This is a discussion on Internal v External validation, finding a balance? within the ENTJ Forum - The Executives forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by Ikusagami If you are going to read hostility and reply with trolling remarks to all of my ...
And I am well aware of how I am being perceived, specifically by three members who I also encourage to do the same. The problem is that any attempt to dissuade misunderstanding is met with more hostility, and it seems apparent one who is constantly being subjected to such behavior based on false perceptions is going to eventually react in kind. (I'm fine with being hated for things I actually believe)
I used to quite enjoy this forum, and still have a number of good friends here, so those intent on running me off I advize to just give up and ignore my posts. I am sorry my uniqueness strikes discord.
It's cool you and Stawker can believe that, I guess. Your types don't speak for you, though. Your actions and words speak for you. I never like it when people phrase it like it's a type thing. It's a you thing, and you decide your own principles and actions. In the same way, don't assume my motivation is to have my power validated because I'm an 8w7. I can leave this conversation whenever I want. I'm not at a level to where I need to dominate others to make myself feel better.1w9s see it more as a growth process, as @Stawker has alluded to. While it may seem we agree with everything the other says, this is far from the case. Somebody once commented we seem to build off each other, or something to that effect. We mutually respect each others opinions and understand each others methodologies. Truth is found via dialectic. An evolution of thought. While we are both often seen as abrasive, and he's gotten into a lot of trouble for it, we've never had a problem with each other, because we don't take ourselves too seriously until our right to autonomous thought is challenged by somebody who refuses to/is unequipped to consider a different perspective. We prefer the concept of an equal who helps you grow (I throw games against weak chess players--there is nothing gained by winning) to a subordinate who conforms to validate your power.
E: I made sure to thank your post to ensure I'm not coming at you with hostility. Things might blend in.
I actually had no problem with you even after the sexism/not sexism thread. Byegones are byegones, I'm sure you were somewhat misunderstood. But then you started popping into a ton of other threads to argue with people about how you were always right, and it got tiresome.
I couldn't find the button, so I typed this out, but now I've found it! Goodbye.
If you hold an opinion different from many of them (not all)I'm yet to see you hostile, so as I said, no hard feelings on either side. (even though I know how feel about emotes, so that might have been either nice or rude, haha)E: I made sure to thank your post to ensure I'm not coming at you with hostility. Things might blend in.
That being said, methodologies and patterns based on typing can go so far. Who you are is presented by your wording and actions.
Not sure about the latter two, but Galileo definitely led an aggressive campaign defending Copernicus, which the latter two might do in seeking to prove their views.Someone in a position similar to Galileo's or Hypatia's or our hypothetical city boy would act like the overly aggressive person you describe above. Wouldn't you agree?
The Galileo AffairBut I would add a previous pointBut Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be adduced.It seems to me that your point is one that I accept, that being aggressive doesn't inherently infer insecurity. Although I take the view that some insecure people can be quite prone to hostility/aggression, some as another insecure person may readily buckle under pressure.Because it's not a strict view that if one is aggressive then one is necessarily insecure, but a point that insecure people are easily provoked and quick to hostilities comparatively to a confident person who may confront someone's challenge just as forcefully.And I get, what I think is another point of yours, that a person may have confidence in their findings/beliefs but when those beliefs are challenged act aggressively. But when say someone is reasonably challenged on something and it doesn't take long till their flinging insults, one might reject that they in general are insecure, but can infer that they're insecure in their position.People tend to get touchy when they don't find support for their opinions, regardless of how right or wrong they are. They get insecure, in the literal meaning of the word, but that insecurity is not a personality trait. If the situation persists for long, they can come off as insecure despite having a naturally confident disposition. Put these people in different circumstances and you'll have the assertive, charismatic, and confident, person. I don't have much of an issue with your definitions apart from that there exists a subset of insecure (by your definition) people who are only situationally insecure. And let's not forget the obvious fact that someone in this situation would more likely be perceived as courageous rather than insecure, except by the oppressors. Your definition is conducive to a misidentification, that is all. The bully behavior is the rebel behavior in quite different circumstances. We don't even need an organization or a government for there to be rebels or Galileos. We see this quite often even on internet forums or wherever there is a group of people.
