Does Ni discriminate between good and evil behavior, in your view? Or right vs wrong behavior?
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 thatfocuses a lot on this domain. How might beta-NFs view this differently from delta-NFs?
Mike
Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...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.
"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.
In this case there are observations made and conclusions reached based on a scrutinized theory, so it's nothing like a cult.
A cult is a bad comparison because there is nothing real being observed. Here we are giving subjective impressions on something which is objective. If there is a general consensus, assuming it isn't a matter of chance, you can reasonably assume there is something objective about the consensus.
Stereotypes.. they are useful. The most secure airport in the world accomplishes this through an elaborate system of stereotypes.