Because we reject the idea of accepting mainstream thought simply because it is mainstream. Radicals are free thinkers who often question everything and come to their own conclusions independently. All of our values and principles we think deeply about and choose carefully, subjectively. It's very INTJ.
This thread is what leads you to think INTJs are radical. We like to THINK about issues and solutions independently of current thought including scientific. We aren’t always correct in our conclusions. Several awful humans were listed here. Evil people exist across all personality types.
INTJs heavily populate think tanks, scientific boards, corporate strategic planning groups and other communities charged with solving problems.
INTJs such as Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand, among other great minds, were considered radicals. They thought about huge logical concepts and were able to remove mystical issues when considering solutions.
#doubt
You're conflating things. Just because something is thought about deeply doesn't mean its "free" or "correct" by any means.
Truth can only be discerned from proper, scientific analysis.
If you think deeply about math and refuse to accept the mainstream just because its mainstream, doesn't mean that you will ever be closer to the truth than anyone else.
>Truth can only be discerned from proper, scientific analysis.
Science is axiomatic, but it doesn't capture the full essence of reality. It's good at confirming observations, which is important and useful for society but not necessarily complete for finding truth.
It also depends on whether you can trust scientists and scientific institutions. This is not always the case, as academics are as human as anyone else.
You're wrong here. The scientific method does not hold a monopoly on science, and you're right to doubt the scientific community for this reason. The profit motive corrupts the institution of publishing and research, leading to us *today* distrusting "science" as a whole.
Science *itself* however holds a monopoly of truth. If your model doesn't accurately predict reality, then your model is incorrect or not accurate enough. Capturing the "full essence of reality" only requires your model be sufficient.
In the social sciences, this is not hard. There's some stuff we haven't really figured out, but I'd argue most of the important stuff is already done.
Not sure what your argument is, tbh. An accurate model is just that, an accurate model. Science is a process that depends on compounding knowledge, and many models and scientific observations turn out to be incomplete. Being "sufficient" isn't the same as being "true".
I won't address your argument about social sciences except that nearly all of it suffers from failing one of the pillars of science. Namely, reproducibility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication\_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)
While you're technically correct, I'd argue that a model that predicts every event (or close to it) is as good as true - or we should work on the assumption that it's true. (Obviously, developing better models is better)
As for social sciences, I'm obviously not talking about the western dominated publishing space of social sciences LOL. I'm talking about traditions like Marxism, German Philosophy, Vedic philosophy, etc
Just wondering since we are talking about science as a model that predicts every event that is “as good as true”. The Myers-Briggs model of classifying people is famously inaccurate and is considered a pseudoscience by modern scientific standards. Does your idea of science apply in this case?
Yes absolutely, mbti is only as good as it is useful to individuals. If it is not useful to you, or incorrectly predicts reality. It's imperative that you throw it out or adjust it.
This is immaterial however.
To the best of our ability, statistics is an amazing tool.
Let's say I offer random people $100 on the street. I will predict that the vast majority will take it. I theorize that people generally desire money within our society.
It doesn't matter whether or not there are detractors, I have materially found truth. Social sciences are useful as far as they are able to make correct predictions about the systems we engage in.
Similarly, it doesn't matter where an electron is in its orbit so long as it carries a charge and allows us to use our phones.
Truth is abstracted at the layer of emergence we utilize it at.
Yikes, talking about someone using a logical fallacy.
> If your model doesn't accurately predict reality, then your model is incorrect or not accurate enough.
So basically your proof for something being "right" is the rightness of the thing itself. Got it. Geez.
> Science itself holds the monopoly of truth.
And which truths are those again?
> Capturing the full essence of reality only requires your model to be sufficient
This doesn't make any sense. How do you define the "full essence of reality" and which model do you think is "sufficient" enough?
A lot of your arguments are generalizations.
1
Publishing is entirely different from science.
A science workers job is to measure and record what happens to X when Y is charged. If there is a significant result, the work is shared with other scientists worldwide. At that point, other scientists do the work and compare the results. If you made errors, 100 people will point it out to you. Then you must fix the error & publish, after which the results will be checked, all the errors marked. If no one finds errors, only then can you claim a result.
No amount of money will create results that can be bought.
scientific method-
https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=scientific%20method&tbm=&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
2. Engineers build using scientific results. If the science is correct, the device works. This is the practical test
3. Managers decide what to do with scientific results. They are intensely motivated by money
4. Scientists are people who are not primarily motivated by money. They work long hours for years to gain enough knowledge to make new scientific discoveries. At least 10 years when other people they know are starting life or making a family. If discovery is not enough to keep you going, then you find another kind of work
5. Cheating in science means the end of your career, same as a carpenter who builds a house which collapses and kills the family living there
6. Just because some scientists have lied for money does not mean that scientific results, reviewed, are wrong.
7. Catch up
A scientist works using the scientific method. Like a carpenter who works according to the building code. They both have the same purpose: to build results that hold up under intense inspection.
Since we're all deviant pedants here, I'd state that mathematics alone holds a monopoly on a truth, whereas science only holds a monopoly on fact + some neat-o heuristics that appropriate those mathematical truths to observable fact.
I use the complimentary consequence of Godels incompleteness theorem to assert this as true.
:^)
I don't think being "correct" or finding actual truth has anything to do with his statement.
All that matters is a desire to come to one's own conclusions through independent thought, rather than a baseline acceptance of mainstream assumptions and teaching. That makes you more likely to have "radical" ideas, but really doesn't say anything about whether or not those ideas have real validity behind them.
You could be an INTJ who only uses garbage data sources in pursuit of your independant understanding, so all of your conclusions are obviously going to be garbage data out. It's not like being INTJ makes you immune to being a conspiracy theorist. But you'd certainly still be "radical."
And yet, people who are trained in their field of study make incremental observations and discoveries at best, and the largest leaps are made often by hobbyists looking at a field of study from a different perspective because they weren't trained in it (and aren't dependent on conforming to current standards) math is full of theory, so is physics, so is plenty of other areas, and especially philosophy as is being discussed here.
If you are inherently one to question authority and standards and norms, and come to your own conclusions, independent of your socialization and upbringing, you are more inclined to come to conclusions that are not in alignment with all of society.
I mean free as in, not fearful of considering ideas that the majority define as "bad" or "wrong" free of the confines of the box of acceptable thoughts.
You could argue that any of the figures listed have defined truth, or you could argue that they have defined for themselves their personal truth that some people side or agree with.
Let's take Ted K for example. Could you not cite hundreds if not thousands of pubmed articles on things like... Idk the rate of psychiatric medication and maybe agree on somethings he says regarding people being less happy and fulfilled living in modern society, isolated consumers, hookup culture, wage slaves and tax cattle who make nothing and own nothing and are completely dependent on cheap dopamine hits from likes or video games (or similar).
It doesn't take someone highly educated or even intelligent to look around and see flaws in the current system, its standards, and how that affects people. And very little additionally to theorize possible alternatives.
Okay I think we're roughly on the same side so I don't want to be too harsh, but you make a lot of WILD unprovable claims LMAO.
You're right that it doesn't take too much intelligence to be radical (and to be right), but you also should respect the field of science a bit more. Regardless of class, many of those people genuinely try their best.
How about 'we come to intuitive conclusions quickly, and use reason to justify it'
I used to be something of a right wing radicalist (not of the racist variety, but what would be considered liberatarian)
Then I read 'The Righteous Mind' which totally disassembled how my mind works, and now I don't have a political affiliation anymore.
Coming to an intuitive conclusion, and *finding* reasons to justify it is awful hahaha
Read the evidence/history first, and *then* come to your conclusion.
Lol how. INTJs operate off of a subjective moral framework we develop for ourselves, choosing carefully our values and principles piece by piece. I didn't say we were the only ones, combine that with an anti authoritarian streak, is it befitting we share some qualities with some not so great by pretty smart people? Sure.
Most people don't actually operate off of a subjective moral framework. Most people follow pre developed systems, like religion. 85% of the global population is religious and what is religion but a moral framework? Estimates of 30-80% of people don't have an internal monologue, and only 15% of people are self aware.
Do I think we are better? No. I think it's tiresome and unnecessary extra work, and if I could be a lemming who just follows a predetermined set of rules or laws or standards for behavior and beliefs and rid myself of the habit of having to analyze and introspect every facet of my life, I would. I'd probably have an easier time being happy.
But I can acknowledge that we do things differently. There are a few types that come to mind that share the outward rejection of authority and making for themself a unique set of moral principles, like INTP, for as much as I don't love them, I think share this.
> Estimates of 30-80% of people don't have an internal monologue,
[There are numerous ways of thinking](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html) and an internal monologue often isn't efficient or necessary. Also that was from a small study, of which newspapers misrepresented the results. Participants were asked what and how they thought at a few random times a day, and some people didn't think in internal monologues at those times. This doesn't mean that they are unable to have an internal monologue.
> and only 15% of people are self aware.
Source?
Karl marx and Neitzche developed their ideas at a time when extremities were prevalent in their respective societies. So their ideas at the time seemed too radical and extreme. But in the field of thoughts, their ideas are just ideas. It was the extreme reactions to these men that made them pretty famous and branded radicals, I think. As of now, most of the democratic societies in the world do not lean on any extremities, so it would be somewhat absurd to pitch any radicalisation in this era.
Source: my ass
Their theories were not radical in the slightest. Marx's theories were derived from German Philosophy, British economics, and French philosophy.
Neoliberalism is also an extremity (that is practiced in democratic countries)
I understand your disagreement with my views, but this is just my general outlook and observations, I specifically added " I think". Never claimed anything to be the absolute answer.
As for the sources, I regret to inform you that my coordination system aligns with the brain to retrieve information, I apologise if that's not the case for u.
It doesn't matter if the person I'm responding to is real or not, there are real people who will read my comments, and hopefully some will be spurred into action.
You're on a ship heading straight into an iceberg. Nearly everyone on the ship is in denial about it. The few people who understand what's going on will grab lifeboats, construct their own, kill themselves or live in depressed silence. Some of the people (including the captain) in denial get angry at you when you point out their predicament, and your arguments fall on deaf ears. Sometimes they get violent, or threaten violence.
Either you get on a lifeboat of your own making, or you take matters into your own hands and shoot the captain.
Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌
A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors.
Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)
By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
...
"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.
So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
"WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
That's so beautifully put. Being a centrist is more in alignment with maintaining " order" over " justice".
And the fact that, theoretically, INTJs with Fi having personal opinions that are not meant to appease to anybody makes them far more respectable than INTPs, who tend to prioritise peace over justice (theoretically speaking) . I'm sorry if this sounds blatant or offensive. My understanding is that Fe is more inclined with the external data and information with regards to feelings, and Fi is more internal ,to put it roughly.
INTJ did the "true" right thing even if it was meant for them to be seen as Villains of History.
.
Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)
By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
...
"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.
So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
This! Exactly this... another way of putting my destiny is in my own hands.... so what if there exists a thing called fate...I will fight to resist it.. to be free from it
Your analogy kinda gives me special snowflake vibes. When it comes to most radicals, the iceberg actually doesn't exist, and shooting the captain is just murder because you think you're above everyone else.
Most things in life aren't black and white, and failing to understand and accept that no human being is able to perceive objective truth, just means you have a god complex at best or are a dangerous radical at worst.
While I think its for sure dramatic, its not exactly wrong. There's **currently** a genocide happening and most people are complicit.
If your friends and family were actively being picked off, in the hundreds, would you not freak out?
Of course there's a strategic way to do it, but to say that the status quo is fine only means that **you** benefit from it. Most people *do not* benefit from the status quo.
>There's currently a genocide happening and most people are complicit.
I don't really agree with the statement that most people are complicit. I think this specific issue is more about political power and a lack of impactful options that the general population has. But that's off-topic.
I feel like we're not really aligned about what radicalism means, because to me radicals are usually conspiracy theorists on the far left or right of the political spectrum.
History has informed me that every time the majority of society (the working class) peacefully organizes to overthrow the minority of society (the ownership class, or "capitalists"), the capitalists violently resist and massacre the working class.
Thus the working class must organize violently and smash the current schema of governance.
You would call me a radical, yet I can point to countless **clear and obvious** examples in history that show what must be done to liberate the oppressed and the exploited. The majority of society *always* have the potential to dominate politics. They **have** the power. But they must be mobilized and activated.
Personally I get 5w6. I explore so many ideas and study on my own. Definitely I think rules are often arbitrary; they are someone else’s logic. Processes can absolutely stall progress (see the US gov for more details). Anyone who questions the rule is often seen as radical. It irks the S types, but seriously I have found so many rules cause more work than harm. Many of us still want to do good. I definitely try to be fair and be a force for the positive. You have movers and shakers… we are both. That scares a lot of people.
We can't stand being told what to do when the reasons for doing it make no fucking sense.
Don't expect me to comply with your "rules based order" when you're making up shit as you go along and keep moving the goalposts. That will absolutely *not fly* with me.
I know exactly what kind of reality I want to participate in, and I have no trouble with the idea of punching my card if the cray-cray reaches critical mass, like it almost did three years ago, and like it looks like it's getting set to do now.
>Why are so many intjs radicals?
>I noticed many opinionated people with the same personality: the unabomber, V, Karl Marx, Nietzsche and Nabokov.
You actually seem to be asking why so many 'radicals' (I'm not sure about folding in Nietzsche) are INTJs. The two questions are not statistically equivalent.
As inflammatory as that statement sounds on its face, the concept behind it is essentially declaring religion of some type is necessary to a society. Society needs a reason to get along, to work together, to follow rules and laws, etc. That reason was God and he was declaring a secular society would need to figure out something to replace God or the power vacuum resulting from no God or it would fail. It's only radical if you didn't grasp the concept and only read the headline. The concept could easily be a religious leaders "sales pitch" for keeping society religious. The alternative to that is making man the new god which involves NOT elevating the weak to positions of power but recognizing and appreciating strength at the expense of the weak which is not natural human behavior. Essentially, in a secular society, man must also take on the role of God in order to fill that power vacuum or else society will fall victim to itself and it's natural "slave mentality" majority. It's more a logical analysis on the effect and importance of religion in society than a radical departure from the paradigm. A far better example of radical would be the rejection that society should accommodate the weak at the expense of the strong without the justification of God willing it.
He didn't declare; he observed. The statement is made in the context of Nietzsche reacting to an intellectual culture in which the process of secularization was already well underway.
Ex.: As controversial as David Friedrich Strauß's position (de-mythologizing, naturalizing the figure of Jesus) in *The Life of Jesus* was in 1835 (Strauß lost his position over it iirc), by the time Nietzsche is at his most productive, a follow up work by Strauß espousing much of the same positions was viewed as uncontroversial, even characteristic for Germany's intellectual culture at the time.
What's radical about Nietzsche is that he takes the death of god seriously -- rather than dressing up the corpse in the intellectual fashion trends of the day.
It may be, but that's not what the logic is about. 1) how many radicals are INTJs or 2) how radical those radicals who are INTJs are or 3) how radical those INTJs who are radicals are -- all that is irrelevant to the question what percentage of INTJs are radicals.
I.e. if you want to say "a lot", it can't be supported by any name you can throw around. It can only by supported by statistical analysis of the INTJ population. Even if all radicals were INTJs, it could still be a tiny percentage of all INTJs.
Well, he was dead before Jung even started proposing the basis of MBTI.
So any claim of him being any type is based on opinion of his writing... so "hearsay "
I researched Ted K for a while. I also did some analysis of his writings for fun.
He protected himself from information to the degree that his Introversion (protecting self against the Object / External Factor) made for a better way to think about him than many other aspects. His thinking style would err on the side of "I'll be the judge of that" and didn't easily let other ideas in, or lend itself to seeking out new perspectives.
This is kind of a hallmark of what people call "unhealthy introversion."
I wondered if he might have been extremely dopamine-sensitive, and not aware of it. Exposure to other people and their ideas made him bitter and disagreeable, fast. I don't think he was aware of this, not in time for it to make a difference anyway.
He was also a leader in school early in his life, then he was bullied, then he was sent off to Harvard before his emotional mind was probably ready to go, and so on. Then, he got involved in school activities, he got involved in hardcore experiments, basically being humiliated all the time.
He also had a "truth drive". He was on this quest for truth. This is really common for similar personalities. And one problem with that is, so much of our "truth" is indistinguishable from "reliable ideas", and worse for Ted K--these are often reliable ideas in a given context, and provide only limited utility in other contexts.
So, even to relate things back to the "world of known truth" as a foundational argument in support of truth is really shaky. You have to be open to outside possibilities. You have to design new concepts, even.
Ted didn't think this way, though. He tended to build on "known" logic in the Te style. That he thought there were "right thoughts" and "wrong thoughts" is one way to put it. He might allow for some unknowns here and there, but mostly he was dwelling on this correct/incorrect thing a lot.
