Evil as it pertains to the INTJ

[thephoenix1414]

This topic has cropped up in other posts but I think it deserves its own post.

The portrayal of many stereotypical "bad guys" and "evil geniuses" tends to fit the intj. Why are so many of these evil characters intj's?
Are these characters really evil, or are they just progressives who are willing to stop at nothing to achieve a change in the status quo? And for that matter, what is "evil" really?
What do you think?

we're just going to ignore Gandalf for the time being.

[ssfanatic]

INTJ's are suppose to be open thinkers, and often the "evil genius" is bettering the world in his own demented way. (or her) But we do give anything to reach our goal, so the quickest way tends to be the evil way in the movies i guess. The new ideas that we are open to can sometimes be looked down in society, therefore creating the evil guy. EX. in jurrasic park we have bioengineered animals, some say its playing God, others say its the greatest break through in history.
So i think that we tend to be open minded and exept controversial theories.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I'm sure most of ya'll have noticed that an overwhelmingly common themes in movies and teevee shows run along these lines:

Pure logic/science is evil/scary...
Science run amok will destroy us all (Terminator, and every stupid Clone movie ever made).
Ambition is always executed at the expense of love, family, humanity (e.g. Darth Vader).


The proposed solutions are along these lines:

Instinct/feeling will triumph where technique/logic fails (use the force!)
"Pure logic" is fundamentally flawed.
Love conquers all.


I think that entertainment and any of the arts are dominated by NF's... and as such their views dominate movies/teevee, etc. Not saying this is a bad thing- I almost invariably like NF's (I married one).

[Danisty]

This topic has cropped up in other posts but I think it deserves its own post.

The portrayal of many stereotypical "bad guys" and "evil geniuses" tends to fit the intj. Why are so many of these evil characters intj's?
Are these characters really evil, or are they just progressives who are willing to stop at nothing to achieve a change in the status quo? And for that matter, what is "evil" really?
What do you think?

we're just going to ignore Gandalf for the time being.Well, this is exactly why I love the villain characters and especially the mastermind villains. I greatly enjoy looking at the story from their perspective. Are they evil? The funny thing is that even in the NF storylines that MM describes, I don't think they always are! The NFs are not always so successful at portraying their villains as the bad guys and I always get a kick out of it. I've actually purchased a domain for an idea I have involving villainy. It's something I'm endlessly fascinated with.

[blueback]

Maybe it's just that INTJs are the least likely to feel the need to explain themselves, which leaves them open to stereotyping.

[rwyatt365]

I'm sure most of ya'll have noticed that an overwhelmingly common themes in movies and teevee shows run along these lines:
Pure logic/science is evil/scary...
Science run amok will destroy us all (Terminator, and every stupid Clone movie ever made).
Ambition is always executed at the expense of love, family, humanity (e.g. Darth Vader).

The proposed solutions are along these lines:

Instinct/feeling will triumph where technique/logic fails (use the force!)
"Pure logic" is fundamentally flawed.
Love conquers all.

I think that entertainment and any of the arts are dominated by NF's... and as such their views dominate movies/teevee, etc. Not saying this is a bad thing- I almost invariably like NF's (I married one).
Good analysis MM. I would add that the INTJ way of thinking/processing reality makes an easy target. Like any other minority, unfamiliarity breeds fear – the INTJ mind is foreign and therefore should be subjugated and controlled. If that "logic genie" gets "out of the bottle" then who knows what will happen?!

Also, as you stated, since the majority view is that emotions and the senses are what is important the "cold" and "unfeeling" approach of the NTs is anti-human and therefore should be destroyed. Need evidence? Just look at the end of every Good vs. Evil film or TV show. The "evil genius" has been defeated/destroyed and the hero and heroine are inevitably clasped in a love-embrace signifying the triumph of emotion over logic. The only exception is always a lead-in to a sequel.

[thephoenix1414]

Thanks for replying guys, I definitely have thought along the same lines for a while now, especially after being forced to write an essay on the evils of knowledge portrayed in Frankenstein (the book,not the movie)

Any opinions on that as well? I think that the writer was simply afraid of science, but what do I know I'm just an arrogant intj.

This question came up recently after being selected as "Most likely to take over the world" for senior superlatives :) sure I'm not the only one

[blueback]

Did you read the original version or the second version? I haven't read the second version yet, but apparently the difference is important.

I'm not convinced there is a coherent philosophy behind Frankenstein. I think it was just an incredibly inventive story that a lot of people have been inspired by.

[toonia]

The INTJ mind is interesting for its combination of analytical and intuitive thinking. It is systematic, but maintains a certain sense of mystery. It is not more prone to be an evil than other types. For every evil INTJ genius there are a handful of sidekicks and a gazillion thugs. Simply put, when an INTJ happens to be evil, they just pull it off in a more interesting way than most others. :)

a case in point...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vortex]

I nearly always end up rooting for the "bad guy"...

[Antares]

INTJ's are suppose to be open thinkers, and often the "evil genius" is bettering the world in his own demented way. (or her) But we do give anything to reach our goal, so the quickest way tends to be the evil way in the movies i guess. The new ideas that we are open to can sometimes be looked down in society, therefore creating the evil guy. EX. in jurrasic park we have bioengineered animals, some say its playing God, others say its the greatest break through in history.
So i think that we tend to be open minded and exept controversial theories.

I think that usually, the INTJ villains are reformers who try to change the world for the better according to their own visions (which usually disregards feelings, happiness and moral standards of others). I'm not saying INTJ's are like this, but it's almost funny how often villains are like that. However, I find that, if I even consider alternative ideas, I'm often asked: How can you even think that this idea might be right?

[The Many]

I nearly always end up rooting for the "bad guy"...

Absolutely agreed. I almost instinctively have an aversion to heroes/heroines. They bore me.

Mechanical Messiah's analysis is also very (and unfortunately) correct. Hollywood movies usually follow the stylistic concept that someone uproots the already existing order, so a good guy has to step in and save it. And certainly enough INTJs are more likely than others to revel in some iconoclastic ideas, and also to act upon them. I mean, Nietzsche was an INTJ and he was the one to declare the death of God which is about as controversial as it ever got.

[OmegaPsi]

Ive always loved charectors as Scar from the Lion King, and Light Yagami from a show called Death Note [Yes I am an anime fan get over it =p]

[Danisty]

Ive always loved charectors as Scar from the Lion King, and Light Yagami from a show called Death Note [Yes I am an anime fan get over it =p]I'm an anime fan too. ;D
Vicious from Cowboy Bebop
Folken from Escaflowne

and video games:
Albedo from Xenosaga
Revolver Ocelot from Metal Gear Solid

The only thing I love more than a good villain is a good anti-hero.

[xhaan]

I'm sure most of ya'll have noticed that an overwhelmingly common themes in movies and teevee shows run along these lines:

Pure logic/science is evil/scary...
Science run amok will destroy us all (Terminator, and every stupid Clone movie ever made).
Ambition is always executed at the expense of love, family, humanity (e.g. Darth Vader).


The proposed solutions are along these lines:

Instinct/feeling will triumph where technique/logic fails (use the force!)
"Pure logic" is fundamentally flawed.
Love conquers all.


I think that entertainment and any of the arts are dominated by NF's... and as such their views dominate movies/teevee, etc. Not saying this is a bad thing- I almost invariably like NF's (I married one).


The problem with these kind of movies, is the 'bad guys' really aren't that 'evil' at all.

How many of you would chop limbs off live humans, in order to study the body's various physiological and psychological reactions, in real time?

How many of you would kill a human just to have something to disect and experiment on? How many of you would kill to ensure that your work goes on? How many of you would torture in the name of science?

And the final question:
How many of you would find a sense of pleasure in doing such things?

[OmegaPsi]

The problem with these kind of movies, is the 'bad guys' really aren't that 'evil' at all.

How many of you would chop limbs off live humans, in order to study the body's various physiological and psychological reactions, in real time?

How many of you would kill a human just to have something to disect and experiment on? How many of you would kill to ensure that your work goes on? How many of you would torture in the name of science?

And the final question:
How many of you would find a sense of pleasure in doing such things?

1: No
2: Yep, the guy id kill though would have to have done me a high personal wrong like kill one of my fammily or something...
3: hmmm...if it met condition 2

[xhaan]

2: Yep, the guy id kill though would have to have done me a high personal wrong like kill one of my fammily or something...

