Does Ni discriminate between good and evil behavior, in your view? Or right vs wrong behavior?
INFp and ENFj Ni does it discriminate between good/evil?
Does Ni discriminate between good and evil behavior, in your view? Or right vs wrong behavior?
not really I don't think. for me, whatever feels natural = good
What I'm thinking is that IEI is the ward of right and wrong. Specific information elements can be associated with good or evil, in a broad sense, and Ni makes the determination. It also determines whether acts of good or evil, right or wrong are products of the environment, or a thing's essential nature.
For example, a lot of people thought the decision of the AIG execs to accept bonuses was morally wrong. This would be an ethical judgment of a Te sort, reflecting the use of Ni to judge Te.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-06-2010 at 02:33 PM.
IEIs always have a bone to pick with somebody. Someone's always doing nefarious deeds that must be righted by the pure of heart.
The IEI view: people commit good or evil acts because they have either good or bad hearts.
The EIE view: people have choice in doing good or evil, and their emotions will shape which one they choose.
Just out of curiosity...how might this perspective on good/evil be similar or differ from the-dominant perspective of EII?
I always thought that
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
An intention is a choice of motives. Therefore an evil intent would have to be diagnosed with Ni, or so I figure. Good and evil don't seem to have an obvious connection to Ne, which is why I take this view.Originally Posted by mikesilb
Just out of curiosity...how might this perspective on good/evil be similar or differ from the
I always thought that
yeah, I think I first look to whether the behavior has an impact on the person themselves (in some negative longterm fashion) or the way the world functions. A persons tendency to act is an issue of their motives and their immediate environment. So I look at a person and their situation, I think about the motives they have in the situation, and then I realize the ways they might try to effect the situation. From there what's good and what's evil seems to be apparent; the choice to act comes from a persons intentions. Discriminating between good and bad intentions is then a matter of judging long term impacts. Thinking about good and evil in this way is situational and relative, but within the situation it becomes clear what's absolutely good or evil.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-06-2010 at 06:44 PM.
So you would subscribe to the belief that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
Would you go so far as to offer that one choice was definitely the right one or the wrong one? One problem I have in my own experience is that when it comes to diagnosing a person "evil", I almost feel a sense of wrongness on my own part in claiming them as such because I have a tinge of empathy for anyone who would have to bear the label of an "evil" person. Do IEIs not feel this compunction?
I would rather say the road to hell is full of delusions of goodness. Yes there is always the lingering thought the person deserves empathy. I think this is for two reasons. First because when summing up whether something is good or evil IEIs consider long term impacts, which are partially artificial structures. The second is that a persons motives seem to arise from deficits in their situations. In this way I think IEI blames the circumstance and the social structure more than the actual person. But, at the moment in question, the perpetrator is defined by their circumstances and their social structure. The only blame the person permanently has is for being generally too weak to handle adversity. What I mean is, the person is not to be punished beyond the actual situation. When the situation ends and is no longer relevant, the person is forgiven; but considered weak. Within the situation the person gets tons of blame and aggression thrown at them. This is sort of vague though because many situations cross over into eachother.
I mean, if I saw george bush at a party I would talk to him and I wouldn't feel a surge of hatred toward him, because he's no longer in office and has no power; I would still realize his tendencies, but as long as they didn't become relevant at the party I wouldn't treat him differently.
I think there is also the lingering thought that if we can remove a person from their circumstances; i.e. take george bush out of office and strip him of all political power, they can then be forgiven.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-06-2010 at 07:02 PM.
I agree with the Ni/Ne statement, but there is still the Fi aspect of good/evil which I would have thought would also make this topic intriguing to EIIs and IEEs in addition to the Beta-NFs above. I was just curious how that difference might lie in terms of all four NF types.
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
But what about their motive to reclaim power?
I think you're thinking about the intent to exercise an evil option. An evil possibility, to realize it if one can.
Under crazed's criterion, Saddam Hussein should have been forgiven, maybe even let go after being removed from power. (that's my interpretation of what he said... correct me if I'm wrong, crazed) However there remained his intent to reclaim power, which would have been an evil exercise of his capability. The motive to claim power was not evil in itself, however he did it with an eye to making himself more equal than others, punishing his enemies, etc. which in turn would lead to a cascade of ill will and evil acts.
Yeah that's it tcaud. He would have to be locked up because he would still have supporters and would still have the will to reclaim power. He could cause some trouble still. But yeah, I didn't favor the death penalty even for him. Not necessary, really.. But then, when I saw an overwhelming cry for the death penalty, I also didn't have any motivation to offer resistance / make a case for his defense.
Evil????? HUM????
Good and Bad of Ethics of relationships in EII
Not good and EVIL
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
doesn't it depend on the rational ego function? Rational functions have a judgement.
What is the difference? Being evil is definitely within the sphere where ethics of relationships can come into play. Obviously evil is an extreme on the moral/ethical spectrum but it still lies on it. So I can't see why Fi might not have to internally grapple with it (irrespective of whether I am or am not an Fi-dominant type).
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
Evil is malicious....NO NO NO...that's all wrong, I'm sorry.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Malicious indeed but it is still part of the spectrum. Unless we are talking about the topic on more of a "comic book" level of superheroes and villians...but assuming that this isn't what was intended, it still lies on some ethical spectrum.
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
Evil is more pervasive than right or wrong. Right and wrong are isolated incidents... evil is a pattern of wrongs which reinforces and begets itself. Evil leads to more evil, good leads to more good... but sometimes the two can be confused, which is where wisdom comes into play.
Here's a chart I made of what I believe to be the subcomponents of Beta Ni. (presented here in the form of a belief element positioning chart).
IEI life seems to be a kind of "high drama", like this contest against a brutal, uncaring environment that has a volition all its own, with the stakes being the human soul. The aim is not to let environmental factors, whether temporary or permanent, control either oneself or a group to the point of damnation.Code:+----------------+----------------+ | Evil | Good | | | | | (Internally | (Internally | | Dynamic | Static | | Collection) | Collection) | Soul Fool +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ Self Rival | Wrong | Right | | | | | (Internally | (Internally | | Dynamic | Static | | Individuals) | Individuals) | +----------------+----------------+ | Free Will | Fate | | | | | (Externally | (Externally | | Dynamic | Static | Synnex Shadow | Collection) | Collection) | +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ | Choice | Determinancy | All-Parent Abomination | | | | (Externally | (Externally | | Dynamic | Static | | Individuals) | Individuals) | +----------------+----------------+
Right and wrong don't have to be associated with good or evil; however, a concordant "moral authority" type (like say, MLK or Jesus) will always make this correlation. We are conditioned to correlate right/wrong (or alternatively, correct/incorrect) with good/evil as a factor of this authority.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-07-2010 at 03:28 AM.
Hi tcaudilllg,
As a potential EIE (and hence, the creative function Ni), I am intrigued by the nature of this chart. Can you explain the general scheme of the chart, so I can internally check out how it may apply to certain themes/dichotomies in my life (such as the ones that you include below)? I am debating as to whether I am an EII or an EIE, and this chart (and my personal relationship) may shed some light in terms of this underlying question. If it is too annoying to explain, that is OK too. Thanks in advance!
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
Betans have the most partisan ethics (I have subjectively decided that you are the spawn of evil, now prepare to face your trial!)
Alphans have the most relative ethics (evil? I was just considering the situation from this transcended point of view... Them, evil? Surely they had their reasons.)
Deltans have the most forgiving ethics (evil? No, we can't determine that from these isolated cases)
Gammans have the most harsh ethics (it's clear what they did, and we must give them what they've got coming; justice demands it)
Or something like that.
You should talk to greenantler. She knows the system about as well as I do.
I've explained the belief element/political type system in the political type theory thread.
I don't embrace the idea that anyone's "evil"..like it's completely pervasive or something. I feel like there's a better part to anyone, and they just need to be woken up. But I would say that I do see wrong acts in a bigger way than just "wrong". I see all kinds of things from one wrong act. If I saw someone I knew who was mean to dogs, then I start seeing a general shittyness about them as potential mates, friends, or parents or something. So for all intents and purposes, I'm seeing "evil" on a general wide character level. I just think it can be corrected.. that they just need some better ideals or something. I don't think they're destined to be that way.
Sounds oddly Delta NF... eh... I don't know for sure that that's what it is, but looking back at your type thread, I'd still consider you a variable type. Let's not draw any conclusions from your self-typing as yet.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
heh fair enough
i mean, if Betas are real conclusive about people's characters and whatnot, then sure, I'm not beta then. i don't believe in cursed monsters like vampires and werewolves. i believe in humans. and as bad as humans can be, they are not cursed. there's even lighter sides to some of the most heinous individuals. which tells me they're only neck deep in shit. not completely submerged in shit.
not that i'd personally waste my time or anything with these near-hopeless cases though. i'm not stupidi'd still fight people like this if i had to. i i'm just saying that i could see how certain events and ideals could lead to changes in them.
[edit] eh, offtopic, but if i were to click with another quadra, it'd be alpha. not delta.