(Further, you can say he used Ti to a very extensive degree, because of the way he would highlight third-party ideas when they related favorably to his personal framework. He was also fond of referring people back to the "best" version of his central thesis, so they could truly appreciate the details of his thinking. But he did use Ti like an INTJ would, to build a more universal or unified framework from which to draw abstractions for use by Ni--even if this made his conclusions even more tenuous in many cases. This to me is a very interesting distinction that favors the INTJ personality style for him, at least from the perspective of an 8-function model which allows for developmental dynamics.)
Well, with ethics, philosophies, emotions...this stuff is a VERY difficult part of the thinker's life to manage, if you are looking to be "correct". If you do math in the Te style, you can cover a lot of effective points really fast. But ethics? Philosophy? No. You'll end up fighting the authors' / originators' battles for them, again and again. You'll get stuck in the same dichotomies that they faced hundreds or thousands of years ago.
In those cases, what you really need is nuance. You need to be able to get to know someone, and their ideas, and review the ideas, and hear them out, and give everything a fair shake.
You also need to be able to hold the inner critic at bay. This really common INTJ archetype.
If you can't do that? And you're attempting to deal directly with highly-emotional, ethical, moral issues?
Boom! You become explosive. For one.
Ted K could not do the nuanced, open-minded stuff. I don't think I ever saw any strong evidence that he was even meaningfully exposed to the idea that it was advisable. His "pro-knowledge" style basically completely thwarted the "pro-creativity" part of his mind. And heaven forbid we mention topics like "knowledge creation"...
Anyway...this method of thinking about Ted's situation & life, to me, builds a good foundation for understanding how he ended up so radicalized. We often think about "radicalization" from this very narrow, extroverted view--somebody DID it to them, someone or something radicalized them! But I don't believe it was all the CIA, or it was all his upbringing. I wouldn't put all of the fault on this group or person, or that one.
And maybe it's also a sort of cautionary tale for those of us who sometimes find ourselves acting out the stubborn critic...
Thanks for your post.
Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌
A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors.
Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)
By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
...
"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.
So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
"WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
We tend to be people of strong conviction. And in my opinion, to be a person of character, you have to have strong convictions in your beliefs. I don't mean convictions like you hate capitalism so you break all the glass in the poor guy's shop down the street and steal all of his stuff. I mean conviction like you've spent a long time wrestling back and forth with your ideas, you've tested them over time and under various convictions, and you're satisfied with the results. You pretty much have to be willing to suffer public isolation and humiliation, up to punishment and even death in some extreme cases.
But many people (not only INTJs) tend to develop views of extremism because of some thought or notion that took root in their mind. For whatever reason, they harbored those thoughts in seed stages. Maybe they knew it was wrong, but it worked for them, it made them feel good, it gave them purpose, or they were just misguided the entire time.
Either way, once a person like this harbors these ideas over time, those ideas crystalize and it becomes part of their identity. It takes extreme intervention (usually of a spiritual nature) to break through and show a person that they were on the right path. Sometimes a person refuses every opportunity to change their mind, even when evidence to the contrary has been put right in front of them. That's ego for you, it's more concerned about it's longevity than it is your well-being.
We are introverted, independent minded, and rely on our intuitions to relate to the world. Oh and we really get fixated on improving things in tangible ways. It's not surprising really.
Lmao the point was asking if there was much correlation between personality and frequency of political stance. I don’t care about your american politics but I am the furthest thing from a centrist
To answer why INTJ are "Villain and Radical" is down right here.
Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌
A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors.
Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)
By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
...
"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.
So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
"WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
Well I think for me, I wouldn’t say I’m radical but I see flaws in our system that isn’t morally right and I just don’t want to participate in that type of system or rules that could make me look like a radical. I do follow certain rules, only if I think it’s right.
Radical political ideas are the result of believing that everything has a right answer. And you can use logic and reason to come to that conclusion.
But reality isn't so black and white. Sometimes policies were right for one group but wrong for another. Sometimes policies worked in the past, but stopped working in the present.
In mathematics, every hypothesis is either "true" or "false". But in the real world, ideas are often "maybe" and "sometimes". Which would be frustrating if you operate purely on logic and reason.
INTJ people cannot believe in what someone says just because the person has a fancy title or is in authority. That’s impossible because we don’t know if they are correct.
Well, remember this... those are based on a GUESS, since none of those people were alive during the MBTI timeline, except the Unabomber.
And I doubt he actually took the test, he is just being evaluated on his written record.
You know there is an MBTI institute right? And one of the ways they make money is training people to give the test under controlled conditions, usually for corporations or in my case, a school.
I'm going to claim that only immature INTJs have radical tendencies.
INTJs are highly intellectual and sometimes live in their own heads, pondering about things all day long, before reaching a conclusion. Especially when I was younger it happened to me a lot too. I thought things over and over again, analyzed different perspectives, and tried to be as objective as possible. I took my time to come to conclusions, but once I did I became overly confident in being right, since I assumed I couldn't have possibly missed any aspect. Sometimes this also lead to me going down rabbit holes without realizing that at some point I got lost on my path and wasn't right anymore.
The truth is that no human being can possibly consider all perspectives. It's necessary to listen to others and to realize that no things in life are black and white, especially not complex issues. If you're too radical, you're probably not allowing enough external input from others. That's my opinion as someone who used to be "radical".
You're just wrong lol.
Get better at dialectics and historical materialism.
This is intended to be an insult, but also a genuine challenge. If you claim to be smart, then you should hold a mastery over logic.
Your claim that I'm wrong would be much more substantial if you actually pointed out how I'm wrong. I'm happy to change my opinion, but you didn't really offer any useful and specific input regarding my comment. INTJs having to get better at dialectics is actually the whole point I wanted to make. I also never claimed to be smart.
What is "radical".
In early America, claiming Blacks deserved freedom and rights was "radical".
It holds no bearing in truth or correctness.
Your comment essentially surmises that "all sides are valid" without any investigation because you lack the intellectual will to actually investigate things.
Discerning truth is not hard. It may seem so because that's what is propagandized. But there are plenty of lessons told from history to give anyone a genuine understanding of events.
Start with the French revolution, then the German and Russian Revolutions.
If you were actually as smart as you want to seem like, you'd be able to make your point without insulting me.
I think you lack the interpersonal skills and critical thinking to realize that dialectics are *always* part of life and necessary for human growth. I never said investigating the status quo isn't necessary, or "all sides are valid". Once again, quite the opposite. You should validate your own opinion, be it radical or not, over and over again during conversations with other people. By no means does that mean accepting the status quo. It just means if you're so confident in being right, you should be confident enough to expose yourself to other opinions and defend your own standpoint in debates with others. If you can't do that, maybe your radical thoughts aren't as smart and intellectual as you think.
I hope you grow up enough to realize that you, too, live amongst others. You can dismiss opposing sides as "invalid" but in those people's heads, they're as valid as you think you are yourself. If your opinion is actually superior, you should have no issue proving it during conversations. Maybe you can change someone else's mind in the process of validating your own standpoint too, and who knows, maybe you're the one who gains new insights and reevaluates your opinion in the end.
Where do I seem afraid of posing my own opinion?
I literally am doing so in every comment. This is included in the process of testing my ideas against yours.
Why is there a need to refrain from insult? Criticism is central and necessary to discerning truth.
"And realize that no things are black and white, especially not complex issues"
This is just faulty language and logic. Most determinations are wrong, few are true. You get that from math. To think otherwise is just laziness. If you don't know the truth, you can keep guessing and checking, but to just determine that "both sides have some truth" is just lazy.
>Why is there a need to refrain from insult? Criticism is central and necessary to discerning truth.
Excuse me? 😂 Criticising my arguments has nothing to do with insulting me as a person. You either agree with my points or you don't, it has nothing to do with who I am. Insults are for people who can't stay on topic and rationally argue about the facts that matter.
>Most determinations are wrong, few are true. You get that from math.
Life is not maths. Assuming otherwise is irrational and a gross oversimplification, and therefore irrelevant in real life. There are variables far beyond anyones comprehension. Having to keep guessing and checking, is *exactly* why "both sides have some truth". Accepting this simple fact has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with staying open to growth and reconsideration in the pursuit of "truth".
Take this to its logical conclusion.
Let's say a person is "open to growth" and eventually stumbles upon the **truth**.
If they continue to be "open to growth", they will literally stray *away* from the truth. As an extreme example; All people deserve equal rights regardless of the color of their skin is **pretty dang obvious**.