This is almost a moral reservation though, as you have a sense of justice, you felt the guy was wrong for killing your family, so you aren't opposed to punishing him for it, or just find him convenient that he deserves 'payback' which helps you feel better about experimenting on him.

[OmegaPsi]

This is almost a moral reservation though, as you have a sense of justice, you felt the guy was wrong for killing your family, so you aren't opposed to punishing him for it, or just find him convenient that he deserves 'payback' which helps you feel better about experimenting on him.

The concept for murder for me goes like this, sure I could do it, and probley with a smile on my face while slipping a poison ----->;D but I wouldent murder without a reason, because thats just rather stupid. Like I wouldent just go running around with a sniper and picking off people for no reason. hmm am I a bad person for that?

[xhaan]

The concept for murder for me goes like this, sure I could do it, and probley with a smile on my face while slipping a poison ----->;D but I wouldent murder without a reason, because thats just rather stupid. Like I wouldent just go running around with a sniper and picking off people for no reason. hmm am I a bad person for that?

Nope, I think most people except for ones who have really trained themselves in spiritual ways, or have just been taught, would be able to kill another in one scenario or another.

[OmegaPsi]

Good to hear =)

[xhaan]

Good to hear =)
:thumbsup:

What I wonder, is if theres a relationship between morals and progress. It seems that certain advanced cultures in history had no qualms against murder, torture, rape, pillage, terrorism, if it served their purposes.

[OmegaPsi]

The Ends justifies the means Always equals progress if you dont have any morals progress will be sped up alot.

[xhaan]

The Ends justifies the means Always equals progress if you dont have any morals progress will be sped up alot.

So, is it better to have morals, or progress, or a balance of the two?





xhaan added to this post, 5 minutes and 40 seconds later...

The concept for murder for me goes like this, sure I could do it, and probley with a smile on my face while slipping a poison ----->;D but I wouldent murder without a reason, because thats just rather stupid. Like I wouldent just go running around with a sniper and picking off people for no reason. hmm am I a bad person for that?

Also, would you still not kill someone, for any undefined reason, if you knew for sure that they would not be missed, and you would not be caught?

[OmegaPsi]

So, is it better to have morals, or progress, or a balance of the two?





xhaan added to this post, 5 minutes and 40 seconds later...



Also, would you still not kill someone, for any undefined reason, if you knew for sure that they would not be missed, and you would not be caught?

oh, hmm...

Damn im questioning my moral values. I know id do it once. Just once. But Im questioning would I do it again?

Oh I know Id definitly do it if we were in war. Of course ive never killed anybody or been to war, so I do not know the feeling.

[xhaan]

oh, hmm...

Damn im questioning my moral values. I know id do it once. Just once. But Im questioning would I do it again?

IMO, if you can do it once, there's a tendency to do it again. unless you were morally averted the first time.

Oh I know Id definitly do it if we were in war. Of course ive never killed anybody or been to war, so I do not know the feeling.

I'm not talking about war though. Say someone owes you money, or they got in your way, or you simply don't like them. Would you do it? Could you?

[OmegaPsi]

Itd prolly be easier after the first time, but once more I state I wouldent pick off random people without a reason. [except that first one since nobody liked him and he wouldent be missed]

[xhaan]

Itd prolly be easier after the first time, but once more I state I wouldent pick off random people without a reason. [except that first one since nobody liked him and he wouldent be missed]

I understand.
Personally, I wouldn't do it, because I wouldn't want it done to me. And if someone tried, they would need to use a rifle or something, because I will fight to the death if given the opportunity. I find letting someone take my life worse than taking theirs, so therefore i would avoid the situation entirely, unless called upon by a higher priority, e.g. protecting other lives besides my own and the opponents.

[thod]

Logic says that if you could kill someone without detection or consequence you should do so for if you had any gain no matter how small that gain.

Personaly I think you would be letting the genie out of the bottle. Once you let it out you wont ever get it in again. Once that initial barrier has been overcome you are far more likely to see it as a solution to the next problem that gets in your way. The next one will get you caught. You have a vested interest in keeping that barrier in place. Its like experimenting with heroin because you can always quit.

It doesnt have to be a moral argument so much as a behavioral one.

[xhaan]

Logic says that if you could kill someone without detection or consequence you should do so for if you had any gain no matter how small that gain.

