The *easiest* way to succeed in business is to have no morals. :wink:
I think this depends from the environment you are working in. In an environment with high moral standards a person with no morals is going to get oneself in trouble eventually. In environment with low or no moral standards a person with high morals is going nowhere.Originally Posted by Morality_Enforcer
I guess I should have offered more of a context. I am not trying to discuss all there is to Te, the topic is about how the afforementioned things relate to Te.
this is from my thread about ESTjs in DeltaOriginally Posted by Joy
True, but you can still succeed in the moral-based environment using loopholes and secrecy.Originally Posted by XoX
I totally disagree. IMO, the best way to make money is to solve problems. Give people what they want. Find a need and fill it. For me, anything else is selling out. I think I'm going to head over to anything goes and start a thread about selling out.Originally Posted by Morality_Enforcer
Well basically yeah. But if your morals are clearly lower than what is expected then you end up like this guy:Originally Posted by Morality_Enforcer
i.e. you will get into trouble eventually.
Sounds like supply and demand. Lack of morals is not a requirement, but it does speed up the process.Originally Posted by Joy
Perhaps lack of morals could be seen as a game of gamble. You take a higher risk than those who go have "normal" morals. Risk and reward go hand in hand so in the end you can get higher income or get the income faster but you have an increased risk of getting busted. So the claim is like saying it is easier to make money in a casino than by starting a new business. Perhaps yeah. But it is also easier to lose it. This depends a bit on the person in question though.Originally Posted by Morality_Enforcer
I don't see immoral business practices as an issue of risk and reward. I see it as selling out. http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5152
Ok. Ethically speaking it might be selling out. But for the sake of argument it can be looked also from the point of view of risk and reward or just gambling.Originally Posted by Joy
lol you're ENFj
I don't know!!!Originally Posted by Joy
I think it's a mistake to define functions in terms of one or more possible applications of those functions. The tendency to do that is, I think, one of the primary things that causes confusion in Socionics.
When you identify Te with business, personal finance, etc., you leave open the question of what it is, how it helps with those things, and whatever other things you can apply it to.
Also, by identifying any function with a specific goal, you ignore the fact that other functions may be used to handle that goal too. I'm sure there are ESTps who are good at personal finance...but they just handle it differently (in terms of mental mechanisms) than a Te person would.
A person of any type could take good care of their money but is the optimum method for doing so. For instance I can use my to get a sense of how a person feels about something but it is definately inferior to someone who would use .
Sounds like an astrology profile. "Good looking, but very shy. Indipendant, but insecure. Long penis, but impotent. Nice hair, but balding". You do the math.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit