Someone fill me in.
Someone fill me in.
Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/
Depends. Some people are offense oriented: life's a struggle to them and they spend pretty much all of their time trying to "win" the struggle. Others, like me, are defense oriented and may or may not be open to counter-attack depending on their relative timidity. (I am not at all timid, so if I think you're on offense I immediately retaliate). I usually "retaliate" whenever I am faced with an opinion I observe as a departure from the mainstream used to injure me socially, like what happened with the ISTj and the test.
As for INTjs in general, they are very sensitive about their +Se and see -Se as a very potent threat to it. This may have to do with -Se's presence in function 6, which has higher dimensionality than function 4, but I'm not really sure. In any case, INTjs see +Se as their own will, or the will of an individual, and -Se as the will of a larger collective. (the "object") An example would be a military draft: the -Se is the agreement of the nation to impress its citizens into the armed forces; the +Se at risk is the INTj's freedom and most likely, well-being. Whenever you, you can count, usually by appealing to a sense of inequity and unfairness in the group's consideration of the INTj. On the altar of this injustice a committee may be formed by breaking up the social situation into its component instincts and dissolving consensus (congealing the committee from the instinctually similar remains thereof), thus also threatening the existing -Se unit. The committee itself assembles over a perception of diverged paths in the midst of the larger conflict.
Obedience and rebellion are behaviors that owe their origins to TiNe. There is an order to the universe. Gravity, mathematics, ontologies, grammar, Logos, etc. are all part of the cosmic order and cannot be rebelled against. Everything else is superfluous and needs be ignored/rebelled/etc.
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
My LII friend is in the military and from what I can tell she only advocates rebellious ideas when the person above her in a hierarchical system (in this case the military) is blatantly incompetent. So it's not rebellion against the system per se but against people/power that threatens the system's integrity.
INTjs hate authority and will usually rebel against most authoritative figures unless they actually find that figure to be completely competent.
Model X Will Save Us!
Another reason for INTj/LII rebellion: -Se background is the battery for -Ni background, which LIIs see as bleak, dreary; that's the whole point of +Ne, to bring light to a cold, ruthless chain of events. LII sees militarization/group mobilization and the darker side of history as invaribly intertwined. Standing up against the oppressive -Se, for INTj, also means to stand up against the -Ni it wrecks upon human potential. There is a large body of evidence supporting the contention that when war comes, good ideas fall by the wayside. In fact, experimental verification of the general theory of relativity was delayed by the outbreak of WWI for five years. The same period also gave us mustard gas research. That's pathological -Ne built upon -Ni.
But i'm more curious as to what you would rebel against?
i mean, i do understand, even i wouldn't rebel for no good reason. i don't mean to ask do you relate better to obedience or rebelliousness, but i'm just curious as to what(you are pretty sure off) that you would rebel against because xxx (eg: your believes, w/e it is).
i don't think anyone is in a constant state of rebellion or obedience. Not asking for an objective measure, just in your opinion. because i'm curious what you think.
- Incompetent or oppressive authority: Oftentimes the two can be one and the same. Rebellion is also warranted when authority figure exists merely as an authority but have no goals or objectives which they are trying to achieve or if these goals and objectives that they do have seem counterproductive to whatever group/organization/institution to which the authority is entrenched.
- Prevailing opinions that go unquestioned: Those who hold the prevailing opinions of the majority should not go about unquestioned, nor should the voices of the minorities go about unheeded.
- Being ordered to do something without explanation or personal consent: Who are you to order me to do anything? Have you ever thought that I would be willing to help if you just asked?
Rebellion though is often not overt or confrontational, but more often than not, it is generally passive aggressive or subversive. It tries to avoid confrontation and simply ignores the authority to pursue their own ends.
@Logos: couldn't have said it better.
Rules are put in place for a reason, and without any sort of governing system things would be in chaos. It's also human nature to break rules that are set in place. If the authority figure has too much power, or the system of government, I am against this. The people should have power too, while the leader takes their needs into consideration and enacts just rules. People should definitely question the rules, if they weren't encouraged to or frowned upon when they do so, it's pretty much implied that it's not a democracy in my eyes.
But the reason for going against the rules should be solid, and not just chaos and rebellion for the sake of rebellion. If there were a constant state of warfare and rebellion, this would have cons too but change doesn't come about if people just let things continue as they are. We need to make a change if something seems to resemble a corrupt organization of system that previous reared it's head in history, the change may be slow and gradual though. People don't always learn from their mistakes though.
These rabbits were in fact on a raft, as were assorted rats and owls. There may have even been a reindeer.
On a raft. And a boy was sitting on the raft.
The picture worried me, I must say. There was an otter swimming in front of the raft, and I used to lie awake worrying about this otter, having to pull the raft, with all these other wretched animals on it who shouldn't even be on a raft, and the otter had such a thin tail to pull it with I thought. It worried me.
Then one day-- and remember I had been looking at this picture every night for years-- I suddenly noticed the raft had a sail. Never seen it before. The otter was fine, just swimming along.