Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
How important is this to you?
Integrity
How important is this to you?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Are you asking importance in how one relates it to other people or oneself?
Oddly enough, it isn't all that important to me, although lots of people praise me precisely for my integrity.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Both. I didn't think they could be regarded separately, but I guess it's possible. I would expect most people to relate it to others in a similar way they relate it to themselves. Like, if it's important for themselves to adhere to certain principles, they'd expect and value the same in others.
Also, what would a person with "over-emphasized" adherence to integrity be called?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Anal.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
So you don't care if people are honest and act in adherence to their ethical principles? I will just assume that you manage to that without caring about it.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
No, it means, as we say in Dutch, that I'm "not more Roman than the Pope" and that this applies to other people as well.So you don't care if people are honest and act in adherence to their ethical principles? I will just assume that you manage to that without caring about it.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Prig, scold, prude, martinet, killjoy, asshole, etc.
All such beautiful labels to consider attaching to myself.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It is something that's important to me because my perspective is that in life there's not much else to base a person's worth on besides their character and honesty, and the actions they do that benefit others.
Over the years and up to this point in my life I've come to realize it's pointless to try to make sure others don't get the wrong idea of who you are and what you do. It's not worth it and you're liable to make it worse.
The best thing to do I've found is remain internally consistent, in other words, being yourself to yourself, and to others who don't believe in your integrity, well, with all due respect, screw them.
Also it's impossible not to be a hypocrite but if you're consciously trying to refrain from that then at least you're making the effort. That is different from being an outright man(or woman) of pretense, who does not accept his own hypocrisy, rather denies it, and does not strive to work on it.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Of utmost importance. I have a huge guilt center and when I give my word, I always try my very best to execute what I promise to do; and when I do something, I try my best to do a great job and not careless work. I take great pride in having done a good job and produced a product where others can appreciate and use for a long time. My word is my promise; some things might take a while, but when I say I'll do it, it will get done.
I like the phrase "we make a living by what get and we make a life by what we give." I try to live up to these words.
-
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
This is officially the first post by Maritsa that makes sense and that I actually like.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It is definitely important to me, even though you always have to be aware of the fact that some people might try to take advantage of you. But yes, hypocrisy is something awful. If you consider yourself to be something (vegetarian, environmentalist ect.) you have to act and think like one or else you're just doing it for the image and this is disgusting.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
FWIW, I think the question of integrity is somewhat Socionically relevant. Each quadra seems to have their own versions of integrity and hypocrisy.
E.g. I have noticed that Betas sometimes blame Deltas for being hypocrites with arguments that Deltas themselves would not consider valid, and vice versa. Betas somewhat consider Deltas hypocrite, because in their eyes, Deltas are inclined to say one thing, but do something else. This is because Betas don't understand that Deltas, in order to avoid confrontations or frictions, might say appeasing things, that later contradict their actions. On the other side, Deltas might view Betas as dishonest people for being self-serving (selfish) and not respectful of other peoples material and immaterial boundaries, wheras for Betas, establishing hierarchies is a perfectly valid way of distributing power and resources.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
well you may also consider conscientious, honest, loyal, forthright, dependable, decent, trustworthy, principled, virtuous, high-minded, in summary: an idealist of a rare sort
I value it to a certain point but consciously emphasizing adherence to some rules, be they internal or external, evokes a sense of building cage then trapping yourself within it and proceeding to glorify the bars you have crafted with the fervor of naive idolatry.
"Integrity is better than much wealth; integrity is better than silver and gold." -Proverbs 22:1 (slightly altered)
People who have certain principles and always stand by them even when its inconvenient are really rare and I respect it a lot. I think something that may be even more difficult and underestimated is the ability to remain open and flexible to varied situations without using that flexibility as an excuse to be self-serving.
I have more respect for people who admit to being selfish than hypocrites.
Not that I am perfect.
I think of personal integrity as someone staying true to their feelings and convictions. This invites room for inconsistency because one may not always feel the same. I see a loss of integrity as doing something that you don't feel okay with on several levels (for moral reasons) but doing it anyway because it is easier or because it makes the most sense or for a variety of such reasons. I admire people who are able to go with their feelings/conscience no matter how hard it is and that to me warrants great trust as someone who is morally stable. (This doesn't mean I would always agree with their choices.) Anyway I don't think I'm quite there yet. I can also have selfish reasons for being interested because I think that little lies and dishonesties as well as little blows against what one feels is right (acting against that) is incredibly self-destructive. It is a self-betrayal. So if you know how you feel I think it's a good idea to heed that. The remorse that follows is not worth it (nor is the loss of faith, confidence, respect or trust in oneself). It can also be easy to hide behind not being sure of what one wants or feels or of one's intentions. I suspect this in myself at times as often times I really am unsure... but I think I can amp it up on a subconscious level so as to favor a ruling from "mind" over "heart" (to talk myself into something that I don't feel quite right about). I probably sound like an utterly horrible person at this point.
Perhaps someone who is dependent on other people would not hold themselves to the same form of integrity that they would expect from others?
Similarly, someone who works hard to be independent might not evaluate other people based on that, knowing some don't require that independence to be fulfilled and well-meaning people?
There's also the ability for some to see the value in withholding judgement on others, which is its own paradox, it seems; withholding/dissolving integrity in order to form it, independently of any personal expectations on other people.
This seems like a pretty broad term since it relates the motivation of value formation to any notions of morality; it seems helpful to narrow it down a bit, but maybe most people aren't going to be that deep about this.
Vitriol, maybe; or lacking of integrity?Also, what would a person with "over-emphasized" adherence to integrity be called?
But what can you do about this? Would you compromise your integrity to avoid being taken advantage of?
Last edited by Park; 02-21-2012 at 08:17 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
You sound like a perfectly fine person to me.I probably sound like an utterly horrible person at this point.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I don't think in terms of integrity to people, although this is of use in life. But integrity in regards to the universe, consequences, the veracity of one's thoughts in regards to that always comes first, I think this is of much higher importance.
I like emotional honesty. I like it when people act consistently with how they feel, so they haven't "betrayed" some inner part of themselves. For instance, sometimes I totally disagree with the way someone acts or sees the world, but I can see that the feelings and psychology propelling them to act that way are "real" to that person, so in that case they would still be acting with integrity, even if they're being annoying or angering.
Very. It sometimes takes a lot of effort to make sure that you're telling the truth with what you say. Easier to just say things and not think about it, but I want the clarity and simplicity that honesty brings. I make the effort because I don't want to delude myself. This means I have to be careful with rationalizations also. Some things can make sense, you can believe them, and they SEEM right, but on closer inspection you realize you're talking out of your ass. It's easy to spin words, not as easy to unspin them. I feel like I'm inherently dishonest, and have to make myself be honest, have to focus and carefully consider what I'm saying to make sure that it's true. If I was naturally honest it wouldn't take such an effort. Focusing on it, I realize just how much I say without considering the veracity of it, and most other people seem no different. Once a friend and I made a pact that for a week we would only say something if it was true, even down to not answering "how are you" with "fine" if "fine" wasn't true. It was harder than you'd think, and definitely worth it to try. It makes you realize how meaningless a lot of communication is, so many things are said just to say them.
otoh, I don't think I've ever told someone I would do something without meaning it. That part comes a lot easier to me. If I tell someone I'll do something, then barring some unforeseen event preventing it, I'll follow through. It seems crazy to me to say you'll do something if you actually have no intention of doing it, but I see that happen a lot. People say stuff just to "get someone off their back" or whatever excuse they make up, and don't seem to see anything wrong with letting down the person they made the promise to. I figure that if you don't know whether you can do something or not, don't make any promises - saves you both a lot of trouble.
For instance, I'm trying to help others if it's not an unreasonable effort for me. But once I feel that people rely too much on my help (that happened, even if it was rare), I tell them that I can't/won't help them any more. I only commit myself to personal ideals as far as it's practical. That might be seen as inconsistent, but I think it's a good compromise between my "social responsibility" and my self-interests and definitely better than doing nothing at all.
As usual, it's not a good idea to speak in absolutes. Of course it's nice to promote good, but you can easily become a slave of your own convictions if you're dogmatic about it. I also hate liars but would I tell the truth even if that would severely harm the people I love? I don't think so. (That also depends on many other factors. If I thought they deserved it, maybe because of a crime, things would be different.) Limiting your options according to an ideal also makes you predictable and easy to manipulate. It's also a simplification. Your decisions should be a made according to a continuing process of consideration, and not a rigid set of beliefs. Of course, you can rely an those as a part of this evaluation (I do the same) but you should still be able to realize what "should" to be done by yourself in every individual situation.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
When I think of "integrity" I think of it in terms of wholeness and trust.
We each have our imaginings/ideals of how we'd like things to be, of how things are, of how we'd like to be, and/or of how we are. But reality doesn't always match those imaginings. This creates a split, either in our own minds, or in the minds of others. Imo, How we resolve those differences leads to our level of integratedness. This usually requires being aware of the split, acknowledging that there is a split, and then trying to find ways to either reduce/eliminate the split...or bring it into consideration when making claims/decisions.
Which leads me to trust. How well can I trust what a person is claiming? How well can I trust what *I* am claiming? At this point, I look towards their/my actions. If they did not make the claim, would their actions lead me to perceiving it anyways? If their actions show otherwise, then I perceive that I cannot trust them in this matter. If this occurs often enough and/or in other matters, then it would take more work for me to even consider trusting them.
But that sense of trust applies to myself as well. Have my previous actions in similar situation supported the claim I'm making now? If not, how can I integrate the two, so that my claim allows for my previous actions, or for situational differences?
In one example given, if I agree to a meeting, I am basically claiming to the person that I will be there. But I also know that I tend to get sidetracked, forget the time or the meeting or both, or that something else took precedence, etc. So, my actions don't support definite claims of this nature. To resolve the problem it causes, I'll try to let them know that I might forget, or ask them to call me to remind me, or let them know what might interfere, or maybe even not make a firm commitment to it.
In situations like this, I know that I cannot be trusted to arrive at a certain place at a certain time. It bothers me, knowing that I cannot be trusted in this kind of situation, and I still work on finding solutions to this, and similar, type of problem.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
its one of those things that are good in moderation, though i would assess that modern culture downplays and underrates it.
I feel like a hypocrite regarding follow through. I know that if one makes promises and doesn't follow through I of course cease to trust them (if I ever did to start with). Unwillingness to devote time is to me a sign of not caring enough. And when I have a history of not following through myself with things I thought I should do it makes me doubt that I can ever follow through since when have I before. However, I don't wish to fall onto the ongoing saga of my "failures" as I don't think this will help me either. I'm also really hit and miss about when a lack of follow-through bothers me and don't feel like going through all the twists and turns of it and trying to write it as a pattern. Sometimes I can be a little intimidated by a non-lack of follow-through because someone who absolutely will follow through is formidable... it's like being confronted with a tidal wave. No matter what you say or do it keeps on coming. It's reassuring but also means that there is no way to eek out of it.
I feel fairly able to determine if I can trust others and trust my ability to read others. I used to sometimes imagine myself trapped alone with them after a giant asteroid came or a nuclear war or some horrifying disaster. I am somewhat injured but can definitely get better, but for the time being I am stuck. They are mobile. I would imagine what they would do over and over and experiment with it until I settled upon something that felt right and that felt like it matched. It was mainly if you remove all of society and every rule (no one will know what they do--I am the only witness) opening it into a space where they can do whatever they want without having to consider any structure outside of that, then who are they really, especially in a high stress situation where things are very uncertain. So it was mainly trying to get to a "core" of the person. I didn't do this with everyone, only with some people. It would come up rather spontaneously in my mind unbidden. I think I haven't been doing this for a while because I have entered into deeper confusion about what the core of a person really is... since I can't find one in me.
Last edited by geneiouws; 04-18-2012 at 04:27 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