Personaly I think you would be letting the genie out of the bottle. Once you let it out you wont ever get it in again. Once that initial barrier has been overcome you are far more likely to see it as a solution to the next problem that gets in your way. The next one will get you caught. You have a vested interest in keeping that barrier in place. Its like experimenting with heroin because you can always quit.

It doesnt have to be a moral argument so much as a behavioral one.


Yup, that's how I see it, except by logic I project my potential gain to others. There's no way to really determine consequences in a real world setting, therefore I cannot reasonably kill for gain, because I may lose instead, as they could either turn the tables on me, or I would be caught, because I'd do everything in my power to ensure that the same would happen to them. Therefore, it is logical for me to not do it, and hope someone doesn't do it to me.

Also, planning may work in a 'vacuum', but it's possible something screws up and/or you get caught just by dumb luck in reality.

Also, if everyone preyed on the weak and vulnerable, this 'culls the herd', and makes you however more likely the next target to be prey.

[Danisty]

If I wasn't afraid of the law, it's entirely possible I would have pursued a career as hitman. I really think it's a job I could have enjoyed.

[xhaan]

If I wasn't afraid of the law, it's entirely possible I would have pursued a career as hitman. I really think it's a job I could have enjoyed.

I somehow doubt it. Even without law, there is a tendency for law, as places where anybody can kill anybody are not nice places. So it isn't the law you fear, it is people.

[Danisty]

I somehow doubt it. Even without law, there is a tendency for law, as places where anybody can kill anybody are not nice places. So it isn't the law you fear, it is people.No, I'm fairly certain that if I were in a situation where the law wasn't a benefit to me, I would be able to pursue that career. It's precisely the fact that I would be in a place that wasn't nice that would push me to go ahead with it.

[Paul V]

There has been a large amount of misinformation regarding Evil and the INTJ in the movies. Bear in mind this at all times, my fellow partners: The media is directed to the masses. What are the masses composed of? You guessed it. SJs and SPs. People fear what they don't understand, and relate to those equal to them. What better villain than someone who is diametrically opposed to the typical teenager?

To me, the INTJ villain resource has been overused. It's too easy to see the cold, detached, brilliant mastermind as a source of evil. To me, someone who is capable of feeling true hatred, true selfishness and true sadism (and who excersises those feelings) is far, far more evil than someone who simply does not care about others.

[ssfanatic]

There has been a large amount of misinformation regarding Evil and the INTJ in the movies. Bear in mind this at all times, my fellow partners: The media is directed to the masses. What are the masses composed of? You guessed it. SJs and SPs. People fear what they don't understand, and relate to those equal to them. What better villain than someone who is diametrically opposed to the typical teenager?

To me, the INTJ villain resource has been overused. It's too easy to see the cold, detached, brilliant mastermind as a source of evil. To me, someone who is capable of feeling true hatred, true selfishness and true sadism (and who excersises those feelings) is far, far more evil than someone who simply does not care about others.
Very good point. I didnt even think of bringing the media into this, but very appropriate. I guess thats why i never seam to relate to the hero, bec he abides to the will of the masses, rather we are stuck with the guy who likes genocide and cannibalism. What is this world coming to?

[Paul V]

Very good point. I didnt even think of bringing the media into this, but very appropriate. I guess thats why i never seam to relate to the hero, bec he abides to the will of the masses, rather we are stuck with the guy who likes genocide and cannibalism. What is this world coming to?

Hence my endless banter about trying to keep the world alive for as long as we can.

[ssfanatic]

Hence my endless banter about trying to keep the world alive for as long as we can.
CHeck out my new thread. Ironic you say this. I have been giving it thought.

[Blacklustre King]

INTJs fit a very unique persona of most of very popular characters. As far as evil, one can only see it as an opinion, say Severus Snape’s act of killing Dumbledore in Harry Potter was an evil act for a greater good.

Many of we INTJs may come off as evil but only in the opinion of the more ignorant and common personality types. Our motives and objectives are more often achieved through cold hearted and ruthless tactical strategies.

We are not worried about sharing our opinion with those who will not listen and will go about achieving our ends, whether good or bad, by any means necessary. Contingency is one of an INTJ’s ultimate gifts. Being able to commit an act that is seemingly unforgivable just to have the lasting repercussions of that act echo far enough into the future to be ultimately good. For people with foresight enough to see the world though mechanical intuition and imaginative deduction we are allowed to change the outcome of distant events through subtle or drastic actions.

We by all normal standards and opinions can be considered “evil”, whether or not we accept this title…

[xhaan]

No, I'm fairly certain that if I were in a situation where the law wasn't a benefit to me, I would be able to pursue that career. It's precisely the fact that I would be in a place that wasn't nice that would push me to go ahead with it.

Hmm, interesting thinking. So, you aren't afraid of law, but you want to be law, in a sense. That is anarchy, the law of the self. Hopefully you would be good at what you would do, you wouldn't last long otherwise. It would be like being a historic pirate (not in the romantic movie sense). You do what you do to survive, and make it, just barely. Or people who see you as a threat, kill you.

[OmegaPsi]

INTJs fit a very unique persona of most of very popular characters. As far as evil, one can only see it as an opinion, say Severus Snape’s act of killing Dumbledore in Harry Potter was an evil act for a greater good.

Many of we INTJs may come off as evil but only in the opinion of the more ignorant and common personality types. Our motives and objectives are more often achieved through cold hearted and ruthless tactical strategies.

We are not worried about sharing our opinion with those who will not listen and will go about achieving our ends, whether good or bad, by any means necessary. Contingency is one of an INTJ’s ultimate gifts. Being able to commit an act that is seemingly unforgivable just to have the lasting repercussions of that act echo far enough into the future to be ultimately good. For people with foresight enough to see the world though mechanical intuition and imaginative deduction we are allowed to change the outcome of distant events through subtle or drastic actions.

We by all normal standards and opinions can be considered “evil”, whether or not we accept this title…


Thats almost exactly my views and opinions on manipulation. :thumbsup:

[Paul V]

INTJs fit a very unique persona of most of very popular characters. As far as evil, one can only see it as an opinion, say Severus Snape’s act of killing Dumbledore in Harry Potter was an evil act for a greater good.

Many of we INTJs may come off as evil but only in the opinion of the more ignorant and common personality types. Our motives and objectives are more often achieved through cold hearted and ruthless tactical strategies.

We are not worried about sharing our opinion with those who will not listen and will go about achieving our ends, whether good or bad, by any means necessary. Contingency is one of an INTJ’s ultimate gifts. Being able to commit an act that is seemingly unforgivable just to have the lasting repercussions of that act echo far enough into the future to be ultimately good. For people with foresight enough to see the world though mechanical intuition and imaginative deduction we are allowed to change the outcome of distant events through subtle or drastic actions.

We by all normal standards and opinions can be considered “evil”, whether or not we accept this title…

An act of evil for the greater good makes that act and its result neutral. Black and white tarnish each other, turning themselves gray upon contact. If we want the end to be truly good, we must use only good means, and viceversa for evil.

[Blacklustre King]

I agree entirely, it truly comes down to our own personal goals and ambitions.

[rwyatt365]

We are not worried about sharing our opinion with those who will not listen and will go about achieving our ends, whether good or bad, by any means necessary. Contingency is one of an INTJ’s ultimate gifts. Being able to commit an act that is seemingly unforgivable just to have the lasting repercussions of that act echo far enough into the future to be ultimately good. For people with foresight enough to see the world though mechanical intuition and imaginative deduction we are allowed to change the outcome of distant events through subtle or drastic actions.
Traits, indeed, of the INTJ type. I see this more as "forward thinking" – being able to project a present perturbation of "the system" (what I do today) into a future response (what might happen tomorrow). "Evil" enters in when the immediate response is not one generally perceived to be positive, or good, or socially acceptable.
An act of evil for the greater good makes that act and its result neutral. Black and white tarnish each other, turning themselves gray upon contact. If we want the end to be truly good, we must use only good means, and viceversa for evil.
…tarnish, yes perhaps but I wouldn’t take it to the level that seems implied. Life is not black and white, it is all levels of gray – I don't see any act as being purely good, nor purely evil. So, while I agree in principle with what you say, I disagree with you about the "truly" part. Is anything "truly" good, or evil?

If valuing all life is good (as a hypothetical example), can I condone the swatting of a mosquito – even if that mosquito carries Avian Bird Flu? Is the death of that mosquito evil? Is the death of the influenza virus evil? Should the life of potential victims take precedence? This dilemma is resolved when we allow "gray" results.

[Danisty]

Hmm, interesting thinking. So, you aren't afraid of law, but you want to be law, in a sense. That is anarchy, the law of the self. Hopefully you would be good at what you would do, you wouldn't last long otherwise. It would be like being a historic pirate (not in the romantic movie sense). You do what you do to survive, and make it, just barely. Or people who see you as a threat, kill you.Well, I've always said the most important person in my life is me. It's not so much about anarchy as about weighing which path will get me closer to what I want. If the law didn't benefit me and could possibly harm me, there wouldn't be any incentive to follow it. I'm not going to just trust the law. I'm going to trust myself. It's only because the laws I currently live under suit me well enough, that I go along with it. It's really just a matter of weighing the pros and the cons. I would like to think that anyone living under oppressive laws would do the same, but I know they wouldn't.

[xhaan]

Well, I've always said the most important person in my life is me. It's not so much about anarchy as about weighing which path will get me closer to what I want. If the law didn't benefit me and could possibly harm me, there wouldn't be any incentive to follow it. I'm not going to just trust the law. I'm going to trust myself. It's only because the laws I currently live under suit me well enough, that I go along with it. It's really just a matter of weighing the pros and the cons. I would like to think that anyone living under oppressive laws would do the same, but I know they wouldn't.

I did say in a sense. :laugh:
You like laws that are convenient and useful to you, personally, so in a sense, you're deciding what should be law (or at least what shouldn't be)
And you're right, not everyone who is under oppressive laws is willing to stand up.

The reason I see this as close to anarchy (bear with me) is not because of the lack of government in anarchy, but because in anarchy, you govern yourself. Democracy is sort of a middle ground, everyone is supposed to have a say, but not everyone will agree. Monarchy or dictatorships can be more oppressive, everything is decided for you.

[Paul V]

…tarnish, yes perhaps but I wouldn’t take it to the level that seems implied. Life is not black and white, it is all levels of gray – I don't see any act as being purely good, nor purely evil. So, while I agree in principle with what you say, I disagree with you about the "truly" part. Is anything "truly" good, or evil?

If valuing all life is good (as a hypothetical example), can I condone the swatting of a mosquito – even if that mosquito carries Avian Bird Flu? Is the death of that mosquito evil? Is the death of the influenza virus evil? Should the life of potential victims take precedence? This dilemma is resolved when we allow "gray" results.

Only the actions of sentient being can be classified as good or evil. To me, only humans are truly sentient, but we are still animals. This means that we must kill other animals and plants in order to feed of them and remain alive. I completely support killing humans, animals and plants to immediately save your own life, or the life of someone else. If that mosquito is a carrier of a deadly virus, you should kill it at once, for it is done only to save your own life (and the lives of other humans). Unfortunately, when it comes to vermins and other animals that are known for carrying diseases, I support killing them first, and see if they were infected later. It's regrettable, and I don't like it, but it's to save your own life.

[Danisty]

I did say in a sense. :laugh:
You like laws that are convenient and useful to you, personally, so in a sense, you're deciding what should be law (or at least what shouldn't be)
And you're right, not everyone who is under oppressive laws is willing to stand up.

The reason I see this as close to anarchy (bear with me) is not because of the lack of government in anarchy, but because in anarchy, you govern yourself. Democracy is sort of a middle ground, everyone is supposed to have a say, but not everyone will agree. Monarchy or dictatorships can be more oppressive, everything is decided for you.I see what you mean, in a sense. ;D

I wouldn't identify as an anarchist though because I don't have a problem with the idea of laws at all. When laws make sense and benefit people, I prefer to have them. I don't like chaos at all really, but if I lived in a world of chaos or corrupt law, I would really have no choice but to do my own thing and I think in a situation like that, I would enjoy every bit of it.

[Indigo]

I think that 'evil' is a relative term.

As far as murder, I don't think I could actually do something like that unless it came down to my life or theirs.

I have had thoughts about how I would do it and get away with it. But thinking and doing are two seperate things.

You guys are kinda' scary!

[Blacklustre King]

You guys are kinda' scary!

I get that quite often.

[xhaan]

Originally Posted by Indigo
You guys are kinda' scary!
I get that quite often.

Heh, I do once in a while too, because I can analyze things which cause people dismay or aversion... they don't realize that I do this in a detached way, not because of some obsession for 'bad things'.

How can I truly figure out how something works, if keep known reservations? i.e. How can you determine what 'evil' is, if you don't look at things which are considered 'evil'?

[Blacklustre King]

Indeed is it a shame that the more common perspective does not recognize our detached and often creepily cold hearted or cynical views towards the morbid or evil.

Coincidentally our point of view is often for the better of others but is often ignored.

[Bossy Mom]

I find this thread disturbing. Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling were both INTJs; one is a loathesome murderer and the other is a moral person trying to stop him and others like him from murdering. What does mental illness or moral depravity have to do with personality type? It is similar to situations where I have heard intelligent people disparaged with comments like, "When people get that smart they go crazy." Where is the scientific foundation for this?

I have always been an ENTJ or an INTJ and I would never hurt someone unless they tried to physically harm me, a family member, a friend, my country or any innocent people. This is my code and I have NEVER thought that the end justifies the means.

[thephoenix1414]

I find this thread disturbing. Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling were both INTJs; one is a loathesome murderer and the other is a moral person trying to stop him and others like him from murdering. What does mental illness or moral depravity have to do with personality type? It is similar to situations where I have heard intelligent people disparaged with comments like, "When people get that smart they go crazy." Where is the scientific foundation for this?

I have always been an ENTJ or an INTJ and I would never hurt someone unless they tried to physically harm me, a family member, a friend, my country or any innocent people. This is my code and I have NEVER thought that the end justifies the means.

My real point in this post was to show that "evil" is a multi-faceted and variable definition for acts that people don't like or see as "wrong". Hannibal really falls under a different category because his is likely a psychological problem. I just wondered what the reasoning behind so many "evil" intj's was. I think that the reasoning for this is the appearance of intj coldness and rationality which tends to make us seem inhuman. We know that we are not really evil, and that any "immoral" or "amoral" acts we take are generally for the greater good. This is not always seen because many are not as farseeing as we try to be. But fortunately there are a few intj characters which do fall under the side of "light" or "good", such as Clarice Starling or Gandalf, and I think that these characters leave a much more lasting impression upon people than the sterotypical "evil mastermind" the intj is portrayed as.

[Solaris]

The INTJ mind is interesting for its combination of analytical and intuitive thinking. It is systematic, but maintains a certain sense of mystery. It is not more prone to be an evil than other types. For every evil INTJ genius there are a handful of sidekicks and a gazillion thugs. Simply put, when an INTJ happens to be evil, they just pull it off in a more interesting way than most others. :)

a case in point...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I love Pinky and The Brain. :thumbsup:

[xhaan]

I find this thread disturbing. Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling were both INTJs; one is a loathesome murderer and the other is a moral person trying to stop him and others like him from murdering. What does mental illness or moral depravity have to do with personality type? It is similar to situations where I have heard intelligent people disparaged with comments like, "When people get that smart they go crazy." Where is the scientific foundation for this?

I have always been an ENTJ or an INTJ and I would never hurt someone unless they tried to physically harm me, a family member, a friend, my country or any innocent people. This is my code and I have NEVER thought that the end justifies the means.


No need to get upset. :)
I think we're just figuring out what is 'evil', and why.
Yes, it is not good to go around murdering people, even objectively speaking, but it is often turned into something subjective, i.e. "murder is wrong... I can't tell you WHY it's wrong, but it is!"

[OmegaPsi]

No need to get upset. :)
I think we're just figuring out what is 'evil', and why.
Yes, it is not good to go around murdering people, even objectively speaking, but it is often turned into something subjective, i.e. "murder is wrong... I can't tell you WHY it's wrong, but it is!"

is it not subjective?

[xhaan]

is it not subjective?
Mass murder doesn't benefit our society as a whole, as it is right now. Past civilizations could get away with it maybe, but it doesn't quite work anymore. We've moved past it in most developed countries, IMO.

[Blacklustre King]

Casting morality aside, I can personally see the benefits of genocide. If we are to stop the immediate decay of our world, humanity MUST suffer great losses.

They cannot seem to improve their habits of consume and destroy and this constant taking and taking may have already done irreparable damage to an already failing system.
Unfortunately within even my projections humans are setting themselves up for some kind of disaster.

Quite frankly I’ am counting on this disaster, whether it strike a contained area or the entire world I rely on this catastrophe in many of my contingencies.

I have planned for everything, even zombies…

Murder for the common good is logically not evil but neutral. Say I “murder” a man before he can set off a bomb and kill a school of children, am I a murderer or am I a hero?

Whether the bomb was real or not.

Technically the man had committed no crime yet, so I must be a murderer. If I must be a murderer for the greater good of all then so shall it be.

[xhaan]

Casting morality aside, I can personally see the benefits of genocide. If we are to stop the immediate decay of our world, humanity MUST suffer great losses.

They cannot seem to improve their habits of consume and destroy and this constant taking and taking may have already done irreparable damage to an already failing system.
Unfortunately within even my projections humans are setting themselves up for some kind of disaster.

Quite frankly I’ am counting on this disaster, whether it strike a contained area or the entire world I rely on this catastrophe in many of my contingencies.

I have planned for everything, even zombies…

Murder for the common good is logically not evil but neutral. Say I “murder” a man before he can set off a bomb and kill a school of children, am I a murderer or am I a hero?

Whether the bomb was real or not.

Technically the man had committed no crime yet, so I must be a murderer. If I must be a murderer for the greater good of all then so shall it be.

I don't recall anyone talking about 'murder for the common good', that's often considered... not murder. It happens ALL the time, people getting shot because it was THOUGHT they had a bomb, and the risk wasn't worth it, people being shot because it was thought that they had a gun and were going to use it, and the risk of it happening wasn't worth it... etc. etc.

As far as genocide goes... nobody really has the right to initiate it. The world is going to go through states of decay no matter what, even if you fix it somehow, it will only be temporary. Utopia does not exist.

[OmegaPsi]

Besides when we start electing a person to create a new utopia, evreyone will either be dead and hell be the only one left or they will all live in an opressive regime, to technically there was never really a utopia to begin with.

[thephoenix1414]

Besides when we start electing a person to create a new utopia, evreyone will either be dead and hell be the only one left or they will all live in an opressive regime, to technically there was never really a utopia to begin with.

Yes, I think that you are right here. Utopias are paradoxes, if evil doesn't "exist" neither then does "good". The question invariably becomes, if people are not given a choice whether to be good or evil, do the terms have any real meaning? Is it better to not know the possibilities and remain ignorant or is it better to have the option and choose your own morality?

This reminds me of the book: The Giver. good read.

[gallihand]

The question invariably becomes, if people are not given a choice whether to be good or evil, do the terms have any real meaning?

Does this apply to angels as well? (if you're religious)


So if I steal all the oil going to the US for a week with the intent to speed up "green" solutions by showing the masses just how bad it would be is that evil? (Without ever giving the oil back)

And is genocide ok to save everyone? If we got to glimpse into the future and saw that the world would be a lifeless ball in 50 years unless we eliminated 20% of the population within 4 years would it still be evil?

Unfortunately with morals and ethics there are no easy answers, hence religion with all the answers for the masses that don't want to think about it. (Nothing against religious people but blind faith and adherence just makes me sick.)

IRT utopias
In short I agree. I was going to try to explain my viewpoint but I just keep coming back to no two peoples utopias are the same. But I'll give it a go.

Since no two people have the same utopia. If it did come about it would end the moment another person is introduced even far away (Hey! He's using my oxygen!) and I don't think anyone would really like to be alone forever. It also means that no other organism can exist as its utopia would be different (as would each cell in that person's body). And eternity without food is a slight problem from what I'm told. Who knows? Maybe someday there will be a way to exist without food or being required to drink.

[Bossy Mom]

Do you think the character of Patrick Bateman ("American Psycho") is an INTJ?

[thephoenix1414]

Do you think the character of Patrick Bateman ("American Psycho") is an INTJ?

I haven't seen it, I need to check that out.

[Fej]

Do you think the character of Patrick Bateman ("American Psycho") is an INTJ?

I want to know also.


*Sorry if I bothered anyone by reviving this thread.

[OmegaPsi]

So lately I've been trying to figure out what is EVIL. Many times movies or video games portray something that is bad but not truely evil. I know this is a matter of personal opinion, so I would like to know what and when do you guys seperate between Evill and simply Bad.

[Beery Swine]

I'd say because INTJs are the only ones who qualify as any type of genius to begin with. :laugh: