....Was this....I hope this wasn't a serious question.
....Was this....I hope this wasn't a serious question.
Like I have been saying, before asking if it is possible for any type to be evil, it is absolutely necessary to define what standards we are using for "evil" in this case.
Don't know about Maritsa's, but Lobo's probably is. Emotion is the universal connector: across all ages, gender, culture (Think Gandhi). Assuming that INFjs are as sensitive and empathetic as they are in theory, their sensitivity towards the human condition enables them to connect to a deeper part that we all share and is close to our hearts- our inner sentiments. These inner sentiments are born out of both positive and negative experiences, and depth is equally, if not more important than breadth, since it is possible for us to experience an experience yet not absorb all facets of it in its entirety if what we choose to see, and hence experience, is but one facet.Originally Posted by Arsal
It goes to say that the most empathic INFj, or should I say individual, is one who is able to accept and experience the extremes of both the positive and the negative, and the many facets of emotional experience. Just as there are many dimensions to an experience, there are many dimensions to an emotion: not simply the black and the white.
Where evil INFjs are concerned, such sensitivity opens them to the best and the worst of what it means to be human. The power to heal can just as easily be used to devastate. Our capacity for good is as great as our capacity for evil, in equal measure. Yet the greater is our exposure, the more human we become, the greater is our resolve to not use our skills for evil, and hence the more unlikely. Unless circumstance is as extreme as to plunge us into such depths of agony and despair, that our aim is simply to achieve the maximum possible emotional damage. Hopefully, this would never have to come to pass.
DOUBLEPOST
Not speaking your mind is deceiving though, I'd rather have the truth. So that pic/slogan doesn't really hold up.
(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
Satan isnt evil for arbitrary reasons. Hes evil because Christianty needs a bad guy figure.
Well, I understand the dualism, but I kind of meant that "evil"'s definition was defined by God and Satan fits under "evil" because God wills so.
(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
Somehow the omnipotent, all-good, infinitely wise God needs an excuse for the evil in the world. So he created Lucifer, Adam and Eve, knowing they will fall from grace and create evil and suffering in the world, God hoping that people won't understand the one who planted the seeds, hoping them to humbly justify it with their lack of knowledge, preaching how God works in mysterious ways.
I think that people should also consider that the definition of evil has changed with time and culture, too. What may have been an act to survival once may be seen as evil today...that sort of thing.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-22-2011 at 07:31 PM.
-
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
Alright, here you go.
1. Can an EII take someone's life for any reason?
Can an EII murder people due to/out of:
- Patriotism.
- Revenge.
- War.
- Religious beliefs.
- Self-Defense.
?
2. Can an EII torture someone under any circumstance?
3. Can an EII rape someone?
4. Can an EII have sex with a child?
5. Can an EII steal?
6. Can an EII cause emotional and/or psychological harm to another person on purpose?
- Can an EII forcefully coerce someone into doing any of the above?
- Can an EII manipulate or convince someone to do any of the above for their own personal gain?
Go.
Yes. EII's tend to have stright, usually morally understandable set of circumstances where even a conscious kill would be a way to go. I believe anyone is capable of killing when put under the stress of losing way of life. With-dominant, reaction to this kind of threat might be especially unsettling. Yes, everyone feels very threatened, thus more ready to kill, when their way of life would be threatened by someone morally questionable figure, but as if EII would give more value for values themselves and thus seeing there's more at stake. The murderer lives in many citizens when the police finally capture the serial rapist murderer as everyone eagerly waits for the sentence. The tendency to kill increases as something is defined as a monter, dehumanisation is the key word. I can imagine proper overprotective mother killing a local confirmed child molester impulsively. I also intuitively imagine that
For EII murderer, weapon of choice would be poison rather than an axe.
Oh and below I just took examples out of politics and I know all of you won't agree with my perhaps provocative views, but you get the jist of what I mean in those examples. Just saying if you want to talk politics, let's do it somewhere else.
I have trouble imagining EII going to the war without being a patriot and knowing his(/her, most likely "he's") when her country is in danger. Fi's tend to have rock solid values, meanin strong, but equally stiff. That may mean killing for country, especially if under an attack and there really is one's whole family at stake. Oh and let's not forget that there might be involved some influental religious warleaders practising terrorism like Osama bin Laden and George Bush. For some, infidels are less human, especially when threatened by them.
Oh, and in some wartime armies, when you're forced to join, the motive for killing is sometimes mostly self-defense. As you may survive the war, but you won't survive
There might be a patriotic INFj torturing Bradley Manning at the moment, though INFj is one of the least likely types.
Among healthy INFjs, this is getting close to theoretical possibility.
Very highly unlikely.
Anyone can under a need and I can even imagine EII doing a white collar theft.
Twisted ones propably will do that, propably passively.
They're one of the least likely types to get their own hands dirty.
Hey, but this is just something that what this
The answer to all of these, is yes. All humans are capable of evil. INFj or no INFj, what restrains us is our own conscience.
But to really answer the question, we got to ask not just what "evil" means, but also what it means to be "INFj". What is an "INFj"?
Simply someone whose brain is physically wired and structured in a particular way. So the real question is: What about this structure that ties in with INFj traits? Instead of asking in what ways an INFj can or cannot be evil.
We're more likely to take our own because we feel so connected to others, we feel an appendage of human nature and if we feel hopeless about the many injustices that are not resolved or that the world does not reflect our ideals and we feel helpless (we take on things on our own shoulders, so to say), we may very easily take our lives. Van Gogh's syndrom is very common in me; this is not a cry for help but it's reality when I say that I'm very capable of removing myself from this world and if it were not for the people I lived for, my family, my loved ones, I could do so easily. Insane expression of one's feelings, like Van Gogh did by chopping his ear off and mailing it to his lover, is not something I can do because I'm not of that culture and emotional "teaching" of that environment. Can they take a person's life for the greater good of all mankind? That depends on their culture. But, the EII would rationalize it. We would justify and rationalize killing as doing it to for the greater good of the rest of mankind; we might feel great guilt, because of that search of the goodness in others and time and again revisit our actions from many perspective, but it would have to be an atrocious case to murder someone. It would have to be a case in which a terrible person was undoubtably of no cure who was headed towards a town of innocent humans and where he could not be retained.
No. We're individualistic in many cases and we don't do things just because a government says it's right to do; maybe the people running that government have malicious intentions; we have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubts.
No. We're more likely to walk away.
Depends on what the war is and what the cause for that war is.
Somewhat more likely than fighting for man kinds beliefs or ends.
I'm too tiny, so that's kind of unlikely, but if I can I'd try to run away rather than take mediocre chances at trying to get hurt far worse than if I tried to provoke an aggressive fight. Defending our kids is a major yes.
If the person was unreasonably aggressive, irrational, unwilling to resort to speaking their aggressions out. And, what do you mean by torturing; I'm thinking more along the lines of nagging.
NEVER. I can say that with absolute affirmation because it's a crime that requires either unreasonable amount of direct action that's impulsive and driven by irrational emotional thought. EII are very rational and think things out so the feeling of others and the way a person responds out of fear, hurt pain, will drive us to utter tears and action is inconceivable and not rationally arguable.
Depends on the culture they are from. In my culture (I'm Armenian), we are taught that teenagers are kids and so we have sexual relations with adults; there are armenians who don't follow or adhere to cultural traditions who are this way, but very unlikely that they are EII.
They may want something material and may not take it unless it was given to them by mistake; that is moral retributions. If I walk into a store and a cashier wrapped up an additional item and put it in my purse, I haven't stolen it if he gave it to me because they got confused; that's not stealing because I didn't take the item myself. I was given it. I've heard that argument and I've used it in the past, but now I see it as financially unfair to use this moral argument because it hurt the vendor to make mistakes like this and being a responsible citizen means supporting the business that offer you services so if I find myself in such a situation, I'll return it and I'll say, "be careful next time." It's true, not all people are like me, but being like me comes from being mature and understanding the way things work on a bigger picture.
Like what?
I wish. I would get everyone here to have a degree of niceness towards each other; as it is, it's very unlikely. No is my general answer, we try to be kind and by doing so we hope that people will take that in account about us and behave nicely, generously, benevolently towards us and consider us in their actions.
Depends on how well an EII has learned to argue, present their case. I've seen an EII who takes advantage of people by asking kind people to do things for them. This has become a test of that person's degree of relationship loyalty, this, however, was learned because this EII was emotionally hurt and abandoned by her father; who had very few loyal relations; she translated loyalty to mean and be interpreted by another's actions of her requests. Once people called them out on her ways, she apologized and resumed honest relations with them. In a subconscious way, she wanted to be found out because that meant to her that the person calling her on it did so because they loved her.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-22-2011 at 08:50 PM.
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
The evil thing I'm probably most guilty of is wanting other people to hurt when they hurt me or others. I make people feel guilty. Even though it's much easier for gammas to cling to the "eye for an eye" thing, deltas still have an appreciation for fairness, even if we seem to place a huge value on forgiveness as well.
