Good and Evil

[Metamorph]

People clearly want to consider certain types as good and evil, and this probably makes complete sense. However, the types they pick are different from the ones Jung picks. Jung makes Goethe what would be EIE in socionics and Schiller LII. EIE is usually just treated like the Satan type for being supposedly Hı̇tler, though. And many beta quandrant descriptions are not all that flattering, though they're at least cool-bad usually rather than dumb-bad like gamma is usually described as (but staunch capitalists usually read gamma like a Soviet slander of capitalism and identify with it out of contrarianism.) Who's wrong here?

For the record, I think Jung is wrong about Impressionism being great because it's unfiltered perceiving. Besides the fact that I personally dislike Impressionism, Impressionism is not unfiltered perceiving. Impressionists took black out of their paintings because they thought you can't see black. Case closed. However, socionics seems to go back to Aristotle more than Jung's personal opinions of how much he liked Impressionism because it doesn't use black and you supposedly can't see black because it's nothing (all false except him liking Impressionism, that's a fact at least.)

[Adam Strange]

Nothing is true but thinking makes it so.

I showed a picture of an ESI that I was considering dating to an ILE guy that I work with, and he said "That woman is evil."

I showed the exact same picture to a female ESI and she said "She's very pretty."

Now, I realize that "evil" and "pretty" are not opposites, but I think you get the picture.

[Metamorph]

Nothing is true but thinking makes it so.

The guy who said what that's supposed to be spent the entire play going crazy before getting stabbed with poison.

[Averroes]

Most Good: Alphas, delta NFs and Si-sub delta STs

Most Evil: ESI, ILI, Se-SEE, SLE, LSI, Ni-EIE

[crazymaisy]

How is sacrificial honesty evil? ILI evil? Only certain ones.

[Adam Strange]

The guy who said what that's supposed to be spent the entire play going crazy before getting stabbed with poison.

That’ll teach him not to inflict his opinions on others.

Getting stabbed with poison works more often than you’d think it would.

[Hope]

I've seen all types knowingly doing wrong and most justifiying themselves about it. The most honest ppl drop such justifications quickly if they are in the journey of achieving a greater good.

[Metamorph]

That’ll teach him not to inflict his opinions on others.

Getting stabbed with poison works more often than you’d think it would.

What if you have the opinion you don't want to get stabbed, unlike Hamlet? If you're Hamlet, getting stabbed is not good or evil except thinking makes it so.

[Alomoes]

I’ve thought about good and evil, and it’s generally better to be more specific. They’re catch all terms for traits we don’t like. In any way, true evil is generally either instinctual or learned. In the case of instinct, I consider it a deficiency in the person’s ability to control themselves. Either way, all people can be good or evil in the learned case, but many struggle with either side because of their innate nature.

Remember, humans are animals, they tend towards their own instinct and training. Type, as I understand it, is a bunch of people rationalizing their preconditions, a bunch of people trying to get theory to function, and a bunch of people praising the sun god for their magical abilities the theory gives them. But yeah as I say, the Hegelian philosopher type being EIE makes a ton of sense. Ethical types are not stupid.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Me, inumbra and Hudson Leick have repeated this same line about 12, 412 times but 'When we do shitty things in life we don't think we're not righteous - we think we have the right!'

The most abhorrent things are often done thinking the other person is the most "good." Like I said on Facebook once people lobotomized gay male brains, locked Jews into cages and burned them, gatekept the political & financially competitive world from women, and thought Socionics was a valid and respectable typology system - all thinking they were the most righteous. A lot of Deltas aren't nowhere good as they think and instead just cruelly hurt people - but likewise, a lot of Betas 'really are that evil.' To me, we're all right and we're all wrong.

So what is worse- being an Umbridge (EII Social Worker that snitches to LSE judges and exaggerates any "evil" you do in order to make themselves look more superior) or being Voldemort (Satan who eats babies. Not as a Joke but really Eats them Seriously??)

From my biased Beta perspective being Umbridge is worse but in truth both are bad because the real devil wouldn't respect my limits anyway. And even though I'm immensely turned on by a dude rubbing his used jockstrap in my face in a way that's seemingly not consensual but secretly really is, the real Satan would instead put panties in my mouth and turn me into a heterosexual - whether I wanted it or not. And they wouldn't be Kylie Minogue's panties- they would be Kim Davis' or Betsy Devos' or that one woman me and Subt make fun of.

So yes sadly even though that is true, somewhere in the world there's a SLE bank robber (yeah, yeah I know not all SLEs are bank robbers- maybe it's more LSIs. but I still think there's two main types of SLEs: Bank robber SLEs and dorky ILE-like family man SLEs) that justifies the cruel Te Social Worker's existence. Read 16types Adventures: Social Workers Have No Soul.

Ideally, good Deltas with souls have power and use it responsibly ((naturally those that enforce the laws in society should be innocent and good and pure as much as possible)) but in reality if a bad egg Delta gets power they will want to set the evil people free and lock the good people in cages as a sick narcissistic game and for only reason that it kinda turns them on, but they think they are being more clever and sneaky about it compared to a Beta- who would be over the top honest about it in a way that's self-defeating. Thankfully, you don't need to start a Beta vs Delta war all the time- a lot of the "good" Deltas will chastise and naturally stamp out the Deltas who really do this type of thing.

[RBRS]

People clearly want to consider certain types as good and evil, and this probably makes complete sense. However, the types they pick are different from the ones Jung picks. Jung makes Goethe what would be EIE in socionics and Schiller LII. EIE is usually just treated like the Satan type for being supposedly Hı̇tler, though. And many beta quandrant descriptions are not all that flattering, though they're at least cool-bad usually rather than dumb-bad like gamma is usually described as (but staunch capitalists usually read gamma like a Soviet slander of capitalism and identify with it out of contrarianism.) Who's wrong here?

For the record, I think Jung is wrong about Impressionism being great because it's unfiltered perceiving. Besides the fact that I personally dislike Impressionism, Impressionism is not unfiltered perceiving. Impressionists took black out of their paintings because they thought you can't see black. Case closed. However, socionics seems to go back to Aristotle more than Jung's personal opinions of how much he liked Impressionism because it doesn't use black and you supposedly can't see black because it's nothing (all false except him liking Impressionism, that's a fact at least.)

The first thing you need to do is to at least set a coherent structure of moral preferences and then justify it's existence on some axiomatic claim before starting to judge if descriptions or anything is contrary to it. But honestly I coincide with you, Beta descriptions usually run contrary to the general social consensus of morality (yet that consensus is rapidly changing and compartmentalizing, niches of moral conducts are more and more the tendency).

It's usually assumed that good and evil are in a polar relationship to each other, but that's not necessarily the case. You can indeed even develop a system of ethics with other maxims than those and encompassing different actions than the ones commonly recognized in those.

The actions seen as desirable or undesirable changed dramatically after christianity became the dominant religion. Prior to that ethical systems promoted the kind of actions and dispositions that were either beneficial to the individual, the state, or the social order.

When the roman empire became a dystopian draconian hellhole (and the west will probably follow this path too) the most popular moral philosophies were all about ignoring external reality to avoid suffering. That was probably not coincidental.

[godslave]

Imho, creating discrimination by assigning to some type an Evil supposed predisposition is nonsense, very harmful and not fair. I remind myself that we're talking about Models not real human beings. There are Good and Bad people in Every types without discrimination. What makes a person "Evil" is NTR period.

Ethics is a very complex subjects. I think that ages, eras and knowledge are more important when it comes to Ethics evolution than the contribution of some individuals even if their contribution can be consequent. It's a civilizational theme, a societal mix of traditions, believes and submission. Time and Ethics have always been intimately related. One makes the other evolve. Time and events are the reason why human sacrificial rites are almost extinguished from the face of the world although it has been thought as a good thing for centuries in some ancient civilizations like the Mayan culture and other ancient Ukathan cultures.

Now, I like to keep things simple without any sophistication. Pure malevolent people devoid of any ideological motivation as an excuse for their "evilness" are very rare. They are anomalies. People who have been indoctrinated and behaved in an evil manner because of ideological fanaticism are more commun. Most people however are just "normal" meaning they express some socially accepted set of behaviors, opinions and believes. Now, is there some kind of equilibrium here when it comes to "Good and Evil" a balance so to speak ? Are pure benevolent people as rare as pure malevolent people ? Are they an exception ? It's very difficult to answer those questions. We need more data and incidentally explore and study what has already been written on the subject. In other words it will be a quite time consuming endeavor. With that said, there are more celebrities among Serial Killers and other criminals than among Serial benefactors. I think that it's because of how our modern societies are organized. Caregivers, physicians, nurses, firefighters, police etc are anonymous benefactors, it's their "job". Incidentally we still build more houses than prisons so we have all the reason to consider that Good outnumber Evil.


There is some communality to both extreme Good and Evil though, they both act in the shadow i.e. incognito. A devil and a Saint do their deeds without ostentation, it's in their best interest to do so. The former so he can continue to do evil and the later so his actions can be validated by God (?).
Anyway, I'll stop her before people think that I know what I'm talking about !

[godslave]

[godslave]

Matveï Vassilievitch Golovinsk (left) and Pyotr Rachkovskyi (right)

I think those dudes were among the most evil people of all time.
The consequences of their actions lead to the killing of millions of people and perpetuated hatred of Jews and Freemasons across generations.

Edit : That conspiracy was not a theory, it was a real one unfortunately.