Last edited by Kaze; 04-20-2010 at 08:13 AM.
Yeah, okay, I retract my statement that that's related to Delta NF. Whatever your type, it's probably fair to say that not all EIEs believe in good and evil at all, let alone a strict binary.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Well it's funny anyways.. you made me start questioning type again, except on a quadra lvl
Whatever my type/quadra, lets say I can be incensed enough to take action in stomping out or at least getting away from things or people that can't make life easier for others. There's real danger out there..I get a dreadful, omnious feeling about shit sometimes. I'm not like "It's all relative dudes!" "It's all good.." No... But then, I might wonder what the deeper issue is behind these people. I don't think calling it "evil" gets to the bottom of it.
Last edited by Kaze; 04-20-2010 at 09:10 AM.
Good vs. Evil and Right vs. Wrong are judgments and as such they can be transcended.
I prefer to distance myself from those concepts ever since I understood them through the view of Nonviolent Communication.
I prefer to view people as either connected or disconnected from their needs. Aware vs. Unaware.
The moral vs. immoral dichotomy remains but has become heavily internalized. People are not moral/immoral per se but rather within my own personal view over morality. Being aware of this highly subjective characteristic prevents me from slipping into a judgmental attitude.
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
this sounds right.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
There really is no such thing as good and evil, I believe that we don't get judged by God per se; it's more about the irrationality involved in committing crimes against someone else because it always comes back to bite you in the ass. But, my belief is that God is objective and has no concept between the two dichotomies; good and evil is a human construct.
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
I pretty much agree with this, or rather the inner me does... the outer me debates these things with myself, but this is what I thought "in the beginning" it's just that I'm not sure about it, so I look elsewhere before going back to it. I guess it can be summed up in that I think there's a good person inside of everyone. For this reason I often think of people as inherently good and that if they're not acting as such then they may be lost. Of course I re-enter the debate with myself when it gets to what the inherently good who otherwise seem "bad" start doing to others. It's generally the whole issue of justice that I find so far irresolvable.
There is freshness and honesty and inner clarity and... sure, some acts are evil, but they are more evil insofar as they have a negative effect on the soul than anything else. Evil acts can be defined as those which have a negative effect on the soul; good acts can be defined as those which have a positive effect on the soul. This is, of course, a functional definition, not an innate definition or something of the sort. I suppose more factually, evil is not-in-accordance-with-reality and good is in-accordance-with-reality. But since reality is hard to understand, the earlier definition is easier to deal with. So do I judge people as good or bad? I try not to, since I usually don't know them (and the closer you get to someone, the more morally complicated they become, always). But do I think that in some sense, some people simply have healthier souls than others, and that this state of having a healthier soul has real, practical, possibly even supernatural benefits for a human being? Yes, of course, completely so.
EDIT: also, some other terms for what I mean by healthy might include "self-actualized," "able to activate all their positive potentials" (as opposed to privations), "free," "more fully themselves," "more able to act/instantiate/be themselves," etc.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I recently had a chat with a proponent of voluntary human extinction. I am quite persuaded that she is both evil and stupid.
Eh. Depends on how much she actually believed it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
this. and for political purposes.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
...I'm thinking that almost every human beings thinks like this... or maybe I am wrong. Anyway, I think that people should stop Socionicizing things so much, because this is just nonsense... you guys are talking about nothing... never coming to a particular conclusion about anything. They create nothing but stereotypes and some agreed-upon subjective-interpretations of something like "Type XXX is like this/thinks like this" or "Yeah that sounds about right." etc. It's like seriously what the hell! This is full of crap. I hate Socionics.
No, but it does define them, or at least apprehend them on a visceral level, even if it doesn't always abide by them. Remember, the introverted information cycle goes Si ->Ti -> Ni -> Fi.
.
"Then go away"
lol. Yeah, I probably will. But you didn't really understand my point, maybe because I didn't express myself clearly.
"You are wrong. Some people support the death penalty, others oppose it."
I'm talking about the general ways that people reach to the conclusion of what is "moral" and what is not. Obviously, a lot of people contemplate about moral issues. Obviously, people have many different ways of arriving to that conclusion, and the reasons are varied. It could have to do with their upbringing or general life experiences or religion or whatever. It could have to do with certain kind of ideals or rules that they have created within themselves. It could have to do with how they feel about themselves or how they feel about the situation. And so on and so forth... I think that it would require a more... basic, rooted approach to make it relevant to Socionics.
"Stereotypes are very useful."
I don't think so.
"If it is agreed upon, it is not entirely subjective"
...what. Then you just have more people who agree with your nonsense. It's like a cult.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