Not necessarily, because when I think of an oppressed people's being aggressive and asserting themselves, I don't equate them with being bullies. I'm not sure if it's necessarily a misidentification in that I wonder if you've interpreted my view in such a way that I assert that aggression ≠ confident without qualification. But I won't defend such a view although I could imagine how such a universalizing might happen based on my initial post. But I still think the view expressed there is coherent in which one identifies so strongly with a certain view that to have it questioned is threatening and it may not even be an identity thing but that it would disrupt their sense of the world too much and leave them with nothing to replace it so they're vulnerable.
I suppose I think of the person whose reaction is quite quickly one of attack because their enduring sense is one of vulnerability and so they learn to take the offense and go off the chain.
But when trying to think of a person who is confident as a personality trait, I tend to have a sense of them not too firmly based in many things, such that they can move around freely with changes in the world. This doesn't mean that they can't gold onto certain beliefs, but they can feel comfortable with things being challenged.
In the OP, they mention the opposite type of personBut then interestingly enough, I could imagine a person classifying them instead as overconfident (thus the overestimation in their ability) but I would speculate that the overconfidence could be a cover over insecurity as this person must have the right opinion. I think I even experienced this quite often in a kind of arrogance of being offended at someone else thinking they're right when I felt I was right. One might feel capable, powerful but their confidence in their view, but they could be like the person I described in my initial post as a kind of cynic. Which is a kind of intellectual cowardice that doesn't really engage with others, but denigrates their views to maintain their own. That their confidence is a shield for their vulnerability which is truly afraid to be without that defense that they place so much confidence within.I am sure you can think of examples here in this very folder who have lost touch with the way they come across and who seem abrasive, with little to back it up. For these folks, since they have an opinion, it must be the right one and it must be worth sharing. These folks tend to overestimate their own skills and overvalue their contributions, while underestimating their own failings and the skills of others.
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche | Philosophical ExplorationsBut maybe we would call that person still confident, but I just consider it a lesser confidence and denigrate it as ideal.The genuine heart of sadness comes from feeling that your nonexistent heart is full. You would like to spill your heart’s blood, give your heart to others. For the warrior, this experience of sad and tender heart is what gives birth to fearlessness. Conventionally, being fearless means that you are not afraid or that, if someone hits you, you will hit him back. However, we are not talking about that street-fighter level of fearlessness. Real fearlessness is the product of tenderness. It comes from letting the world tickle your heart, your raw and beautiful heart. You are willing to open up, without resistance or shyness, and face the world. You are willing to share your heart with others.” — from Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior
The above though speaks to a point where vulnerability is a sign of confidence and courage, because it's those that are too unable to allow themselves to be vulnerable show themselves limited by that fear.
Because the person that closes them off comes off as the OP saysAll in all, I'm just spitballing and don't have too certain a sense of what confidence essentially is, but trying to imagine the type of person that I think exudes confidence and by default tends to draw people's attention in due to it. I tend to think of it in terms of social dominance, one maintains their dominance in a setting quite forcefully where the other may not even seek the spotlight but when they want to be heard everyone listens so of deal.we don't require the opinions of others to checkpoint our thinking. However, there is a danger in going too far that way, you can find yourself coming off as an opinionated blow-hard who is out of touch with what is going on around you and how you are received by others.
sort of opinionated know-it-all we see drift through here on a regular basis.
But then that may not be essentially a confident person, but I can't help but associate a sense of a charismatic person as being an ideal kind of confidence that has a well balanced approach where they're assertive of their views but they don't demean people or what ever in reaction unless very tempered to a certain end perhaps, not a reaction out of having a soft spot hit. Because they don't have soft spots because they would be like the person who opens themselves up to the world and can bare themselves to it rather than have shame about things.
Originally Posted by Mr Canis@Stawker ... you are right here. I would feel indignant. And Wellsy is right, too, my confidence would be in jeopardy.Originally Posted by Stawker
Me feeling such a deep degree of empathy can cloud my judgement. It can make me believe that I know best, because I know what would make ME feel better (Fi) and what would make the situation better (Te). It can transform my confidence into arrogance. In my arrogance, I may think that my way of doing things is the best ... no questions ... no substitutions. Especially if my Te judgment is in accord with my Fi judgment.
But consider this subjective truth:
In your parable, who has a better chance of knowing the hearts and minds of the villagers? Me ... the person who has just arrived in the middle of nowhere? Or the leader? (Let's leave out abusive power-structures, as that was not part of your initial premise and it twists the dataset, hence has impact on my response ... I am trying to keep things simple so my Ne doesn't explode *sighs*).
Ideally, I want the leader to listen to me without prejudice, accept my judgement and enact my strategy. But how often do people really extend that level of compliance, when "the ask" clashes with deep personal/group values?
If I allow my empathy to drive me from confidence to arrogance, I stop listening/searching for ways that I can lead people, rather than enforce my truth on them. I start bossing and snarling and punishing ... I forget about all of the other ways that I can influence the outcome.
Does the leader have a sick loved one that is desperate enough to let me treat them? Is anyone stopping me using my idea as a supplement to the existing "strategy" of sacrificing goats? Can I gather enough community support to get the leader's notice? Are goat sales vitally important to the economy? Are there powerful goat-magnates that will fight against me to protect their profits? Are there ways that I can organise goat exports that makes it more economically viable to not use them for sacrifice?
If I am rude and arrogant about the leader's beliefs, up front:
- Why should he trust me to roam free and get answers to all of those ^^^ questions?
- What's my next point of escalation after shouting? Begging? Violence? Self-martyrdom?
The questions I ask myself when I feel my empathy pushing my confidence to arrogance level:
- How does this situation affect me personally? How/why is it lighting up my brain? (The answer is usually something like: "It makes me feel angry and powerless. I don't like feeling angry and powerless. I want to use my anger to prove how powerful I am").
^^^ Here, I force myself to recognise that this is not an entirely selfless act. I am personally invested, therefore, I am likely to imbue my message with, at least a measure of, subjective/personal judgment ... not just objective judgment.
- What are the costs/benefits of my harmony placation vs doing nothing? (This includes everything from considering the lives lost to considering how wretched I would feel if I fought, lost and had to continue watching the madness because I was imprisoned for my stance).
^^^ Here I am forcing myself to face the data, objective, subjective and projected.
- Other than my anger and rhetoric, what tools/opportunities do I have at my disposal? (This includes things like maths, market forces, key people and their drivers/motivators, NLP, psychology models, philosophy ... anything that can be repurposed to serve my cause).
^^^ Here I am forcing myself to, at least, consider external validation points along with internal validation.
- Who has a vested interest in supporting vs detracting? (I elicit information from both quarters).
^^^ Here I am forcing myself to remain open to addendums/tweaks to my solution. External validation/corrective input.
I do all this to slow myself down, so that I remain centred, calm and working all the way through my functions, rather than falling into the grips of my inferior function, or leaving myself open to function loops.
Anything that I lead, I care about ... I can't help it. All I can do is make sure that I ration out my care so that it doesn't consume me and obscure my vision. That's the type of leader I choose to be.
I am not sure if that is of any assistance to you, but I wanted to share because I worry that you may end up finding out this stuff the hard way, like I did. When I stop accepting inputs/external validation, I end up hurting people without realising it. I am sorry if it seems judgemental of me ... and I own that I post this partially to fulfil my desire to help.
Last edited by Sangoire; 09-26-2017 at 08:03 PM. Reason: spelling and formatting
Bolderousness to read my discussions but of course I know from that last discussion about masculinity/femininity that you have a penchant for reading your projections into people's posts. He made a point about my preferences being unproductive and hence stupid, and I went there and told him that his were stupid not mine. Never forced him to do something, never told him to do anything. An eye for an eye, as simple as that.
I'd like to know what kind of national competitions these are or where you even live because if you won there, there's something egregiously wrong with the system.
I don't disagree with anything you say. My intention here was solely to show that there exist circumstances where a normally calm and confident person will be driven to aggression and this aggression can only be interpreted as courage at best and as madness at worst. Insecurity will be hard to find in there. There can be multitude of ways you can help the villagers or multitude of ways you can simply show yourself out. My concern is the immediate reaction, which I can safely assume will be the same for most humans with very few exceptions (exceptions that have had experience with these kinds of situations before).
Look, it wasn't an insult if that is what you were thinking.
Last edited by Baracuda902; 09-27-2017 at 11:01 AM.