Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: The myth of delta tolerance.. especially delta nf tolerance

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    TIM
    XSI-Ji 146w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    674
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The myth of delta tolerance.. especially delta nf tolerance

    Betas are commonly seen as less inclusive than deltas, but the reality is that delta nfs are just as exclusive, if not more so.

    Beta are more territorial about space and property, yes, but the delta nfs have a huge split from the delta sts because the delta nfs are ultimately less tolerant and more authoritarian than the delta sts. I have noticed delta nfs often like beta sts over delta sets because the beta sts hadn’t ruled out hurting someone the delta nfs hated or who was going against something they wanted.

    I am beginning to think I am an sli te, although beta nfs like me more than delta nfs do. I don’t have an delta nf farebook friends, while I have many, many beta nf Facebook friends even though I talk mad shit about eie ni.

    um… so why are delta nfs traditionally described as tolerant?

    fwiw, I have almost always preferred st women and ile ti and gammas, I wouldn’t want to a long term relationship with an nf woman or an alpha sf women. Duality just has been bad for me whether I am an lsi or an sli. It just doesn’t work for me, I am not very sensitive and the relationships for me are just as much about getting sexual needs met, which I separate from love. I am definitely not a nurturer, especially if I don’t see evidence of the talent… I am very strict about everyone’s competence. My older brother was an LSI or sli and he was tolerant of incompetence in his relationships, he really didn’t value intellect.
    I'm not only psychologically disturbed, I'm also QueeferSutherlandJeffersonianSecessionist87@sucksd ick.com


  2. #2
    Karbonkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    The Netherlands
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sx/So 479
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will admit I'm not very tolerant of others, I'll treat everyone with respect but rarely do I dive deeper with them since I'm pretty faultfinding (I can't help it eventhough I want too). If I see nothing in you I can be very blunt and brief. But once I do "let you in", I'll stay close to you. I hate having "contacts" and I hate networking, I just want (too my standards) quality people to build a close circle with and I'm too idealistic in this I guess.

  3. #3
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,566
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Betas can be very inclusive .
    As in: "You are mine now" or "You belong with me" etc.

    Some examples include invasion beyond state boundaries.

    Inclusion can totally exclude tolerance.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  4. #4
    Local Legend Toro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    Rust Belt
    TIM
    SEIZOR
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Generally, experience shows me that Alpha types are the most tolerant. Delta NFs employ their Ne and Fi, to find different ways in which they can relate to others. They try to see all sides of a situation and find new ways of seeing a problem. This can seem like ultra tolerance in situations where they are relating or sympathizing with a person or group that goes against convention.

    Delta NFs are ideologues after all and their aristocracy will divide groups on ideological grounds. If you express ideas or sentiments that aren't in line with the sort of people they want to associate with, you will find it hard to befriend them.

    Alphas like to keep the atmosphere light and fun without going into much interpersonal depth. They can invite and welcome a stranger or a generally disliked person without much judgment. In fact, the only thing they ask is for you not to express strong judgments.
    Bound upon me, rush upon me, I will overcome you by enduring your onset: whatever strikes against that which is firm and unconquerable merely injures itself by its own violence. Wherefore, seek some soft and yielding object to pierce with your darts.

    -Seneca

  5. #5
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,815
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure how quadra related it is- but there are a lot of people who aren't really interested in inclusion they just know it sounds good on a resume or something, and they aren't actually interested in making society a better place for minorities they just know it makes them look good on Te job applications etc. I knew a LSE woman like this I think, when her supervisors were around she'd say how much she wanted to include gays but interpersonally she hated homosexual males and wanted to campily kill us like Cruella De Vil. (or as me and DEAD say... Cuntella Deb Vil)

    It's unfair to say it's always not genuine though, even because of the veneer of career inclusivity and tacky rainbow 'We're all Human' stickers... I think with some IEEs especially they are quite genuine with it. A person working within the system to change things for the better for people isn't automatically some evil Nurse Ratched/Umbridge type - but it is pretty easy for true Umbridges to use that sort of thing as some self-absorbed power grab.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,211
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think IEE is pretty inclusive in the delta quadra.

