Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I don't know if you still consider me ILI, Pinocchio, but since I'm quite certain of my own LII-ness, I'll give my opinion anyway.
The answer is yes, all of those things are perfectly conceivable for an LII. The "Causes" you listed would definitely infuriate me, and I do have an inner tendency to judge people based on intellectual capacity and feel contempt for those who "don't think". Humble ignorance doesn't bother me, and I don't particularly mind skilled arrogance, but arrogant ignorance is one of the few things that can truly make me angry.
Of course, normally I try to restrain my judgemental impulses and adopt a "live and let live" philosophy. However, I can definitely see how an LII could be driven to extreme actions like you describe if he were pushed hard enough, and he thought it was important enough.
I think LIIs tend to act on this kind of thing less often than ILEs, due to their Vulnerable Se and their need to have a logical justification for everything they do (instead of just reacting on the fly like ILEs often do), but once they've justified extreme actions to themselves logically, they will probably be more persistent and determined than an ILE. Robespierre himself is probably an exact example of this.
To put it another way, LIIs have more inertia than ILEs -- they're slower to get moving, but harder to stop once they do.
David Keirsey once described a property of NT-hood that immediately struck a chord with me. He said that NTs generally judge people by two standards: the first is a hidden standard that is deeply negative and critical that they judge those who they see as their peers and rivals with. The second is a more outwardly visible one that is patient, lenient and forgiving, that they judge everyday passers-by with. Sometimes something happens that makes a person go from the latter catagory to the former which is when the NT type may suddenly reveal his/her nastier side.
I generally expect people to have all kinds of flaws and irritating habits and don't reel from it when this shows in their behavior. Its only a very restricted set of activities, people and places towards which my attitude is critical.
A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; It cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows the other. Mao Tse Tung
I go berserks mode more often than I'd like to admit. All of the causes listed piss me the fuck off. Although nothing too drastic results from it IME. Just a lot of shouting.
Also, labcoat, would you call those 2 "modes" short-term passive vs long-term contempt?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
most of the time I get angry its not because of something basic like wanting something and not getting it. It usually starts with an undercurrent of anxiety, which usually is the reason behind why I am so analytical, to understand things to alleviate that anxiety. I've gone to great lengths to understand the world and explain it, or at least make first attempts to understanding things to help alleviate anxiety and live feeling as though I have mastery over my environment and so I don't have to worry because I have knowledge. Anyways, when someone challenges a view I have, it grates against this. Sometimes they provide good evidence and they are polite and it becomes sort of a learning experience, I can view the person as a teacher, someone valuable, but they have to somehow prove they can earn that respect by politely displaying their superior skill and doing it in a way that communicates a sort of teacher like undercurrent. This is where the evaluation of people comes in. I am looking at others judging them to see if they are my equal in competency. To see if there is something valuable and life asserting that I can gain from them and that valuable thing is knowledge-competency-expertise, from which security is derived, and which defeats anxiety, and is therefore something which is emotionally valued as something that is empowering.
If this doesn't happen things get bad. Mainly because if someone starts to claim I should listen to them -- there are always trust issues with their ideas. I think, "What this person is saying doesn't make sense, its stupid, I can't do that, its like jumping off a cliff because I was asked to". So naturally I debate them, I challenge their ideas in hopes of somehow reaching a resolution where the best person wins, where the idea which best characterizes the truth is revealed.
Sometimes people's emotions take over and they authoratively jam their ideas down you without convincing you and with little regard for convincing you. Then it begins to feel very resentful. You don't feel like your being taught, you feel like your being programmed like a machine. It doesn't make sense to you, your intelligence is insulted, your individuality and humanity are bypassed and you just do A because B said so. Internally now their is also a rift, what you think and understand and feel is completely different from your actions. This adds pressure to the anxiety mentioned in the first paragraph -- the anxiety which leads to knowledge for security. So essentially you feel your security is threatened when someone is confronting you with ideas that don't make sense and they are doing this authoratively and possibly punishing you for non-compliance.
Most of the time its easy to listen or do something nonsensical if you realize its not directly affecting your safety/security.... but it still builds this resentment towards the other person for being invasive and destructive. Notice the correlation to what I say to Se-PoLR.
Anyways I think most of the time NTs have an outward aura of politness (Fi-Role) is because they are fulfilling that patient teacher explanation role.
HaveLucidDreams -- that's spot on. You're describing my life, right there.
EII - INTj - Dostoyevsky -
No, it's not a typo!