Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Few days ago I had one of my enemies (or I am one of hers, whatever) take online tests for MBTI type to figure out why we disagree in everything. I'm fairly certain of my type after research, and although she didn't do any research about the subject, she said the descriptions fit perfectly (and I don't think it's Forer effect, she dismissed all the others).

I have always considered her SJ (ESxJ/xSTJ) type, or with some chance SFP, because she's never hesitant to make clear to everyone that she thinks rules are everything. She once banned me from her forum without a second thought or chance, which is the source of our disharmony for years. She also supports death penalty for paedophilic acts.

I told her that thinking that responding to evil acts with evil acts is the best or right way is not the INFP way of thinking, or that especially since she believes in afterlife it shouldn't be other men's business to judge another. She in turn thought I couldn't be INFP, because I see this notion of "everyone should have the right to hold onto their own opinions, beliefs and views no matter what they are" as making no sense. And isn't it more of a matter of personal ethics rather than universal for INFP type (like the matter of valuing harmony above all else versus getting into a lot of arguments because other values are simply seen as more important?) I see that if you do not condemn someone's opinion that for example, "killing gays because they're gays is ok", then it is the same thing as agreeing with them. If you don't agree, you condemn. And if you condemn, you consider acts to force them change their opinion right. You can't have both ways. I therefore support the concept of "thought crime".

I see the alternative being that if we know for example that someone considers killing gays ok, then we must wait until the first murder happens before taking any action to restrict their freedom, since opinion cannot be a crime. The single unnecessary death must be considered a necessary downside to a more important freedom. I can hardly support this view.

Besides, I see that even in the state where nothing has yet happened, a kind of "bellum omnium contra omnes" on a symbolic level which I see people cohabitating the same locations holding discriminative beliefs of each others being, is not a desirable state of affairs. At least I don't want to live in such a society, beccause I sense people's emotions. So yes, not every opinion is, can not or should be equal, and not every opinion should be allowed to be wielded, that's nonsense. One who doesn't support other community members doesn't eat from the same table.

She sees harsh penalties for crimes not being "spreading of darkness" while I do. I see personal vengeance in case the other party cannot be held responsible for any crime but still has caused you major trouble as not, while she does.

Just asking what you think, based on experience, who is more typical an INFP? My "anti-democracy" attitude should not be any stranger for INFP value than the apparent "legalism" of hers, should it?
Can the values of us be absolutely anything, or do you consider some limitations? Not asking a debate over these things, but that's not too discouraged either.

Another thing I'd like to ask is INFPs' opinions of / relation to hate. My enemy told she hates a lot of different people (different KINDS of people was in fact the exact phrasing, implying that includes ones she doesn't even know but who just fall in to the same boxes as someone else), but still insists on their freedom to be anything and not wanting any harm to them as long as they do not do anything considered criminal. I on the other hand do not hate anyone, and I see hate and willingness to the disposal of the target of hate from the face of earth as inseparable. From a highly personal affair, abuse, deliberate abandonment, discrimination I might start hating someone, and thus begin wishing pain and misfortune to them. But she is not included at least, since I'd be willing to talk things through and settle the whole argument if only she did the same. This was another thing she didn't agree with or understand. I've always thought hate was the one thing that INFPs NEVER associated with lightly.

So while I do not hate any person, I can hate their opinions, and hence, support forcible converting. I see this as the only rational way if you truly want to hone your ideals (that is, if anarchy and chaos is not your top ideal). And shouldn't Fi, in fact, be MORE inclined to make you think "everyone should be fed my sense of right and wrong" than "everyone should be allowed to think whatever they want like I do", as opposed to Fe which just makes you agree on virtually anything you're being fed at young age and consequently, as you meet new people and are willing to share the same kind of bond with them as you did with your parents and other close ones but notice how they can have vastly different views, start thinking more in terms of the latter. Especially since Fi values can come rather randomly, from God knows where, disregard of your upbringing. Fi wants to bond, but without changing itself. Staying true to itself is more important than the bonds, even if you did never find perfect ones, whereas Fe is prone to constant change by surroundings. Isn't that how it goes?

So it's only a clash of values, as much as we would like to see each others as different types due to emotional reasons. Two of the same magnetic polarities repulsing each others. Interesting.

I'm actually starting to think Te users value mercy more than Fi users in general. It's not efficient to have someone just sit in a death row instead of living normally and doing work, you see - and even if they are just jailed, the resources that went to their education and such are wasted if they're stuck in digging ditches.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
I think I'm just really tired, because it took quite a bit of concentration to understand your viewpoints versus hers. So if I get some of this wrong about what you said, then I apologize. Also, I'm not really trying to start a debate, just giving you my viewpoints as another INFP to help you out.

I told her that thinking that responding to evil acts with evil acts is the best or right way is not the INFP way of thinking, or that especially since she believes in afterlife it shouldn't be other men's business to judge another. She in turn thought I couldn't be INFP, because I see this notion of "everyone should have the right to hold onto their own opinions, beliefs and views no matter what they are" as making no sense.
I personally agree with her more than you about this. Not about the death penalty--I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that--but people do have the right to their own opinions. If they don't, if one enforces thought crime, then there's the very, very likely possibility of killing an innocent person simply because they had a fleeting thought. That's the problem with thought crime, there's no actual proof of the crime being committed, because thoughts do not equal actions. Good lord, if I were subjected to thought crime, I'd be dead ten times over for things I didn't even mean.

So yes, not every opinion is, can not or should be equal, and not every opinion should be allowed to be wielded, that's nonsense.
Well, every opinion is equal, but not every opinion is right, and therein lies the difference. By following that, you're right, not every opinion should be acted upon.

And shouldn't Fi, in fact, be MORE inclined to make you think "everyone should be fed my sense of right and wrong" than "everyone should be allowed to think whatever they want like I do", as opposed to Fe which just makes you agree on virtually anything you're being fed at young age and consequently, as you meet new people and are willing to share the same kind of bond with them as you did with your parents and other close ones but notice how they can have vastly different views, start thinking more in terms of the latter. Especially since Fi values can come rather randomly, from God knows where, disregard of your upbringing. Fi wants to bond, but without changing itself. Staying true to itself is more important than the bonds, even if you did never find perfect ones, whereas Fe is prone to constant change by surroundings. Isn't that how it goes?
Your view on Fi may be a little skewed. It was my understanding that, while Fi values are subjective to the individual, they're not really set in stone. That is, an Fi-dominant person will be more likely to change their opinions should something resonate with them. Fe-doms, on the other hand, are less likely to change their views (which are normally the same as whatever group/culture they run with). In fact, I thought Fi-Ne people were more likely to say, "I believe this, but I can see how your opinion is valid, too." That's how I operate, anyway, except on a few choice subjects where I feel absolutely right. But even those opinions of mine may be changed as I learn and develop.

So far, the only thing you and I agree on (from your post, at least) is the issue of hate. I try very hard not to hate types of people, which is different than disagreeing with or disliking them, mind. But hate, to me, doesn't mean I wish pain and misfortune upon them. If I do wish for those things, then it's usually a quick thought, a passing desire borne out of anger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
so... just a thought, hard to tell from what you posted but i see a possibility...

you guys are enemies for a while, she knows your perspective because you've explained it, and about how you feel different from her... mayhaps she just said she was INFP to get you riled up? because she was certain you'd react?

people are weird, and people do that sort of thing much more than we expect, coming from the love-everything-harm-nothing-spread-light perspective. i'm always amazed how some people don't even need a reason to mess with people, they get lifted up (or so they believe) by giving people a hard time for the sake of it.

sounds like this whole train of thought isn't worth your time.... think about the people who love you instead! :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
What do you mean by typical INFP? Besides, political views have absolutely nothing to do with type. Using value based judgements on abstract information is being INFP. Pro or anti death penalty is just up to experience and the different values you each hold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I think I'm just really tired, because it took quite a bit of concentration to understand your viewpoints versus hers. So if I get some of this wrong about what you said, then I apologize. Also, I'm not really trying to start a debate, just giving you my viewpoints as another INFP to help you out.


I personally agree with her more than you about this. Not about the death penalty--I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that--but people do have the right to their own opinions. If they don't, if one enforces thought crime, then there's the very, very likely possibility of killing an innocent person simply because they had a fleeting thought. That's the problem with thought crime, there's no actual proof of the crime being committed, because thoughts do not equal actions. Good lord, if I were subjected to thought crime, I'd be dead ten times over for things I didn't even mean.


Well, every opinion is equal, but not every opinion is right, and therein lies the difference. By following that, you're right, not every opinion should be acted upon.


Your view on Fi may be a little skewed. It was my understanding that, while Fi values are subjective to the individual, they're not really set in stone. That is, an Fi-dominant person will be more likely to change their opinions should something resonate with them. Fe-doms, on the other hand, are less likely to change their views (which are normally the same as whatever group/culture they run with). In fact, I thought Fi-Ne people were more likely to say, "I believe this, but I can see how your opinion is valid, too." That's how I operate, anyway, except on a few choice subjects where I feel absolutely right. But even those opinions of mine may be changed as I learn and develop.

So far, the only thing you and I agree on (from your post, at least) is the issue of hate. I try very hard not to hate types of people, which is different than disagreeing with or disliking them, mind. But hate, to me, doesn't mean I wish pain and misfortune upon them. If I do wish for those things, then it's usually a quick thought, a passing desire borne out of anger.
I personally agree with her more than you about this. Not about the death penalty--I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that--but people do have the right to their own opinions. If they don't, if one enforces thought crime, then there's the very, very likely possibility of killing an innocent person simply because they had a fleeting thought. That's the problem with thought crime, there's no actual proof of the crime being committed, because thoughts do not equal actions. Good lord, if I were subjected to thought crime, I'd be dead ten times over for things I didn't even mean.
Quite a slippery slope argument you have there. And after I so explicitly said death penalty should never be practiced...
How did you come to the conclusion that someone was going to get KILLED for their opinions, especially IF THEY DID NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAID? All I'm saying is that people who think like that are potentially dangerous and should be not allowed to be free. They should however only be brought into a head examination, and if it's confirmed the person in question was not serious, then no further consequences, and within a certain time span they would not be treated similarly no matter what they did. Of course there's no idiotproof way to know whether they were serious or not, but it's still better than nothing. If I spoke of "crime" that doesn't mean crime in classical sense, a punishable crime. Just that they have gotten a "yellow card". Most crimes are such nonpersonal in nature that they should not be punished at all but just subject the client to forced psychotheraphy, drugs etc.

Your view on Fi may be a little skewed. It was my understanding that, while Fi values are subjective to the individual, they're not really set in stone. That is, an Fi-dominant person will be more likely to change their opinions should something resonate with them. Fe-doms, on the other hand, are less likely to change their views (which are normally the same as whatever group/culture they run with). In fact, I thought Fi-Ne people were more likely to say, "I believe this, but I can see how your opinion is valid, too." That's how I operate, anyway, except on a few choice subjects where I feel absolutely right. But even those opinions of mine may be changed as I learn and develop.
Well, then that's my way of using it. Hard to tell to which extent this is learned behaviour (my parents are STJs and everything has always been set in stone in my life) but it's not going to change anywhere in near future. I see no reason. Otherwise I could just as well start acting out ISFJ or whatever.

this thread hurts my brain :(
Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
Quite a slippery slope argument you have there. And after I so explicitly said death penalty should never be practiced...
How did you come to the conclusion that someone was going to get KILLED for their opinions, especially IF THEY DID NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAID? All I'm saying is that people who think like that are potentially dangerous and should be not allowed to be free. They should however only be brought into a head examination, and if it's confirmed the person in question was not serious, then no further consequences, and within a certain time span they would not be treated similarly no matter what they did. Of course there's no idiotproof way to know whether they were serious or not, but it's still better than nothing. If I spoke of "crime" that doesn't mean crime in classical sense, a punishable crime. Just that they have gotten a "yellow card". Most crimes are such nonpersonal in nature that they should not be punished at all but just subject the client to forced psychotheraphy, drugs etc.
Like I said, tired. I'm sorry I got a fact wrong.

Still, interrogating people for their thoughts is a total infringement on privacy, punishment or not. And forced psychotherapy, drugging? How is that any better than those who insist that homosexuality is all in your head and can be "cured" with intense therapy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No.

Oh, heat i can stand

It's the implying that you should punish people for opinions that bothers me
I was never a big fan of inquisitions :p
It's not inquisition if it doesn't target those questioning the status quo. It targets only those threatening other people's safety. And it's compatible with democracy even, as most people only desire safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I haven't really bothered to read everything that was said here... Its just that your way of explaining things is a bit hard to follow.

But it just sounds like you both grew up in families teaching opposite values... Being INFP does not mean you're pro-life, republican, or anything else. Our values are deep seated, but our values are not the same as the next person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Still, interrogating people for their thoughts is a total infringement on privacy, punishment or not. And forced psychotherapy, drugging? How is that any better than those who insist that homosexuality is all in your head and can be "cured" with intense therapy?
Umm.. homosexuality does not even potentially hurt anyone?

And you said you have not made up your mind about death penalty. Then, how would YOU know no innocent person was being killed? That's the problem with the death penalty. Once administered, no way back, unlike with drugging, imprisonment, etc. Very un-P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
You can't start punishing people for their thoughts and opinions, because who is to say which opinion is right or wrong? If the "group in charge" decides that abortion is wrong then people could be punished for being pro-abortion. They could even then argue that it is "thinking about killing someone" just like the example of killing people for being gay that was given earlier.

I think freedom of speech and opinion is very important, but you can obviously try to persuade people to change their opinions through education and argument. If someone is having dangerous thoughts and expressing them then you need to inform authorities but most of the time people will never act on these thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
thoughtcrime enforcing just seems like dystopian idea to me, who decides whats dangerous?
and don't say "everyone", without first explaining when "everyone"actually got a vote.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
This statement is self-defeating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanolX

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
And you said you have not made up your mind about death penalty. Then, how would YOU know no innocent person was being killed? That's the problem with the death penalty. Once administered, no way back, unlike with drugging, imprisonment, etc. Very un-P.
There is never a way back when you do those acts towards a person. Drugging, a person will have a scar\memory upon himself forever. Imprisonment, there is no way back, time goes by, time does not wait. Murdering is of course a much larger thievery of life, but that does not mean that the other methods are not.

Remember that from some perspectives, death can be a blessing. An escape from a lot of pain. How can we tackle the issue with a strict principle?

If we follow the golden rule, then we have learned that one must do towards another what one wants the other to do to ourselves. Which means that if one can killl without remorse, then one also deserves the same treatment. This creates a cycle of evil. I stay clear from the issue so that I do not get caught in the fray.

It is an issue that can not be seen in black and white, but in a myriad of colors.

ON-TOPIC: Even though we are INFPs we are still human. All human are unique and different. Maybe her enneagram type is different from yours. Maybe you are both 8's =P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
This statement is self-defeating.
so is punishing people for their thoughts, especially if the people who decide whats wrong or right, are the people who hand out punishments. It will no longer be a democracy, and if you disagree, well, you get the gist of it.

You could disagree with me some more on this, but i'll just have you arrested and killed for committing thoughtcrime!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
whoa brothers chill out for a second what are you guys discussing, lets be neutral here. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
so you basically going to disagree with the other infp forever unless your opions match. so if i was you i would be the mature one and say lets be neutral, and talk about subjects you guys like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,999 Posts
Fi can embody several ideologies. I think, frankly, authoritarian approaches to morality are the result of Fi overload/Fi unrefined. As we become more mature, we learn to control our Fi and not let it run so much amok like the raptors in Jurassic Park, tearing others to shreds and all that. We learn to be more... tolerant. This is just my opinion.
 

·
(ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Joined
·
5,110 Posts
I see that if you do not condemn someone's opinion that for example, "killing gays because they're gays is ok", then it is the same thing as agreeing with them. If you don't agree, you condemn. And if you condemn, you consider acts to force them change their opinion right. You can't have both ways. I therefore support the concept of "thought crime".

I see the alternative being that if we know for example that someone considers killing gays ok, then we must wait until the first murder happens before taking any action to restrict their freedom, since opinion cannot be a crime. The single unnecessary death must be considered a necessary downside to a more important freedom. I can hardly support this view.
I don't think that this would be a practical system if it were to be implemented. I see several problems here.

Your first contention is that anything other than condemnation is the same as agreement. You state this as if it is axiomatic, but I'm not sure why. I can think of a variety of situations in which an individual may not know enough about a topic to formulate an opinion, for example, or situations in which someone may not care. Also, what if two people have the same goal, but different methodology, and this is reflected in their opinion?

You stated that if someone condemns an opinion, "you consider acts to force them change their opinion right." This was actually rather shocking for me to read. Force someone to change their opinion? This raises a whole slew of problems, not the least of which is why you have a right to compel someone to conform to your beliefs but they don't have the right to do the same to you. It also presumes that your opinion is correct and theirs are wrong.

In your opinion, should you have the monopoly of force when it comes to opinion change? And if that's the case, why you, of all people? Because I could see a rather ironic situation of someone biggest/stronger/more powerful than you coming along and saying, "You know alpha, I agree with you completely. But I'm going to be the one calling the shots." What would you do in that case, if your own beliefs were turned against you? If it's purely a force relationship, then couldn't the dominant opinion change based on how much force you could gather rather than the validity of your ideas? It seems that such a philosophy could easily be turned back on its owner.

It's also ironic that the laws you praise were the result of democratic lawmaking, and the anti-homosexual laws you decry have historically been the product of tyrants who would have agreed with you on how the world should be run.

I support the idea that one should be true to themselves, but I'm not about to presume that I'm so fundamentally right that other people must conform to what I believe. I think that's an incredibly dangerous line of thinking.

If one person has this ideology, then you have tyranny. If two people have it, then you get a fight. If half a country has it, you get a civil war. If a whole country has it, you get anarchy. It's just not feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psilo and Promethea
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top