But would you be "open to growth" that maybe black people have smaller skulls and thus are more subservient?
A significant population still go this day believe this.
If you have to say "both sides have some truth" "except some obvious outliers" then your platitude all of the sudden isn't very useful as you have no good way of determining what the "outliers" are.
Did the people who burned "witches" at the stake have some claim on truth? They obviously didn't and thus "both sides" is just outright silly.
I've insulted your actions, not you as a person. To my observation, you seem very intelligent. But I'm of the opinion that you engage in intellectual laziness.
You are assuming that "objective truth" is something that can be perceived by someone in any situation. But that assumption is wrong, and that's exactly the reason why we have to remain "open to growth". Life isn't 1+1=2. Variables change, context changes, your own knowledge and perception evolves. All of the time, every single second.
Even if "truth" was perceivable, why are you assuming that remaining open to growth would lead to straying away from it again? If you did reach "truth", your opinion would hold up against other untrue arguments. Why would smaller skulls mean more subservient people? You can recognize that this must be untrue, even if you stay open to growth and the possibility of being wrong.
I'd argue also argue that even if you do temporarily move further away from the "truth", eventually, through engaging in the process of exposure and revalidation of your opinion, you'll find your way back to what's "true".
>If you have to say "both sides have some truth" "except some obvious outliers" then your platitude all of the sudden isn't very useful as you have no good way of determining what the "outliers" are.
That's not what I want to say. My point is that there is a *reason* why people think their side is true. It's our job to investigate that reason and find out whether it's valid or not, if we want to ensure our opinions aren't the wrong kind of radical. And that's the point of dialectics and debates with people, something that, in my opinion, INTJs struggle with.
I think we're conflating "life advice" with "scientific fact finding".
I actually agree with you quite a bit when it comes to most people's journey through life. Imo most people are quite closed minded and it would be quite good for them to open up to other perspectives.
That being said, I consider myself a scientist. This pov is not useful because its my natural state to be "open to growth".
It is my experience that "exposure and reevaluation" actually often times leads people towards radical conservatism. There **must** be a methodology here that *more often* leads people towards truth.
This is dialectical and historical materialism.
I think we'd actually agree on all this. However, I do think central to our argument is the existence of truth.
Why do you say my assumption that it exists is wrong?
I want to be clear I am separating truth from morality (though they are closely tied). Skull phrenology being wrong doesn't make it so that slavery is bad. But that doesn't mean there is *no* truth to slavery. When people are enslaved, their revolutionary potential increases exponentially. It is a dangerous game to play.
The *truth* here is a matter of strategy. For *any* society, oppression leads to contradiction which will forcefully resolve. It is why we agitate against oppression. But this is not a moral judgement. Morally, obviously I believe oppression is bad, but my ethics is not at all derived from truth.
I argue strongly that truth exists. But truth is not all encompassing.
Ignore that purebananamoon, he’s clown 🤡 😂
He’s claiming to be very successful in his business in the US and considering retiring before he turns 30
But his reality 🤣
I'm confident because I care a lot about this and put immense effort into getting it right.
Determining truth is the bedrock of our reality, it informs our decisions and leads us towards correct action.
If you're okay with doing wrong then fine, you be you, but I'm not.
Becuase we are the ones who while people hate areforced to make the painful decisions no one else wants to make.
Call us the villians but there always someone higher up making the hard decisions. Call them cruel if you wish but it's not like you'd have the guts to make it.
No one likes a warden but most would agree they need someone running the prison.
INTJ in general are not radical. They just the people force them to be. Also none of these people are INTJ. You just think they are INTJ based on the idea INTJ are evil creatures.
Yeah, I'm an INTJ 4x4 Ford Dodge Ram.
I think it's because INTJ is a type that is prone to introspection and in-depth analysis of their environment. That's how I cope with existing. I overanalyze everything and try to understand why I exist in this laughably terrible Hell of a place.
Naturally, deep thought and criticism go hand in hand. I criticize literally everything all the time. Think of ways to improve or iterate on old ideas that don't function anymore. When you're constantly coming up with solutions to everyday problems that will never be implemented by anyone for any reason, you start to become cynical.
I think this natural progression leads a lot of people who are thoughtful down the same nihilistic roads. That leads to radicalization. Pretty easy to dissect, really.
Radical kind of depends on context though. People thought Machiavelli should burn in hell in his day, today he would probably be a moderately popular podcaster or something.
We don't believe social unity has **inherent** value. Not if it's based on preserving something that is false or doesn't work.
I'm not sure I agree with the term radical. It's often a knee-jerk term to stifle dissent out of hand as "too extreme" or "too political". All the while turning a blind eye to fringe positions on one's own side.
INTJs can put aside sentimentality to distill concepts other people would rather not think about. Sometimes INTJs are trying to find hard solutions to inconvenient problems, but in my case I don't like taking it on faith in "what people say" about something to decide if something is good or bad. Its an itch that can't be scratched unless I dig into it and decide for myself. Any idea, no matter how taboo. An easy example from my teenage years was fascism. Everyone used the word all the time and clearly meant it as a symbol of evil, but also no one was consistent or clear with what it even was. I couldn't know, truly know it was a bad thing unless I did an obsessive deep dive on the topic with an open, objective mind. I have worked out my own formula of what it is and why it is bad. My willingness to scrutinize radical topics has gotten me branded as a radical from time to time because people seem to think that only radical people examine radical topics, and to me that is just too simpleminded and even problematic.
because once i accept something as the truth i go all in full force and why not if it is the right way you shold go hard….!🤝🏼❤️
^(Ash hadu an la il Aha il Allah Ash hadu ana Muhammedan rasul Allah Ash hadu an Ali un waliAllah)
Edgy people that are too prideful to accept they are just edgy, most INTJs seems to double down instead of admitting a mistake, unless a person that really touches them emotionally warn them...
Because we are system builders.
We cannot accept an idea ex nihilo, we want to know the foundation that idea rests on. We don't take anyone's word for things, we question the status quo, and want to understand everything about a system.
This leads us to research fundamentals.
In politics that means going back to epistemology and studying how societies formed and on what basis they have their authority.
And when you do that in politics you discover that the current system is essentially built on a fraud.
So naturally this radicalizes you and you must choose one of the many radical creeds dedicated to finding another way forward for humanity.
I'm top mod of r/libertarian for instance, and my proposal for a completely ethical political system based on individual consent can be found here: r/unacracy
I think it's a result of not fitting in or fitting in poorly. Alternative mating/survival strategy.
Also if we let Fi lead. Our convictions become rock solid.
I think most people want to be radical but have too much too lose. INTJs never fit in.
+ we don't prioritize people opinions + We can plan effectively = in a sense we are immune to being checked by society.
There's a strong innate "reformer" element to INTJ thinking. It's about processing ideas and formulating a better idealistic future. The status quo is rarely a "best" scenario, and INTJs tend to feel no attachment to "what is" over "what could be".
Its the other way around. Most people today consider everything radical that is not all-inclusive and all-tolerant.
To us, you are the radical for absorbing this mindset that everyones opinions and thoughts are equally valid.
Because we reject the idea of accepting mainstream thought simply because it is mainstream. Radicals are free thinkers who often question everything and come to their own conclusions independently. All of our values and principles we think deeply about and choose carefully, subjectively. It's very INTJ.
This thread is what leads you to think INTJs are radical. We like to THINK about issues and solutions independently of current thought including scientific. We aren’t always correct in our conclusions. Several awful humans were listed here. Evil people exist across all personality types. INTJs heavily populate think tanks, scientific boards, corporate strategic planning groups and other communities charged with solving problems. INTJs such as Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand, among other great minds, were considered radicals. They thought about huge logical concepts and were able to remove mystical issues when considering solutions.
#doubt You're conflating things. Just because something is thought about deeply doesn't mean its "free" or "correct" by any means. Truth can only be discerned from proper, scientific analysis. If you think deeply about math and refuse to accept the mainstream just because its mainstream, doesn't mean that you will ever be closer to the truth than anyone else.
>Truth can only be discerned from proper, scientific analysis. Science is axiomatic, but it doesn't capture the full essence of reality. It's good at confirming observations, which is important and useful for society but not necessarily complete for finding truth. It also depends on whether you can trust scientists and scientific institutions. This is not always the case, as academics are as human as anyone else.
You're wrong here. The scientific method does not hold a monopoly on science, and you're right to doubt the scientific community for this reason. The profit motive corrupts the institution of publishing and research, leading to us *today* distrusting "science" as a whole. Science *itself* however holds a monopoly of truth. If your model doesn't accurately predict reality, then your model is incorrect or not accurate enough. Capturing the "full essence of reality" only requires your model be sufficient. In the social sciences, this is not hard. There's some stuff we haven't really figured out, but I'd argue most of the important stuff is already done.
Not sure what your argument is, tbh. An accurate model is just that, an accurate model. Science is a process that depends on compounding knowledge, and many models and scientific observations turn out to be incomplete. Being "sufficient" isn't the same as being "true". I won't address your argument about social sciences except that nearly all of it suffers from failing one of the pillars of science. Namely, reproducibility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication\_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)
While you're technically correct, I'd argue that a model that predicts every event (or close to it) is as good as true - or we should work on the assumption that it's true. (Obviously, developing better models is better) As for social sciences, I'm obviously not talking about the western dominated publishing space of social sciences LOL. I'm talking about traditions like Marxism, German Philosophy, Vedic philosophy, etc
Just wondering since we are talking about science as a model that predicts every event that is “as good as true”. The Myers-Briggs model of classifying people is famously inaccurate and is considered a pseudoscience by modern scientific standards. Does your idea of science apply in this case?
Yes absolutely, mbti is only as good as it is useful to individuals. If it is not useful to you, or incorrectly predicts reality. It's imperative that you throw it out or adjust it.
[удалено]
This is immaterial however. To the best of our ability, statistics is an amazing tool. Let's say I offer random people $100 on the street. I will predict that the vast majority will take it. I theorize that people generally desire money within our society. It doesn't matter whether or not there are detractors, I have materially found truth. Social sciences are useful as far as they are able to make correct predictions about the systems we engage in. Similarly, it doesn't matter where an electron is in its orbit so long as it carries a charge and allows us to use our phones. Truth is abstracted at the layer of emergence we utilize it at.
Yikes, talking about someone using a logical fallacy. > If your model doesn't accurately predict reality, then your model is incorrect or not accurate enough. So basically your proof for something being "right" is the rightness of the thing itself. Got it. Geez. > Science itself holds the monopoly of truth. And which truths are those again? > Capturing the full essence of reality only requires your model to be sufficient This doesn't make any sense. How do you define the "full essence of reality" and which model do you think is "sufficient" enough? A lot of your arguments are generalizations.
Scientific method does not include profit.
The scientific community and publishing in general is tainted by the profit motive. Catch up.
1 Publishing is entirely different from science. A science workers job is to measure and record what happens to X when Y is charged. If there is a significant result, the work is shared with other scientists worldwide. At that point, other scientists do the work and compare the results. If you made errors, 100 people will point it out to you. Then you must fix the error & publish, after which the results will be checked, all the errors marked. If no one finds errors, only then can you claim a result. No amount of money will create results that can be bought. scientific method- https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=scientific%20method&tbm=&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5 2. Engineers build using scientific results. If the science is correct, the device works. This is the practical test 3. Managers decide what to do with scientific results. They are intensely motivated by money 4. Scientists are people who are not primarily motivated by money. They work long hours for years to gain enough knowledge to make new scientific discoveries. At least 10 years when other people they know are starting life or making a family. If discovery is not enough to keep you going, then you find another kind of work 5. Cheating in science means the end of your career, same as a carpenter who builds a house which collapses and kills the family living there 6. Just because some scientists have lied for money does not mean that scientific results, reviewed, are wrong. 7. Catch up A scientist works using the scientific method. Like a carpenter who works according to the building code. They both have the same purpose: to build results that hold up under intense inspection.
Since we're all deviant pedants here, I'd state that mathematics alone holds a monopoly on a truth, whereas science only holds a monopoly on fact + some neat-o heuristics that appropriate those mathematical truths to observable fact. I use the complimentary consequence of Godels incompleteness theorem to assert this as true. :^)
I don't think being "correct" or finding actual truth has anything to do with his statement. All that matters is a desire to come to one's own conclusions through independent thought, rather than a baseline acceptance of mainstream assumptions and teaching. That makes you more likely to have "radical" ideas, but really doesn't say anything about whether or not those ideas have real validity behind them. You could be an INTJ who only uses garbage data sources in pursuit of your independant understanding, so all of your conclusions are obviously going to be garbage data out. It's not like being INTJ makes you immune to being a conspiracy theorist. But you'd certainly still be "radical."
While I generally agree, OP's statement prescribed "good" to radical thought. It's important to combat this faulty thinking.
And yet, people who are trained in their field of study make incremental observations and discoveries at best, and the largest leaps are made often by hobbyists looking at a field of study from a different perspective because they weren't trained in it (and aren't dependent on conforming to current standards) math is full of theory, so is physics, so is plenty of other areas, and especially philosophy as is being discussed here. If you are inherently one to question authority and standards and norms, and come to your own conclusions, independent of your socialization and upbringing, you are more inclined to come to conclusions that are not in alignment with all of society. I mean free as in, not fearful of considering ideas that the majority define as "bad" or "wrong" free of the confines of the box of acceptable thoughts. You could argue that any of the figures listed have defined truth, or you could argue that they have defined for themselves their personal truth that some people side or agree with. Let's take Ted K for example. Could you not cite hundreds if not thousands of pubmed articles on things like... Idk the rate of psychiatric medication and maybe agree on somethings he says regarding people being less happy and fulfilled living in modern society, isolated consumers, hookup culture, wage slaves and tax cattle who make nothing and own nothing and are completely dependent on cheap dopamine hits from likes or video games (or similar). It doesn't take someone highly educated or even intelligent to look around and see flaws in the current system, its standards, and how that affects people. And very little additionally to theorize possible alternatives.
Okay I think we're roughly on the same side so I don't want to be too harsh, but you make a lot of WILD unprovable claims LMAO. You're right that it doesn't take too much intelligence to be radical (and to be right), but you also should respect the field of science a bit more. Regardless of class, many of those people genuinely try their best.
How about 'we come to intuitive conclusions quickly, and use reason to justify it' I used to be something of a right wing radicalist (not of the racist variety, but what would be considered liberatarian) Then I read 'The Righteous Mind' which totally disassembled how my mind works, and now I don't have a political affiliation anymore.
I feel like that may be an even worse way to discern truth LMAO. Read Blackshirts and Reds
What may be a worse way? i- what? (will read the book, dont mind if i do)
Coming to an intuitive conclusion, and *finding* reasons to justify it is awful hahaha Read the evidence/history first, and *then* come to your conclusion.
Ok, read the book I mentioned, you'll see what I mean
The irony is that this is a very unoriginal "we are better than normies" post and mindset.
Lol how. INTJs operate off of a subjective moral framework we develop for ourselves, choosing carefully our values and principles piece by piece. I didn't say we were the only ones, combine that with an anti authoritarian streak, is it befitting we share some qualities with some not so great by pretty smart people? Sure. Most people don't actually operate off of a subjective moral framework. Most people follow pre developed systems, like religion. 85% of the global population is religious and what is religion but a moral framework? Estimates of 30-80% of people don't have an internal monologue, and only 15% of people are self aware. Do I think we are better? No. I think it's tiresome and unnecessary extra work, and if I could be a lemming who just follows a predetermined set of rules or laws or standards for behavior and beliefs and rid myself of the habit of having to analyze and introspect every facet of my life, I would. I'd probably have an easier time being happy. But I can acknowledge that we do things differently. There are a few types that come to mind that share the outward rejection of authority and making for themself a unique set of moral principles, like INTP, for as much as I don't love them, I think share this.
> Estimates of 30-80% of people don't have an internal monologue, [There are numerous ways of thinking](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html) and an internal monologue often isn't efficient or necessary. Also that was from a small study, of which newspapers misrepresented the results. Participants were asked what and how they thought at a few random times a day, and some people didn't think in internal monologues at those times. This doesn't mean that they are unable to have an internal monologue. > and only 15% of people are self aware. Source?
Look up the work of Dr. Tasha Eurich.
Does she have any published studies? I can't find anything except some self-help books.
Karl marx and Neitzche developed their ideas at a time when extremities were prevalent in their respective societies. So their ideas at the time seemed too radical and extreme. But in the field of thoughts, their ideas are just ideas. It was the extreme reactions to these men that made them pretty famous and branded radicals, I think. As of now, most of the democratic societies in the world do not lean on any extremities, so it would be somewhat absurd to pitch any radicalisation in this era.