Someone says something cruel to me, I almost never say anything back. I don't want to stoop to their level and hurt them just because they hurt me. After all, that would be hypocritical; if I don't like being hurt, why the hell would I hurt others? However, if someone close to me does that, there is a chance I will give them the cold shoulder to punish them for what they did. However, I often think about the consequences of doing this beforehand. "What if I ignore this person in the hopes that they'll realize their mistake and apologize, but they don't actually realize that they did anything? What if doing that ultimately hurts my relationship with this person?" Then I'll just forgive them and move on. Still, I can store up things that I perceive as people's wrongs against me and then unleash them later. I've been known to send people on guilt trips. "Have I ever treated you badly? No, of course not. So what reason do you have to treat me like this?"
Recently, my grandmother (Si-ESE) became angry with me because she thought I was being rude since I hadn't called her on the phone in a while. She sent me a text message: "What are you doing that you're too busy to call me?" This upset me because she was simply assuming that I was consciously not calling her and that I just didn't care enough to talk to her, when in reality I was in a two-day conference and intended to call her soon. I sent her a big list of what was occupying me. She realized her mistake and apologized.
EII/INFj
I dont see why that would be hypocritical; its simply giving back the hurt they caused you. If someone hurts you, and you dont hurt them back, you are likely to turn your aggression inward and direct it onto someone else. It would seem like deceiving yourself into thinking you have no hurt inside you then directing it onto others who dont deserve it is hypocritical, not giving back the hurt someone caused you.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Revenge only ends up with everyone hurt. There's no healing in it. And I don't think I've ever turned my aggression inward only to unleash it on some innocent person who didn't do anything to me. That would be completely irrational. There is no self-deception in true forgiveness.
EII/INFj
Gandhi.Interesting turn to the topic of vengeance.
I consider myself rather revengeful when hurt, yet not wanting to. There is a strong pull towards exacting vengeance, because of my "every act has its consequence, you can't run away from the consequences of your own actions" mindset, yet there is another (weaker) pull towards forgiveness and faith as I tell myself that "everyone makes mistakes, we all deserve a second chance, forgive and be forgiven" sort of thing. Coincidentally, the EIIs I know do espouse such a way of life and strive to live it. And seeing such provides a certain determination and a sense of shame that prevents me from doing anything too nasty.
I can see where you're coming from, and I do agree that pent up energy is bound to burst out somewhere somehow in subtle ways. In the case of the EII, they seem to turn the energy inward into steely determination (Look at Gandhi). We can always convert the energy into a positive force. It doesn't necessarily has to remain negative and hurt others with it.
My EII sister claims to just "turn the other cheek" when she's wronged, but in actuality she gets very passive aggressive. She has her own ways of getting back at people.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I dunno if it makes the whole world blind, I think it causes people who wrong others in the furst palce to think twice about their future actions.
But there is no true forgiveness in turning the other cheek, IMO. Ture forgiveness happens when someone apologizes for hurting you, ie it happens in their conscience and not in yours. Not everyone even cares that theyve hurt you. Like it or not, that is one sad reality we all have to live with.Revenge only ends up with everyone hurt. There's no healing in it. And I don't think I've ever turned my aggression inward only to unleash it on some innocent person who didn't do anything to me. That would be completely irrational. There is no self-deception in true forgiveness.
My views on forgiveness are tied to my faith. The Bible makes it clear that God won't forgive us if we don't forgive them; otherwise, He would be operating out of a double standard. So, either we advocate mercy for all, including ourselves, or we advocate justice for all, including ourselves. I'd like to clarify that I don't believe this always extends to legal disputes, especially in cases of theft, rape, murder, etc; there are consequences (separate from personal revenge) for negative actions.
With the above influencing my beliefs on the subject: I do struggle a lot with resentment and wanting revenge. It really isn't worth the consequences, though. I'm still struggling to find the balance. Ultimately, though, that burning resentment will hurt me; and why damage oneself over another's shortcomings? It doesn't make what they did magically OK. It doesn't mean we should be bosom buddies. It doesn't mean I should let them hurt me again, especially if they're not sorry for their behavior. And really, it's not about whether we have the right to be angry over what they did, because maybe we do. But holding onto it will destroy us.
On a related note, I've noticed a trend in shoujo manga of, "You're being a gigantic bitch to me, but it's OK; let's be friends". Really irking. I've wondered if it was Delta NF.
I might come back and re-word this later, when I have more time and am at a computer; it's harder when you can't get an easy overview of everything you're writing.
Also, Typhon: Dr Laura has a section on forgiveness in one of her books that is similar to what you're saying. She equates forgiveness with reconciliation and says there's no need to forgive if the other person isn't sorry. She does, however, advocate moving on emotionally (ie letting go of the anger) regardless. I think the advice is sound, even if I disagree with her definitions.
I don't antagonize people, it becomes stressful for me to be in that disposition. That's not to say I don't have negative feelings towards certain people, just that I tend not to form relationships that are antagonistic in nature. I'm not a revenge-seeking kind of person; if someone hurts me badly, either I confront them about it to let them know so they wouldn't do it again, or if I have let them know before and they chose not to listen to me, I simply gradually remove them from my life. (Not like a grudge or anything, if they approach me again and promise to be cool, I can just reset everything.)
Revenge seems pointless to me. I don't adhere to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, it seems meek and spineless and I don't fancy myself as either. But revenge is like seeking out stress and negativity on purpose by solidifying a sense of enmity with another person. I don't really want to do that.
I love how people call EII meek and spineless, even though they are often viewed that way, when all they are being is humanistic.
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
Same here. The stuff I'll conjure up in my mind against people whom I'm upset with would have me locked-up in an institution, but I've never actually acted or wanted to act on those thoughts. It's more of a cathartic release
True. The concept of evil in the more worldly sense is quite different than Biblical, being that the morality in the Talmud and Bible is highly debatable by normal/modern standards.
The Christian concept of Satan is flawed anyways, since it's actually just a cluster of different folklore that stems from the Hebrew name that translates to the adversary "ha-satan".
The Christian dogma transforms this into an actual entity that over the years was combined with other mythological and Biblical constructs (the serpent, Leviathan, the dragon and Beelzebub) turning him into the horned prince of evil that people think of to this day. That's why the Jews have a very different take on "Satan" than Christian's, who created this super-villain, whereas in Judaism ha-satan is just a name that's used to describe a person who sins or opposes someone
That probably had nothing to do with this discussion, I'm just in a fact whoring mood
Yep, same here. I think this tendency to not act on thoughts is related to strong Ni, Ne and undervalued Se. When you have a tendency to play over the consequences that could arise from actions I think you're less likely to act on them, that's probably why Gamma Fi's don't tend to hold back in the same regard, which is something I can rather admire about them but at the same time is not something I could see being in my best interest
For the most part, I just tend to shut-down and become almost robotic in a monotonous way when I'm angry with someone (I'd say Slacker's mention of passive-aggressiveness is right on the nail). There were a hand full of times I can remember where I actually acted antagonistically and that was due to the other person persisting to coerce me in someway so it was more of a sudden act of defensiveness.
Overall though I'd say "evil Fi" in Delta would be deleting someone from your life, so to speak, or simply ignoring them; it's a psychological rather than active evil in this sense. I could also see "mood killing" apply as being evil amongst some Fe valuers who might see this as an act of vindictiveness even if it's not meant to be.
I've always saw Gandhi as IEI.....any reasons why you think EII?I can see where you're coming from, and I do agree that pent up energy is bound to burst out somewhere somehow in subtle ways. In the case of the EII, they seem to turn the energy inward into steely determination (Look at Gandhi). We can always convert the energy into a positive force. It doesn't necessarily has to remain negative and hurt others with it.
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
Yeah, I think I get why I thought typing myself EII made sense... I think I was confusing "giving priority to reconciliation" (Alpha value) versus preferring non-aggressive methods of confrontation.
Not really. I've not studied him enough to form a solid opinion of his type. Only that I admired his life philosophy.
Maybe delta duality is about finding the right balance between justice and forgiveness. For me the loudest voice says to forgive, the weaker voice says "every act has it's consequences...Gandhi.
I consider myself rather revengeful when hurt, yet not wanting to. There is a strong pull towards exacting vengeance, because of my "every act has its consequence, you can't run away from the consequences of your own actions" mindset, yet there is another (weaker) pull towards forgiveness and faith as I tell myself that "everyone makes mistakes, we all deserve a second chance, forgive and be forgiven" sort of thing. Coincidentally, the EIIs I know do espouse such a way of life and strive to live it. And seeing such provides a certain determination and a sense of shame that prevents me from doing anything too nasty.
I can see where you're coming from, and I do agree that pent up energy is bound to burst out somewhere somehow in subtle ways. In the case of the EII, they seem to turn the energy inward into steely determination (Look at Gandhi). We can always convert the energy into a positive force. It doesn't necessarily has to remain negative and hurt others with it.
Agree. He had a quite nationalistic flavour to him.
That wasn't his philosophy, he was only a follower, and then a leader.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
You'll never hear me say such a thing like: "I want another person to suffer." I feel guilty myself and it's a terribly crippling feeling. Why would an EII make others feel guilty? That's irrational.
I feel that it's my obligation to help everyone else so I'm not the kind to give guilt trips to others; I'm more likely to feel guilty myself for not doing enough for people. We are of two differing attitudes about this and I think that pretty much says that I'm an introvert because I let that outside element sink into myself and I reflect on my own feelings rather than reflecting it back out like you do.
My reaction would be, "I am too busy to call her" and I would feel bad about it to myself; where as you feel offended that someone would think that about you. This shows extraversion because She - your grandma is an object and external form reaction to the object that's forming your opinion about the object. Your thinking returns to the object; my thinking returns to me, myself, hence introversion. You my dear are easily disappointed by your relations, making you SEE type.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-29-2011 at 06:49 PM.
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
Maritsa, just stop posting.
Well evil is produced into the world via trauma: (physical, sexual, etc.) abuse, neglect, (traumatic/violent) birth (which still tends to be the rule I think), lack of a helping witness, lack of empathetic support/information, lack of awareness/mindfulness... So while INFj is supposed to be one of the least violent types, some of them can also have their blindspots, (repressed) traumas, weaknesses, etc. Although a lot of them may not be actively evil, if they're (somewhat or severely) traumatized, (somewhat or severely) lacking in enlightenment/knowledge... then as parents or guardians, etc. they could easily be responsible for producing and allowing more evil and suffering, etc. to accumulate in the world. Passivity, apathy, indifference, etc. . . . I'm sure not all EII's are immune to this problem either. They can also have their prejudices, etc. I think Betas tend to be more obviously evil, if they're evil or eccentric or crazy or whatever. With Deltas it usually tends to be more subtle and masked. That's why it's probably primarily directed to one's children as opposed to the world (at large). Any sociotype can be a bad and/or unstable and/or misguided and/or narcissistic parent. It still tends to be the norm to certain degrees... luckily humanity is evolving in the right direction... for the most part, I've talked to some people who are a lot better than me... And most people tend to be (psychologically, etc.) healthier and more normal than I am.
I don't know if this sheds light on anything at all (Dunlap was SLE; the character played by Sissy Spacek might've been EII, though):
- from The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson pp. 145-147 (6. Night of the Living Dead): On the July 1996 day that Sunbeam’s board of directors revealed the name of their new CEO, the share price skyrocketed from $12.50 to $18.63. It was—according to Dunlap’s unofficial biographer John Byrne—the largest jump in New York Stock Exchange history. On the day a few months later that Dunlap announced that half of Sunbeam’s 12,000 employees would be fired (according to The New York Times, this was in percentage terms the largest work-force reduction of its kind ever), the share price shot up again, to $28. In fact the only time the price wavered during those heady months was on December 2, 1996, when BusinessWeek revealed that Dunlap had failed to show up at his parents’ funerals and had threatened his first wife with a knife. On that day, the share price went down 1.5 percent.
It reminded me of that scene in the movie Badlands when fifteen-year-old Holly, played by Sissy Spacek, suddenly realizes with a jolt that her tough, handsome boyfriend, Kit, has actually crossed the line from rugged to lunatic. She takes an anxious step backward, but then says in her vacant monotone of a voice-over, “I could have snuck out the back or hid in the boiler room, I suppose, but I sensed that my destiny now lay with Kit for better or for worse.”
Much as in Badlands, Al Dunlap’s relationship with his shareholders bounced back fast after December 2, and together they went on a year-long rampage across rural America, closing plants in Shubata and Bay Springs and Laurel, Mississippi, and Cookeville, Tennessee, and Paragould, Arkansas, and Coushatta, Louisiana, and on and on, turning communities across the American South into ghost towns. With each plant closure, the Sunbeam share price soared, reaching an incredible $51 by the spring of 1998.
Coincidentally, Bob Hare writes about Badlands in his seminal book on psychopathy, Without Conscience:
If Kit is the moviemaker’s conception of a psychopath, Holly is the real thing, a talking mask simply going through the motions of feeling deeply. Her narration is delivered in a monotone and embellished with phrases drawn straight from the glossies telling young girls what they should feel. If there was ever an example of “knowing the words but not the music,” Spacek’s character is it.
I think out of all the songs you've shared I liked this one the most:
The evilness of EII would come from
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
/me is wading four a interlectuall grammer lessen with baited breathe!
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
It isn't bad, he had a few gems.
Reply With Quote
