Why I am an asshole

[mikemex]

I'm writing this as a suggestion from a forum member. I'll try to do so briefly and in an easy way, so everyone can understand it.

If you believe in socionics, you believe that we all experience reality in a distorted way and that we all are unable to notice the distortion by ourselves. We need other people, specially those who understand reality in a very different way to us, to have a more precise understanding of it. Also, we're ultimately unable to fully realize how things really are.

It is no difficult to realize then that all human knowledge to date is distorted for the simple reason that fields such as science and philosophy are dominated by a certain kind of individuals (I'm thinking about 'NT's in particular and 'T's in general), with virtually no presence of the other kinds.

Why does this happen? Well, to make it easy for people here to understand, I'll put it in socionics terms: it is because all 'T's are low on Fe while all 'F's are high on it. This causes 'F's to have a tendency to repress thoughts which are perceived to be disruptive to other people. 'T's do not naturally develop this inhibition and thus they can go against the general opinion much easier. For this reason 'F's in general are perceived as nice people, but dumb, while 'T's are perceived as rough but smart.

But what happens when an 'F' chooses, for whatever reason, to act like a 'T'? This is, when an F doesn't care about being nice to anyone but instead cares about simply being right or wrong? My opinion is that such a person is doomed to receive a hostile response from everyone. It is an hybrid; neither 'nice' nor 'smart'.

I'm an asshole because I'm unwilling to accept people who sees the world differently than me to tell me that I'm wrong. What they truly mean by that is that I don't fit their picture; and it's not like I should.

[consentingadult]

@mikemex: can you perhaps explain to me how the above views on T/F are different from the Agreeability dimension in the Big 5?

[XoX]

If you don't (mainly) stick to using your ego block functions you will end up being disliked. Especially super-id and super-ego "over usage" can make you seem really annoying.

[marooned]

This causes 'F's to have a tendency to repress thoughts which are perceived to be disruptive to other people. 'T's do not naturally develop this inhibition and thus they can go against the general opinion much easier. For this reason 'F's in general are perceived as nice people, but dumb, while 'T's are perceived as rough but smart.

Actually, I can sort of relate to this part. It's not that I repress thoughts that I think might "be disruptive to others" or to the overall atmosphere... it's that I repress actions that might be (including guarding what I say). I do often experience this torn feeling about it. I think then what I generally do is try to jar things a bit with what I do say to try to redirect something, without my stating much about it directly... over time I'll redirect it more. It's a mess really. In fact, I stop doing that sort of thing when I finally feel comfortable around someone else and feel I can open up and just flat out say what I think.

There are multiple ways to try to convey what I see, and the direct way is the one I often neglect. Logical types do seem to be less inhibited about this sort of thing, and in a way I envy that. But then if I were to be so uninhibited myself I might feel guilty, start worrying about whether I had hurt someone, and try to do some damage control. But all of this is really my problem and doesn't have much to do with interactions between logical and ethical types. Meaning I can overcome this little issue all my own without needing any intertype relations around me to change.

But what happens when an 'F' chooses, for whatever reason, to act like a 'T'? This is, when an F doesn't care about being nice to anyone but instead cares about simply being right or wrong? My opinion is that such a person is doomed to receive a hostile response from everyone. It is an hybrid; neither 'nice' nor 'smart'.

I do also agree that it's easy to fall into roles, and I understand your perception here (I think). But I still think this kind of thing is a personal internal sort of struggle. I don't believe there's much (if any) of a double-standard between logical and ethical types the world over. I also don't think that the view that ethical types are "dumb" is really all that pervasive (not even on this forum). I think it would be dumb actually to hold such a view (unless there's some good reason for it).

[mikemex]

I don't believe there's much (if any) of a double-standard between logical and ethical types the world over.

You're not observant enough then. There are many examples, but few are as obvious as the moral development controversy between Kohlberg and Gilligan. In broad terms, Kohlberg started to build a model based on his own understanding of ethical concerns (T) and everything looked "fine", but after a while Gilligan came in and started to question the model because it seemed like Kohlberg just excluded the views that didn't match his own.

The point here is the level of skepticism. A lot of people is deceived because they assume that a partial truth is automatically an absolute truth.

[UDP]

I'm an asshole because I either am getting sloppy (and I don't realize it or don't want to admit it)

or

because other people are getting sloppy (and I can't stand it, so I am more direct than I ought to be)

[FDG]

I do too divert my actions sometimes in order not to hurt people I care about. But I see ethical types as overdoing it imho. On a side, it's good because otherwise there would be many more conflicts. On the other side, it's bad because this way unresolved issues remain unresolved.