Personality Cafe banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ever since my puberty (age 10), I've began to grow toward neutrality on everything that my body perceived. At first, emotion was triggered regardless of my will; however, as time went by, I've become increasingly "numb" to physical/mental inputs. I realize that during all this time (age 10 to current 21), I was self-conditioning myself to be distant. To see the accurate picture, I was compelled to break out of the picture itself, and see observe the picture from a neutral perspective: a view-point not for or against anyone or anything, but just in tune with the causality of this universe. My tone has changed to reflect this, cautious of making absolute statements, always trying to understand why others develop their unique perspectives. I've stopped being emotional, I've stopped being aggressive or defensive, as I saw no point.

I had thought most others around me as yellow flames, visibly hot and intense, and thought of myself as a blue flame, so intensely burning life that it's cold-looking, almost invisible. But, this wasn't the case; everyone, everything in life was simply; existing. There was no need for defining what is good and what is bad, forming "internal convictions" to force view-points onto others. I realized "tolerance", was just another name for neutrality.

I think I've started to gain "inner peace."
Although I can be slightly irritated at times, nothing makes me angry. I've become neither sad or ecstatically happy. Whatever life throws at me, I've wanted to able to catch it with a gentle smile.

(Thanks for reading my long, subjective ramble. :blushed:)

So, here are my questions:

What is your view on neutrality?
What is your view on morality?
What makes a person strong? (intentionally left "strong in what sense" ambiguous)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Does being entirely factual count as "neutral"?
I think it is what one does with those facts that makes one neutral.
Are the facts used to understand how the world works?
Or are the facts used to accomplish a hidden agenda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
Ah, I see.

If my "agenda" is to improve the world for the better for everyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nox

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Ah, I see.

If my "agenda" is to improve the world for the better for everyone?
Everything that has agenda is not neutral, with the only exception being "agenda to understand the world: science." So it is very difficult to be neutral. Once you use those facts for anything other than science, your actions will carry a moral dimension behind it.

"Having only causal dimension" is also another name for neutrality. And there is no such thing as "scientific conviction," as the word "conviction" itself carries a moral dimension behind it.

"Understanding of the causal dimension of this universe" is another name for science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Ever since my puberty (age 10), I've began to grow toward neutrality on everything that my body perceived. At first, emotion was triggered regardless of my will; however, as time went by, I've become increasingly "numb" to physical/mental inputs. I realize that during all this time (age 10 to current 21), I was self-conditioning myself to be distant. To see the accurate picture, I was compelled to break out of the picture itself, and see observe the picture from a neutral perspective: a view-point not for or against anyone or anything, but just in tune with the causality of this universe. My tone has changed to reflect this, cautious of making absolute statements, always trying to understand why others develop their unique perspectives. I've stopped being emotional, I've stopped being aggressive or defensive, as I saw no point.

I had thought most others around me as yellow flames, visibly hot and intense, and thought of myself as a blue flame, so intensely burning life that it's cold-looking, almost invisible. But, this wasn't the case; everyone, everything in life was simply; existing. There was no need for defining what is good and what is bad, forming "internal convictions" to force view-points onto others. I realized "tolerance", was just another name for neutrality.

I think I've started to gain "inner peace."
Although I can be slightly irritated at times, nothing makes me angry. I've become neither sad or ecstatically happy. Whatever life throws at me, I've wanted to able to catch it with a gentle smile.

(Thanks for reading my long, subjective ramble. :blushed:)
I have undergone a similar progress and I do not deem it complete yet on a personal level, however I do think that it is very efficient and ideal state of being. Opinions I have, are based on factual information and in a sense I deem them neutral even if their existence may anger certain people in certain subjects like religion and sexuality. All conclusions I have are void of actual emotional bias and their foundation lies in statistics and common good.

My tendency to express my opinions of neutral and factual content has sometimes unfortunate ability to arouse anger and falsefully portray a stance that is not true to intent. It is the price of embracing the neutral; in nature neutral is not always positive or tolerant. Neutrality and lacking emotional bias on "what feels good" basis leads to problems with people that are hung up to their own crutches or are afraid of their own weaknesses being displayed in the light.

Tolerance is actually far from neutrality, tolerance is stoic and idealistic. Often tolerance requires either self sacrifice or sacrifice of one over the other point of emotional bias.

So, here are my questions:

What is your view on neutrality?
What is your view on morality?
What makes a person strong? (intentionally left "strong in what sense" ambiguous)
Neutrality has many disambiguations, on a personal level neutrality is ability to embrace factual information despite it not being what you want it to be, it often simulates tolerance in matters like race, gender and personal lives of people. But same time it may also seem almost unforgiving to strong extremes like zealotry, bigotry, religious dogma and many other non neutral elements that try to impose themselves unto others.

Morality is an interesting concept. I do not claim expertise on it, but I can share my observations on it: often many choices can be misunderstood as moral whereas they were based only on neutrality or logic. And same time things that appear most immoral can be made with the best intention and end up benefiting many. Morality to me seems like a flawed concept in need of revision, it is suffering from too many controversies.

Personal strength beyond one of physical prowess is commonly seen as both strength of character and strength of dedication. Reliability beyond own comfort level. Ability to stand your ground when you are certain of your facts and same time strength to admit when you are wrong. Often it also can be compared to wisdom but possesses more resilient quality to it as it is an array of qualities that work together to make an individual "strong".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
Ever since my puberty (age 10), I've began to grow toward neutrality on everything that my body perceived. At first, emotion was triggered regardless of my will; however, as time went by, I've become increasingly "numb" to physical/mental inputs. I realize that during all this time (age 10 to current 21), I was self-conditioning myself to be distant. To see the accurate picture, I was compelled to break out of the picture itself, and see observe the picture from a neutral perspective: a view-point not for or against anyone or anything, but just in tune with the causality of this universe.
I did the same. It came from the realization that most arguments, although contradicting, carried the same weight. I found that if I wanted I was able to support both arguments of any given controversy. Since both arguments had their validity, I reasoned, the solution must lie somewhere in the middle. I still believe that, although I have a lot of opinions that don't seem like they are neutral to others.

What is your view on neutrality?
No ethical decision can be made without it. It is impossible to achieve without emotional distance. Making correct decisions require a certain neutrality, but it's almost impossible to attain it fully because we are tainted by unconscious emotional fluctuations that influence our decisions. These must be countered above all by self-knowledge and constant self-evaluation.
What is your view on morality?
I believe that, all things being equal, the correct decision is to kill one person in order to save two, and since killing isn't acceptable by most moral standards, I find most notions of morality flawed and incomplete.
What makes a person strong? (intentionally left "strong in what sense" ambiguous)
Indifference. No one can hurt a person who doesn't care either way. You are strong if you're able to adapt to change easily, the better your are at adapting, the stronger you are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
All conclusions I have are void of actual emotional bias and their foundation lies in statistics and common good.
Statistical approach is neutral, but you've also said "common good," which I believe has a moral implication in it.

It is the price of embracing the neutral; in nature neutral is not always positive or tolerant...[omit]...Tolerance is actually far from neutrality, tolerance is stoic and idealistic. Often tolerance requires either self sacrifice or sacrifice of one over the other point of emotional bias.
Maybe I should extrapolate my explanation why tolerance is linked to neutrality. Being neutral has consequence of tolerance because you are completely apart from the "picture" your are observing, which means that you let the picture naturally flow, and you don't morally intervene because not only is intervention based on moral conviction non-neutral, but also it will break the natural flow and will contaminate your observation. You observe like you don't exist; neutral, both intentionally and inadvertently, tolerant.

And same time things that appear most immoral can be made with the best intention and end up benefiting many.
Spot on.
(I assure you; if you really think about the consequence of that statement, you will find an unexpected piece of wisdom. I won't give you the answer because I don't like to take away the joy of discovery.)
:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No ethical decision can be made without it. It is impossible to achieve without emotional distance. Making correct decisions require a certain neutrality, but it's almost impossible to attain it fully because we are tainted by unconscious emotional fluctuations that influence our decisions. These must be countered above all by self-knowledge and constant self-evaluation.
Well-said all the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hmm, are there no new thoughts?
I'd think topic of neutrality/morality would be entertaining/resonating for INTJs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I think I've started to gain "inner peace."
Although I can be slightly irritated at times, nothing makes me angry. I've become neither sad or ecstatically happy. Whatever life throws at me, I've wanted to able to catch it with a gentle smile.
Whenever I find myself like that, I always end up calling myself 'content', having gained inner peace and all. Would that be the correct term? I am somehow bothered if it is accurate to call oneself content when experiencing the same "inner peace" as you have described.

Anyway...

What is your view on neutrality?

I think it's... being able to think objectively? Objectively in the sense that the person's thinking is not tainted by influence, bias, or emotions. Neutrality is accepting everything for what they are, and understanding/discovering facts for the sake of knowing and expanding the knowledge of this world (science). However, I don't think a person can absolutely be neutral. We're humans who were born with emotions. Whether we like it or not, emotions are there. Even if we become indifferent, we will still be subconsciously affected by them. (Not exactly a new answer, but hey, you asked XD)

What is your view on morality?

A set of rules humans made up about what's right and what's wrong. It differs from person to person really, just as each has his own religion, or philosophy, or beliefs. Morality is what people think is absolutely right and absolutely wrong, but morality itself is not absolute. Some people don't believe in others' moral beliefs, or think that their morals are flawed. I somehow tie morality with convictions of people of what they think should and should not be done, on the account of what is fair and what is good.

What makes a person strong?

I don't necessarily believe that indifference makes a person strong. Perhaps strong intellectually and logically, then yes, since our emotions won't hinder our thinking if we become indifferent or emotionally distant. But as a person, I don't think so. What defines a person? In what sense does a person become strong? In my opinion, a person is anyone human. Humans are born with emotions as well as intelligence, both of which separates him from the rest of the creatures on this planet. So to become strong as a person - as a human - I believe you must not only utilize your head, but also your heart. (This might sound weird coming from an INTJ, but hey, even I sincerely doubt if I got my results right.)

Also, I always admired people who stand by their beliefs and principles, no matter what happens, even if their beliefs are ridiculously stupid. In the long run, some of those people may endanger themselves with their conviction, but in the end, I think those convictions made them stronger as a person.









Just putting my two cents in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nox

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Whenever I find myself like that, I always end up calling myself 'content', having gained inner peace and all. Would that be the correct term? I am somehow bothered if it is accurate to call oneself content when experiencing the same "inner peace" as you have described. (1)

I don't necessarily believe that indifference makes a person strong. Perhaps strong intellectually and logically, then yes, since our emotions won't hinder our thinking if we become indifferent or emotionally distant. But as a person, I don't think so. What defines a person? In what sense does a person become strong? In my opinion, a person is anyone human. Humans are born with emotions as well as intelligence, both of which separates him from the rest of the creatures on this planet. So to become strong as a person - as a human - I believe you must not only utilize your head, but also your heart. (This might sound weird coming from an INTJ, but hey, even I sincerely doubt if I got my results right.) (2)

Also, I always admired people who stand by their beliefs and principles, no matter what happens, even if their beliefs are ridiculously stupid. In the long run, some of those people may endanger themselves with their conviction, but in the end, I think those convictions made them stronger as a person.(3)
(1)Content is not ideal word for such state unless you indeed are Content
–adjective
1.
satisfied with what one is or has; not wanting more or anything else.
2.
British . agreeing; assenting.
3.
Archaic . willing.
But a state of no emotion, besides polite basic willfulness to cooperate in order to ensure harmony you can call Temperate or Placid. A state that is not dependent of external factors as much as content. Content you are when you have a roof over your head, food you can eat without retching and sufficient funds to sustain and maintain certain social status. But you can be placid or temperate despite lacking said factors.

Ability to tolerate intolerable conditions in stoic manner is also not indifference, only acknowledgment of ones own abilities to affect such situations by complaining and acting entitled being marginal to nonexistent. This allows then one with some self discipline to continue performing the necessary tasks as well as situation allows rather than burdening others with your own discomfort when it is evident those others are in similar discomfort.

(2) Indifference does not make anyone strong, only passive and unproductive. True strength is a selection of attributes that deploy intellect, productivity and initiative to improve and perfect problems and overcome obstacles. Strength hardly constitutes stubborn baseless attachment to bad ideas and archaic methods over more efficient means to accomplish goals, instead strength is also the ability to let go of the old and learn new things, accepting the challenge without fear of failure, and when failure occurs, strength is the ability to get back up and keep trying to overcome the obstacle.

(3) I see you value people who risk lives, not only their own but then others as well for clinging into the "wrong" things despite being wrong. People who have principles and stick to them no matter how foolish and harmful they may be, like doctors who refuse to perform abortions even if refusal risks more lives than the one that is not even a fully matured one (and comparable to one of a watermelon). This kind of "strength of conviction" is never beneficial or ideal, drawing lines on water and then killing people who cross them unknowingly is a sign of a crazy person not one of admirable fortitude. Perhaps it may seem "admirable" but it all roots from the fear of being wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
People who have principles and stick to them no matter how foolish and harmful they may be, like doctors who refuse to perform abortions even if refusal risks more lives than the one that is not even a fully matured one (and comparable to one of a watermelon).
Paging Dr Davenport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
What is you view on neutrality?

I think neutrality is basically detaching yourself from the subject at hand and then making objective observations without a bias for any outcome/conclusion. I think detachment is the only way of being completely objective about any issue,ensuring there is no emotional influence on your opinion/decision. This objectivity in all matters makes INTJs appear cold and distant. Most people don't understand this because they themselves almost always have some ulterior motive behind everything they say or do.

What is your view on morality?

Morality is what people think is absolutely right and absolutely wrong, but morality itself is not absolute.
I agree.
What might be considered right/just or moral by one person might be considered as immoral by another. Especially when it comes to religion, morality is defined and redefined all the time depending on the circumstances.


Ever since my puberty (age 10), I've began to grow toward neutrality on everything that my body perceived. At first, emotion was triggered regardless of my will; however, as time went by, I've become increasingly "numb" to physical/mental inputs. I realize that during all this time (age 10 to current 21), I was self-conditioning myself to be distant. To see the accurate picture, I was compelled to break out of the picture itself, and see observe the picture from a neutral perspective: a view-point not for or against anyone or anything, but just in tune with the causality of this universe. My tone has changed to reflect this, cautious of making absolute statements, always trying to understand why others develop their unique perspectives. I've stopped being emotional, I've stopped being aggressive or defensive, as I saw no point.
I have also gone through this process. Now I'm never affected by anybody's responses and I don't find the need to aggressively put my point forth. I just say what I have to say and sit back and analyze all of their responses. It's highly amusing by the way.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top