  7. #7
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toro View Post
    Delta NFs are ideologues after all and their aristocracy will divide groups on ideological grounds. If you express ideas or sentiments that aren't in line with the sort of people they want to associate with, you will find it hard to befriend them.
    Wow, you summed up exactly how a lot of the Delta NFs I know act lol

    Personally, I really don't care at all what your ideology is. I only care if I can vibe with you. I might tell you you're wrong and argue why your position doesn't make sense to me, but I'll drop it if you insist on continuing to being wrong. As long as you don't actively stop me from living how I want and you aren't personally out there hurting anyone, I'm not gonna harass you about your beliefs. I don't see see why my redneck Trump-voter friends can't get along with the leftist Vaushites. We're all playing Halo, guys. Just focus on the game and work together or we're gonna lose lol
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  8. #8
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toro View Post
    Alphas like to keep the atmosphere light and fun without going into much interpersonal depth. They can invite and welcome a stranger or a generally disliked person without much judgment. In fact, the only thing they ask is for you not to express strong judgments.
    Lol "don't express strong judgements" was pretty much the rule in my very Alpha dominated household
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    Memo Ibarra
    Posts
    791
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toro View Post
    Delta NFs are ideologues after all and their aristocracy will divide groups on ideological grounds. If you express ideas or sentiments that aren't in line with the sort of people they want to associate with, you will find it hard to befriend them.
    So basically Twitter then.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,211
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Wow, you summed up exactly how a lot of the Delta NFs I know act lol

    Personally, I really don't care at all what your ideology is. I only care if I can vibe with you. I might tell you you're wrong and argue why your position doesn't make sense to me, but I'll drop it if you insist on continuing to being wrong. As long as you don't actively stop me from living how I want and you aren't personally out there hurting anyone, I'm not gonna harass you about your beliefs. I don't see see why my redneck Trump-voter friends can't get along with the leftist Vaushites. We're all playing Halo, guys. Just focus on the game and work together or we're gonna lose lol
    I honestly find it hard to be this way, if I disagree with someone on core values, I can be friends with them but there is a level that we will never reach as friends. I try to keep quiet about it but on the inside the difference in values are still loud and clear to me. The whole "Cool I don't judge." attitude to me feels too loose and careless, I judge, I just keep it to myself to keep the peace, as far as I know it's no one's business unless they ask. "You do crack, cool I don't judge" hell naw I judge. "You got a face tat? Cool I don't judge." Hell naw, I judge your ability to make long term decisions and whether you know how much you've limited your employment options. And your friends can't be friends with those folks because their whole identity is in opposition to them, they essentially fighting for existence by trying to eliminate the other.
    Last edited by Lord Pixel; 04-14-2022 at 10:01 AM.

  11. #11
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Pixel View Post
    I honestly find it hard to be this way, if I disagree with someone on core values, I can be friends with them but there is a level that we will never reach as friends. I try to keep quiet about it but on the inside the difference in values are still loud and clear to me. The whole "Cool I don't judge." attitude to me feels too loose and careless, I judge, I just keep it to myself to keep the peace, as far as I know it's no one's business unless they ask. "You do crack, cool I don't judge" hell naw I judge. "You got a face tat? Cool I don't judge." Hell naw, I judge your ability to make long term decisions and whether you know how much you've limited your employment options. And your friends can't be friends with those folks because their whole identity is in opposition to them, they essentially fighting for existence by trying to eliminate the other.
    Yeah, I mean I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way. I'm just providing more evidence to support the idea that Betas are generally much more tolerant (at least ideologically) than Deltas. It's definitely been what I've observed.
    And honestly I've been okay friends with Betas who thought I was a degenerate for being bi and a little camp. Even if my "identity is in opposition to them" it doesn't tend to hinder my ability to get along with them. It's not like I seek out people who think that way about me or anything, but I can be friends with them for an evening if I run into them at a bar
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,211
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Yeah, I mean I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way. I'm just providing more evidence to support the idea that Betas are generally much more tolerant (at least ideologically) than Deltas. It's definitely been what I've observed.
    And honestly I've been okay friends with Betas who thought I was a degenerate for being bi and a little camp. Even if my "identity is in opposition to them" it doesn't tend to hinder my ability to get along with them. It's not like I seek out people who think that way about me or anything, but I can be friends with them for an evening if I run into them at a bar
    Nah I agree with you about the Beta tolerance vs Delta "tolerance". I hear alot of IEIs that are way more tolerant than me and other EIIs. I think EIIs appear more tolerant than they actually are. I think the most tolerant delta is IEE. I will say I don't understand the friends for an evening thing. I can be civil and chill with people for an evening but that isn't friends to me. And the whole opposition thing was mainly about the two political identities trying to fight the other one out, they probably can't be friends because they pretty much can't co exist and have what they both want, one side is always losing.

