. If you want to weaken other nations by taking their potentially most successful individuals, then you have a cruelty streak.
Diversity in the academic world is now one of its central organizing principles, although diversity remains an instrumental good, not a good in itself. Racial and ethnic diversity, it is said, helps students learn about different points of view and prepares them to live and lead in a multiracial and multicultural society. This new orthodoxy creates a relentless focus on race and ethnicity in admissions, and at times even more so in faculty hiring.
A few days before Fisher was argued but not in connection with the case, Ezra Klein of Vox amassed data suggesting that the greatest cleavages society were not between racial and ethnic groups, but between members of different political parties. A high percentage of members of both parties, for instance, expressed horror at thought of a daughter or son marrying outside the faith. Large majorities of both parties would be likely to hire a member of their party over that of another. As Ilya Somin has noted, such partisanship has troubling implications for democracy. Partisans will be more likely to dismiss opposing views reflexively, making beneficial decision making far less likely.
Thus, assuming we accept diversity as essential in higher education, it would seem that we need at least as much political diversity as diversity with respect to race and ethnicity. Students would learn about different political and ideological viewpoints if exposed to those espoused by Republican as well as Democrats, by conservatives as well as liberals. Indeed, political diversity provides a more direct way of gaining access to different viewpoints than relying on race and ethnicity, which are at best proxies for viewpoints. Society as whole would benefit because citizens would learn not to reflexively dismiss viewpoints. .
Yet higher education has largely shown no interest in political or ideological diversity. 96 percent of campaign contributors at the faculty of the Ivy League donated to Obama in the last cycle. My own study of elite law school professors showed a striking imbalance in donations and a recent analysis of the views of law professors showed that they approximated on average that of a liberal democratic and were more ideologically one sided than any other sector of the legal profession.
I am not arguing here that diversity should in fact be the reigning ideal of higher education. Other organizing principles, like a single focus on merit, have their own claims. But if indeed diversity is as important as all our university presidents, including my own, endlessly repeat, political and ideological diversity is at least as important as diversity measured by race and ethnicity.
Because of their ideological imbalance, universities are in danger of themselves becoming partisan institutions. Universities can demonstrate their neutrality by applying their diversity principles to provide for political diversity as to racial and ethnic diversity.
.
It is everyone's "core aspect".