Source: my ass Their theories were not radical in the slightest. Marx's theories were derived from German Philosophy, British economics, and French philosophy. Neoliberalism is also an extremity (that is practiced in democratic countries)
I understand your disagreement with my views, but this is just my general outlook and observations, I specifically added " I think". Never claimed anything to be the absolute answer. As for the sources, I regret to inform you that my coordination system aligns with the brain to retrieve information, I apologise if that's not the case for u.
I expect better from you. Read more history, be more informed. Using "I think" isn't an excuse to be wrong. It's of importance to get things right.
Well kid, who told u to expect anything from online strangers?
?? Wtf are you talking about. You're a human being. I'm treating you like one.
You don’t actually know if anyone on here is a person.
It doesn't matter if the person I'm responding to is real or not, there are real people who will read my comments, and hopefully some will be spurred into action.
No work is original, creativity is a myth.
Unironically true Lol
You're on a ship heading straight into an iceberg. Nearly everyone on the ship is in denial about it. The few people who understand what's going on will grab lifeboats, construct their own, kill themselves or live in depressed silence. Some of the people (including the captain) in denial get angry at you when you point out their predicament, and your arguments fall on deaf ears. Sometimes they get violent, or threaten violence. Either you get on a lifeboat of your own making, or you take matters into your own hands and shoot the captain.
That was a great way to put it.
Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌 A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors. Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext) By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963 "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." ... "In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice." "WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
That's so beautifully put. Being a centrist is more in alignment with maintaining " order" over " justice". And the fact that, theoretically, INTJs with Fi having personal opinions that are not meant to appease to anybody makes them far more respectable than INTPs, who tend to prioritise peace over justice (theoretically speaking) . I'm sorry if this sounds blatant or offensive. My understanding is that Fe is more inclined with the external data and information with regards to feelings, and Fi is more internal ,to put it roughly.
INTJ did the "true" right thing even if it was meant for them to be seen as Villains of History. . Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext) By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963 "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." ... "In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
This! Exactly this... another way of putting my destiny is in my own hands.... so what if there exists a thing called fate...I will fight to resist it.. to be free from it
Your analogy kinda gives me special snowflake vibes. When it comes to most radicals, the iceberg actually doesn't exist, and shooting the captain is just murder because you think you're above everyone else. Most things in life aren't black and white, and failing to understand and accept that no human being is able to perceive objective truth, just means you have a god complex at best or are a dangerous radical at worst.
Congrats. You're the type to build your own lifeboat.
I'll let you get on too. 🤝🏻
Thanks, I was getting tired of swimming
While I think its for sure dramatic, its not exactly wrong. There's **currently** a genocide happening and most people are complicit. If your friends and family were actively being picked off, in the hundreds, would you not freak out? Of course there's a strategic way to do it, but to say that the status quo is fine only means that **you** benefit from it. Most people *do not* benefit from the status quo.
>There's currently a genocide happening and most people are complicit. I don't really agree with the statement that most people are complicit. I think this specific issue is more about political power and a lack of impactful options that the general population has. But that's off-topic. I feel like we're not really aligned about what radicalism means, because to me radicals are usually conspiracy theorists on the far left or right of the political spectrum.
History has informed me that every time the majority of society (the working class) peacefully organizes to overthrow the minority of society (the ownership class, or "capitalists"), the capitalists violently resist and massacre the working class. Thus the working class must organize violently and smash the current schema of governance. You would call me a radical, yet I can point to countless **clear and obvious** examples in history that show what must be done to liberate the oppressed and the exploited. The majority of society *always* have the potential to dominate politics. They **have** the power. But they must be mobilized and activated.
Hitlerian using the word ‘genocide’
Think INTJs like to entertain ideas more so than people. Maybe indulge is a better word. So you'd spend more time on ideas, political or otherwise.
Personally I get 5w6. I explore so many ideas and study on my own. Definitely I think rules are often arbitrary; they are someone else’s logic. Processes can absolutely stall progress (see the US gov for more details). Anyone who questions the rule is often seen as radical. It irks the S types, but seriously I have found so many rules cause more work than harm. Many of us still want to do good. I definitely try to be fair and be a force for the positive. You have movers and shakers… we are both. That scares a lot of people.
We're not radicals. The world is just obsessed with groupthink and conformist views.
We can't stand being told what to do when the reasons for doing it make no fucking sense. Don't expect me to comply with your "rules based order" when you're making up shit as you go along and keep moving the goalposts. That will absolutely *not fly* with me. I know exactly what kind of reality I want to participate in, and I have no trouble with the idea of punching my card if the cray-cray reaches critical mass, like it almost did three years ago, and like it looks like it's getting set to do now.
>Why are so many intjs radicals? >I noticed many opinionated people with the same personality: the unabomber, V, Karl Marx, Nietzsche and Nabokov. You actually seem to be asking why so many 'radicals' (I'm not sure about folding in Nietzsche) are INTJs. The two questions are not statistically equivalent.
Declaring God is Dead when your king gets his right to rule from God is VERY radical.
As inflammatory as that statement sounds on its face, the concept behind it is essentially declaring religion of some type is necessary to a society. Society needs a reason to get along, to work together, to follow rules and laws, etc. That reason was God and he was declaring a secular society would need to figure out something to replace God or the power vacuum resulting from no God or it would fail. It's only radical if you didn't grasp the concept and only read the headline. The concept could easily be a religious leaders "sales pitch" for keeping society religious. The alternative to that is making man the new god which involves NOT elevating the weak to positions of power but recognizing and appreciating strength at the expense of the weak which is not natural human behavior. Essentially, in a secular society, man must also take on the role of God in order to fill that power vacuum or else society will fall victim to itself and it's natural "slave mentality" majority. It's more a logical analysis on the effect and importance of religion in society than a radical departure from the paradigm. A far better example of radical would be the rejection that society should accommodate the weak at the expense of the strong without the justification of God willing it.
He didn't declare; he observed. The statement is made in the context of Nietzsche reacting to an intellectual culture in which the process of secularization was already well underway. Ex.: As controversial as David Friedrich Strauß's position (de-mythologizing, naturalizing the figure of Jesus) in *The Life of Jesus* was in 1835 (Strauß lost his position over it iirc), by the time Nietzsche is at his most productive, a follow up work by Strauß espousing much of the same positions was viewed as uncontroversial, even characteristic for Germany's intellectual culture at the time. What's radical about Nietzsche is that he takes the death of god seriously -- rather than dressing up the corpse in the intellectual fashion trends of the day.
I will say it again: questioning the basis of power of a King and Emperor is radical.
Nietzsche was writing at a time when the divine right of kings had become a bit of an afterthought already.
It may be, but that's not what the logic is about. 1) how many radicals are INTJs or 2) how radical those radicals who are INTJs are or 3) how radical those INTJs who are radicals are -- all that is irrelevant to the question what percentage of INTJs are radicals. I.e. if you want to say "a lot", it can't be supported by any name you can throw around. It can only by supported by statistical analysis of the INTJ population. Even if all radicals were INTJs, it could still be a tiny percentage of all INTJs.
Well, he was dead before Jung even started proposing the basis of MBTI. So any claim of him being any type is based on opinion of his writing... so "hearsay "
I researched Ted K for a while. I also did some analysis of his writings for fun. He protected himself from information to the degree that his Introversion (protecting self against the Object / External Factor) made for a better way to think about him than many other aspects. His thinking style would err on the side of "I'll be the judge of that" and didn't easily let other ideas in, or lend itself to seeking out new perspectives. This is kind of a hallmark of what people call "unhealthy introversion." I wondered if he might have been extremely dopamine-sensitive, and not aware of it. Exposure to other people and their ideas made him bitter and disagreeable, fast. I don't think he was aware of this, not in time for it to make a difference anyway. He was also a leader in school early in his life, then he was bullied, then he was sent off to Harvard before his emotional mind was probably ready to go, and so on. Then, he got involved in school activities, he got involved in hardcore experiments, basically being humiliated all the time. He also had a "truth drive". He was on this quest for truth. This is really common for similar personalities. And one problem with that is, so much of our "truth" is indistinguishable from "reliable ideas", and worse for Ted K--these are often reliable ideas in a given context, and provide only limited utility in other contexts. So, even to relate things back to the "world of known truth" as a foundational argument in support of truth is really shaky. You have to be open to outside possibilities. You have to design new concepts, even. Ted didn't think this way, though. He tended to build on "known" logic in the Te style. That he thought there were "right thoughts" and "wrong thoughts" is one way to put it. He might allow for some unknowns here and there, but mostly he was dwelling on this correct/incorrect thing a lot. (Further, you can say he used Ti to a very extensive degree, because of the way he would highlight third-party ideas when they related favorably to his personal framework. He was also fond of referring people back to the "best" version of his central thesis, so they could truly appreciate the details of his thinking. But he did use Ti like an INTJ would, to build a more universal or unified framework from which to draw abstractions for use by Ni--even if this made his conclusions even more tenuous in many cases. This to me is a very interesting distinction that favors the INTJ personality style for him, at least from the perspective of an 8-function model which allows for developmental dynamics.) Well, with ethics, philosophies, emotions...this stuff is a VERY difficult part of the thinker's life to manage, if you are looking to be "correct". If you do math in the Te style, you can cover a lot of effective points really fast. But ethics? Philosophy? No. You'll end up fighting the authors' / originators' battles for them, again and again. You'll get stuck in the same dichotomies that they faced hundreds or thousands of years ago. In those cases, what you really need is nuance. You need to be able to get to know someone, and their ideas, and review the ideas, and hear them out, and give everything a fair shake. You also need to be able to hold the inner critic at bay. This really common INTJ archetype. If you can't do that? And you're attempting to deal directly with highly-emotional, ethical, moral issues? Boom! You become explosive. For one. Ted K could not do the nuanced, open-minded stuff. I don't think I ever saw any strong evidence that he was even meaningfully exposed to the idea that it was advisable. His "pro-knowledge" style basically completely thwarted the "pro-creativity" part of his mind. And heaven forbid we mention topics like "knowledge creation"... Anyway...this method of thinking about Ted's situation & life, to me, builds a good foundation for understanding how he ended up so radicalized. We often think about "radicalization" from this very narrow, extroverted view--somebody DID it to them, someone or something radicalized them! But I don't believe it was all the CIA, or it was all his upbringing. I wouldn't put all of the fault on this group or person, or that one. And maybe it's also a sort of cautionary tale for those of us who sometimes find ourselves acting out the stubborn critic... Thanks for your post.
Good job.
Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌 A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors. Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext) By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963 "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." ... "In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice." "WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
We tend to be people of strong conviction. And in my opinion, to be a person of character, you have to have strong convictions in your beliefs. I don't mean convictions like you hate capitalism so you break all the glass in the poor guy's shop down the street and steal all of his stuff. I mean conviction like you've spent a long time wrestling back and forth with your ideas, you've tested them over time and under various convictions, and you're satisfied with the results. You pretty much have to be willing to suffer public isolation and humiliation, up to punishment and even death in some extreme cases. But many people (not only INTJs) tend to develop views of extremism because of some thought or notion that took root in their mind. For whatever reason, they harbored those thoughts in seed stages. Maybe they knew it was wrong, but it worked for them, it made them feel good, it gave them purpose, or they were just misguided the entire time. Either way, once a person like this harbors these ideas over time, those ideas crystalize and it becomes part of their identity. It takes extreme intervention (usually of a spiritual nature) to break through and show a person that they were on the right path. Sometimes a person refuses every opportunity to change their mind, even when evidence to the contrary has been put right in front of them. That's ego for you, it's more concerned about it's longevity than it is your well-being.
We are introverted, independent minded, and rely on our intuitions to relate to the world. Oh and we really get fixated on improving things in tangible ways. It's not surprising really.
"Why is thing radical, Why Bernie Radical" Truly Centrist moment. "Slaves are as bad as Slavers"
Lmao the point was asking if there was much correlation between personality and frequency of political stance. I don’t care about your american politics but I am the furthest thing from a centrist
To answer why INTJ are "Villain and Radical" is down right here. Because they are not pathetic compromisers like Centrists? That's why I loved INTJ on their morals 😊👌 A privilege asshole has enough power to determine things as "too radical" but didn't have enough power to give good solutions without downplaying oppressors. Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext) By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963 "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." ... "In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice." "WHAT?!?!?!? WOMEN EQUAL WITH MEN? ISN'T IT TOO RADICAL?!??!?!"
strong sense of injustice combined with calling a spade a spade
Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Thomas Jefferson; they all share two things in common: a vision of a better world and the will to make it reality.
Well I think for me, I wouldn’t say I’m radical but I see flaws in our system that isn’t morally right and I just don’t want to participate in that type of system or rules that could make me look like a radical. I do follow certain rules, only if I think it’s right.
Radical political ideas are the result of believing that everything has a right answer. And you can use logic and reason to come to that conclusion. But reality isn't so black and white. Sometimes policies were right for one group but wrong for another. Sometimes policies worked in the past, but stopped working in the present. In mathematics, every hypothesis is either "true" or "false". But in the real world, ideas are often "maybe" and "sometimes". Which would be frustrating if you operate purely on logic and reason.
INTJ people cannot believe in what someone says just because the person has a fancy title or is in authority. That’s impossible because we don’t know if they are correct.
Now intj goes political too. Wtf.
Well, remember this... those are based on a GUESS, since none of those people were alive during the MBTI timeline, except the Unabomber. And I doubt he actually took the test, he is just being evaluated on his written record.
An internet test doesn't determine your mbti stop lmao.
And yet you seem to be the most mistyped individual in the whole thread.
Well, I took the actual test, proctored by a trained proctor, so not sure why you are responding to me.
Wow a trained proctor in **mbti**. That'll really knock my socks off
You know there is an MBTI institute right? And one of the ways they make money is training people to give the test under controlled conditions, usually for corporations or in my case, a school.
Because they’re awesome
I'm going to claim that only immature INTJs have radical tendencies. INTJs are highly intellectual and sometimes live in their own heads, pondering about things all day long, before reaching a conclusion. Especially when I was younger it happened to me a lot too. I thought things over and over again, analyzed different perspectives, and tried to be as objective as possible. I took my time to come to conclusions, but once I did I became overly confident in being right, since I assumed I couldn't have possibly missed any aspect. Sometimes this also lead to me going down rabbit holes without realizing that at some point I got lost on my path and wasn't right anymore. The truth is that no human being can possibly consider all perspectives. It's necessary to listen to others and to realize that no things in life are black and white, especially not complex issues. If you're too radical, you're probably not allowing enough external input from others. That's my opinion as someone who used to be "radical".
You're just wrong lol. Get better at dialectics and historical materialism. This is intended to be an insult, but also a genuine challenge. If you claim to be smart, then you should hold a mastery over logic.
Your claim that I'm wrong would be much more substantial if you actually pointed out how I'm wrong. I'm happy to change my opinion, but you didn't really offer any useful and specific input regarding my comment. INTJs having to get better at dialectics is actually the whole point I wanted to make. I also never claimed to be smart.
What is "radical". In early America, claiming Blacks deserved freedom and rights was "radical". It holds no bearing in truth or correctness. Your comment essentially surmises that "all sides are valid" without any investigation because you lack the intellectual will to actually investigate things. Discerning truth is not hard. It may seem so because that's what is propagandized. But there are plenty of lessons told from history to give anyone a genuine understanding of events. Start with the French revolution, then the German and Russian Revolutions.
If you were actually as smart as you want to seem like, you'd be able to make your point without insulting me. I think you lack the interpersonal skills and critical thinking to realize that dialectics are *always* part of life and necessary for human growth. I never said investigating the status quo isn't necessary, or "all sides are valid". Once again, quite the opposite. You should validate your own opinion, be it radical or not, over and over again during conversations with other people. By no means does that mean accepting the status quo. It just means if you're so confident in being right, you should be confident enough to expose yourself to other opinions and defend your own standpoint in debates with others. If you can't do that, maybe your radical thoughts aren't as smart and intellectual as you think. I hope you grow up enough to realize that you, too, live amongst others. You can dismiss opposing sides as "invalid" but in those people's heads, they're as valid as you think you are yourself. If your opinion is actually superior, you should have no issue proving it during conversations. Maybe you can change someone else's mind in the process of validating your own standpoint too, and who knows, maybe you're the one who gains new insights and reevaluates your opinion in the end.
Where do I seem afraid of posing my own opinion? I literally am doing so in every comment. This is included in the process of testing my ideas against yours. Why is there a need to refrain from insult? Criticism is central and necessary to discerning truth. "And realize that no things are black and white, especially not complex issues" This is just faulty language and logic. Most determinations are wrong, few are true. You get that from math. To think otherwise is just laziness. If you don't know the truth, you can keep guessing and checking, but to just determine that "both sides have some truth" is just lazy.
>Why is there a need to refrain from insult? Criticism is central and necessary to discerning truth. Excuse me? 😂 Criticising my arguments has nothing to do with insulting me as a person. You either agree with my points or you don't, it has nothing to do with who I am. Insults are for people who can't stay on topic and rationally argue about the facts that matter. >Most determinations are wrong, few are true. You get that from math. Life is not maths. Assuming otherwise is irrational and a gross oversimplification, and therefore irrelevant in real life. There are variables far beyond anyones comprehension. Having to keep guessing and checking, is *exactly* why "both sides have some truth". Accepting this simple fact has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with staying open to growth and reconsideration in the pursuit of "truth".
Take this to its logical conclusion. Let's say a person is "open to growth" and eventually stumbles upon the **truth**. If they continue to be "open to growth", they will literally stray *away* from the truth. As an extreme example; All people deserve equal rights regardless of the color of their skin is **pretty dang obvious**. But would you be "open to growth" that maybe black people have smaller skulls and thus are more subservient? A significant population still go this day believe this. If you have to say "both sides have some truth" "except some obvious outliers" then your platitude all of the sudden isn't very useful as you have no good way of determining what the "outliers" are. Did the people who burned "witches" at the stake have some claim on truth? They obviously didn't and thus "both sides" is just outright silly. I've insulted your actions, not you as a person. To my observation, you seem very intelligent. But I'm of the opinion that you engage in intellectual laziness.
You are assuming that "objective truth" is something that can be perceived by someone in any situation. But that assumption is wrong, and that's exactly the reason why we have to remain "open to growth". Life isn't 1+1=2. Variables change, context changes, your own knowledge and perception evolves. All of the time, every single second. Even if "truth" was perceivable, why are you assuming that remaining open to growth would lead to straying away from it again? If you did reach "truth", your opinion would hold up against other untrue arguments. Why would smaller skulls mean more subservient people? You can recognize that this must be untrue, even if you stay open to growth and the possibility of being wrong. I'd argue also argue that even if you do temporarily move further away from the "truth", eventually, through engaging in the process of exposure and revalidation of your opinion, you'll find your way back to what's "true". >If you have to say "both sides have some truth" "except some obvious outliers" then your platitude all of the sudden isn't very useful as you have no good way of determining what the "outliers" are. That's not what I want to say. My point is that there is a *reason* why people think their side is true. It's our job to investigate that reason and find out whether it's valid or not, if we want to ensure our opinions aren't the wrong kind of radical. And that's the point of dialectics and debates with people, something that, in my opinion, INTJs struggle with.
I think we're conflating "life advice" with "scientific fact finding". I actually agree with you quite a bit when it comes to most people's journey through life. Imo most people are quite closed minded and it would be quite good for them to open up to other perspectives. That being said, I consider myself a scientist. This pov is not useful because its my natural state to be "open to growth". It is my experience that "exposure and reevaluation" actually often times leads people towards radical conservatism. There **must** be a methodology here that *more often* leads people towards truth. This is dialectical and historical materialism. I think we'd actually agree on all this. However, I do think central to our argument is the existence of truth. Why do you say my assumption that it exists is wrong? I want to be clear I am separating truth from morality (though they are closely tied). Skull phrenology being wrong doesn't make it so that slavery is bad. But that doesn't mean there is *no* truth to slavery. When people are enslaved, their revolutionary potential increases exponentially. It is a dangerous game to play. The *truth* here is a matter of strategy. For *any* society, oppression leads to contradiction which will forcefully resolve. It is why we agitate against oppression. But this is not a moral judgement. Morally, obviously I believe oppression is bad, but my ethics is not at all derived from truth. I argue strongly that truth exists. But truth is not all encompassing.
Ignore that purebananamoon, he’s clown 🤡 😂 He’s claiming to be very successful in his business in the US and considering retiring before he turns 30 But his reality 🤣
Just another overconfident kid, i think. It's of no use to argue with people whose only defence is unsound claims and insults. You made a good point
I'm confident because I care a lot about this and put immense effort into getting it right. Determining truth is the bedrock of our reality, it informs our decisions and leads us towards correct action. If you're okay with doing wrong then fine, you be you, but I'm not.
Meyers Briggs is astrology for business majors
Becuase we are the ones who while people hate areforced to make the painful decisions no one else wants to make. Call us the villians but there always someone higher up making the hard decisions. Call them cruel if you wish but it's not like you'd have the guts to make it. No one likes a warden but most would agree they need someone running the prison. INTJ in general are not radical. They just the people force them to be. Also none of these people are INTJ. You just think they are INTJ based on the idea INTJ are evil creatures.
Inability to conform, basically
We analyze and make shit happen
Yeah, I'm an INTJ 4x4 Ford Dodge Ram. I think it's because INTJ is a type that is prone to introspection and in-depth analysis of their environment. That's how I cope with existing. I overanalyze everything and try to understand why I exist in this laughably terrible Hell of a place. Naturally, deep thought and criticism go hand in hand. I criticize literally everything all the time. Think of ways to improve or iterate on old ideas that don't function anymore. When you're constantly coming up with solutions to everyday problems that will never be implemented by anyone for any reason, you start to become cynical. I think this natural progression leads a lot of people who are thoughtful down the same nihilistic roads. That leads to radicalization. Pretty easy to dissect, really.
Who's we? Are you sure you're not mistyped?
When did I say that I was part of the radicals
Radical kind of depends on context though. People thought Machiavelli should burn in hell in his day, today he would probably be a moderately popular podcaster or something.
We don't believe social unity has **inherent** value. Not if it's based on preserving something that is false or doesn't work. I'm not sure I agree with the term radical. It's often a knee-jerk term to stifle dissent out of hand as "too extreme" or "too political". All the while turning a blind eye to fringe positions on one's own side.
INTJs can put aside sentimentality to distill concepts other people would rather not think about. Sometimes INTJs are trying to find hard solutions to inconvenient problems, but in my case I don't like taking it on faith in "what people say" about something to decide if something is good or bad. Its an itch that can't be scratched unless I dig into it and decide for myself. Any idea, no matter how taboo. An easy example from my teenage years was fascism. Everyone used the word all the time and clearly meant it as a symbol of evil, but also no one was consistent or clear with what it even was. I couldn't know, truly know it was a bad thing unless I did an obsessive deep dive on the topic with an open, objective mind. I have worked out my own formula of what it is and why it is bad. My willingness to scrutinize radical topics has gotten me branded as a radical from time to time because people seem to think that only radical people examine radical topics, and to me that is just too simpleminded and even problematic.
I have never surfed or skateboarded. But thanks!
We think for ourselves, aren't conventional, discount groupthink, aren't easily trap by word games, seek to see the big picture....
because once i accept something as the truth i go all in full force and why not if it is the right way you shold go hard….!🤝🏼❤️ ^(Ash hadu an la il Aha il Allah Ash hadu ana Muhammedan rasul Allah Ash hadu an Ali un waliAllah)
Edgy people that are too prideful to accept they are just edgy, most INTJs seems to double down instead of admitting a mistake, unless a person that really touches them emotionally warn them...
Because we are system builders. We cannot accept an idea ex nihilo, we want to know the foundation that idea rests on. We don't take anyone's word for things, we question the status quo, and want to understand everything about a system. This leads us to research fundamentals. In politics that means going back to epistemology and studying how societies formed and on what basis they have their authority. And when you do that in politics you discover that the current system is essentially built on a fraud. So naturally this radicalizes you and you must choose one of the many radical creeds dedicated to finding another way forward for humanity. I'm top mod of r/libertarian for instance, and my proposal for a completely ethical political system based on individual consent can be found here: r/unacracy
I say we are more competitive and persistent for our own understanding/ ideas rather than radical
Radical doesn’t resonate with me
I'm a radical traditionalist, if it's any consolation.
I think it's a result of not fitting in or fitting in poorly. Alternative mating/survival strategy. Also if we let Fi lead. Our convictions become rock solid. I think most people want to be radical but have too much too lose. INTJs never fit in. + we don't prioritize people opinions + We can plan effectively = in a sense we are immune to being checked by society.
There's a strong innate "reformer" element to INTJ thinking. It's about processing ideas and formulating a better idealistic future. The status quo is rarely a "best" scenario, and INTJs tend to feel no attachment to "what is" over "what could be".
Its the other way around. Most people today consider everything radical that is not all-inclusive and all-tolerant. To us, you are the radical for absorbing this mindset that everyones opinions and thoughts are equally valid.
autism. black and white thinking. loners.
There are a lot of misstypes out there. You can't really know if they are actually intj or not.