  13. #13
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Pixel View Post
    I think the most tolerant delta is IEE.
    Yeah, I'd definitely agree with that and add that SLIs can also be relatively tolerant too. I think it's probably because IEEs and SLIs are irrational. I feel like I run into rational Deltas' ideological barriers significantly sooner than with irrational Deltas
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Pixel View Post
    I will say I don't understand the friends for an evening thing.
    Yeah, I mean I get that. For me though there's something kind of fun about telling someone to go fuck themselves and then buying them a drink so you can continue to bash each others' shit opinions lol
    As I mentioned before, I'm not looking for this sort of interaction, but it's happened to me with SLEs a few times and I can honestly say it was a lot of fun. I think in part because I'm very non-confrontational generally and hate conflict, but random drunk SLEs seem to know how to conflict with me in a way that doesn't feel threatening to me
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    TIM
    XSI-Ji 146w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    674
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fwiw, I am highly concerned about ethics, but I can certainly be friends with someone who has different ideology from me, although I would be wary of hanging around with them, because I could get sucked into a bad movement. In most cases it wouldn’t be the person I hated, the only way I would hate them is if they were forcing people to do things or banning certain things.

    I am much more concerned about a persons’ appearance and voice and intellectual features and how good their social skills are, especially how diplomatic they are… I love diplomacy. What I don’t like in people is people who go to great lengths to exclude certain people, but never express their own opinion so that leaves people in the dark why they don’t want to hang out, associate with certain people. I hate it when people don’t say or do go to great lengths to avoid saying or showing what they’re passionate about what brings them pleasure and unhappiness or dissatisfaction. I think that if you like something or someone you should show it.
    I'm not only psychologically disturbed, I'm also QueeferSutherlandJeffersonianSecessionist87@sucksd ick.com


  15. #15
    twiggewed dewusional entitwed snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    bNF 6w521 sx/sp VELF
    Posts
    2,354
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Disturbed View Post
    F. I hate it when people don’t say or do go to great lengths to avoid saying or showing what they’re passionate about what brings them pleasure and unhappiness or dissatisfaction. I think that if you like something or someone you should show it.
    do u not consider that some people are in more vulnerable position or value their own life and others more instead of commiting social suicide by voicing things that they cant risk
    Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
    I want to care
    if I was better I’d help you
    if I was better you’d be better
    HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  16. #16
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,815
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmm tolerance... you really don't like it, but you're trying to tolerate it, to not be a dick. I don't know. Yeah I am making everything about my homosexuality again to make a point here but don't hate me- it's just an easy example.

    It's like "I find it gross and disgusting and morally disturbing, but I understand revealing that to you might hurt your feelings, so instead I will tolerate you" as if the recipient of your 'tolerance' couldn't easily read between the lines and know how you really feel about them anyway regardless of your mask of politeness lol. Oh I'm sorry LSE social worker- that's me playing a victim again.

    Or like - another example other than gay - somebody is doing something annoying in class with their leg or mouth and you just tolerate it. It's usually said for things that are 'bad.'

    Being an adult and 'adult-ing' is really about learning to tolerate things you don't like I guess. Many folks don't like their jobs, but they tolerate them. People don't like fake pc bullshit atmospheres usually but they tolerate them.. because the Te lizards are what giving them their paychecks. People don't like long lines, traffic jams and homosexuals- but they tolerate them, because the gay gives them such great bjs even though they are socially shamed about it.

    I'd rather somebody just go on an over the top rant about how they hate gays like Fred Phelps does because they more or less secretly agree with him anyway- they just want to come off 'tolerant.'

    Libertarians always rant about tolerance, but the truth is they can't tolerate things well either. And they are really some of the least tolerant people in the end despite wanting to come off as socially progressive but financially responsible. They have to make noise and make a stand... in a way tolerance is a myth, or an acceptance of ultimate mediocrity. It's very average-to-borderline unhealthy enneagram 9isms

    Delta irrationals will be tolerant to a point, but Deltas are also the uppity moral quadra and they won't be tolerant of things that are too evil or whatever... and good for them tbh. Maybe I was too tolerant of things that I shouldn't have been. Maybe we as a society need to stop being so tolerant of homosexuals and instead either full on abuse them cuz we are EVIL or worship them and kiss their ass because we are so adorable and have such nice lips - I don't like this mealy mouth middle of the road Tolerance crap! I want campy love, acceptance and affection or campy hate and sadism!!! Tolerance, I'm having a hard time tolerating you.

  17. #17
    mbti INFJ born2simp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    657
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don’t like being alive, I just tolerate it.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  18. #18
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazaam View Post
    Libertarians always rant about tolerance, but the truth is they can't tolerate things well either.
    As someone who's considered himself a libertarian for many years, I am endlessly frustrated at the number of conservatives calling themselves "libertarians". It feels like two thirds of the people using the term to refer to themselves are conservatives who just don't want the baggage of the word "conservative"
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  19. #19
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would say I’m very tolerant despite being judgmental at times. I can be externally kind and patient while at internally hoping things were different. Still waters run deep!
    Also it’s just best to keep your opinions to yourself
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    TIM
    SLI 9w8 sp/so
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's because they tend to express less their intollerance, especially EII in my experience. On a superficial look, the EII I know seems extremely welcoming, but if they trust you enough to express their real thought, you will hear niceties as "I wouldn't mind poisoning that person".

  21. #21
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The "myth" of delta tolerance is a fabrication completely built off of stereotypes and generalizations.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  22. #22
    Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni CN 964 sx/so
    Posts
    605
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2. The Extraverted Thinking Type

    It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

    In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

    If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.

    We have now outlined two extreme figures, between which terminals the majority of these types may be graduated.

    In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence. The further we penetrate into their own province, the more do the unfavourable results of their tyranny impress us. Another life still pulses at the periphery, where the truth of the formula can be sensed as an estimable adjunct to the rest. But the further we probe into the special sphere where the formula operates, the more do we find life ebbing away from all that fails to coincide with its dictates. Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the most disagreeable results of an extraverted formula, since they are the first to be unmercifully blessed with it. But above all the subject himself is the one who suffers most -- which brings us to the other side of the psychology of this type.

    The fact that an intellectual formula never has been and never will be discovered which could embrace the [p. 437] abundant possibilities of life in a fitting expression must lead -- where such a formula is accepted -- to an inhibition, or total exclusion, of other highly important forms and activities of life. In the first place, all those vital forms dependent upon feeling will become repressed in such a type, as, for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, the art of friendship, etc. Irrational forms, such as religious experiences, passions and the like, are often obliterated even to the point of complete unconsciousness. These, conditionally quite important, forms of life have to support an existence that is largely unconscious. Doubtless there are exceptional men who are able to sacrifice their entire life to one definite formula; but for most of us a permanent life of such exclusiveness is impossible. Sooner or later -- in accordance with outer circumstances and inner gifts -- the forms of life repressed by the intellectual attitude become indirectly perceptible, through a gradual disturbance of the conscious conduct of life. Whenever disturbances of this kind reach a definite intensity, one speaks of a neurosis. In most cases, however, it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself some preventive extenuations of his formula, worded, of course, in a suitable and reasonable way. In this way a safety-valve is created.

    The relative or total unconsciousness of such tendencies or functions as are excluded from any participation in the conscious attitude keeps them in a relatively undeveloped state. As compared with the conscious function they are inferior. To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the remaining contents of the unconscious, from which they acquire a bizarre character. To the extent that they are conscious, they only play a secondary rôle, although one of considerable importance for the whole psychological picture.

    Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

    The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

    Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

    The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than [p. 441] a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counter-position, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.

    In my experience, this type, which is doubtless familiar to my readers, is chiefly found among men, since thinking tends to be a much more dominant function in men than in women. As a rule, when thinking achieves the mastery in women, it is, in my experience, a kind of thinking which results from a prevailingly intuitive activity of mind. [p. 442]
    The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there.

    The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective [p. 443]data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it -- I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame.

    But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.

    The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions. [p. 446]
    It goes without saying that anyone who values Te doesn't have unlimited tolerance. To be honest, though, I think pretty much everyone has to draw the line somewhere and Delta NFs, as peaceable as they are, are no exception.
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •