The Dark Side

[Blacklustre King]

Have you ever been sitting around talking or just listening and suddenly had devious even terrible thoughts regarding the conversation. For instance you hear 12,000 people just died in an earthquake and instead of thinking, “Oh, that is terrible.” You think, “Hmm, One they probably deserved it, two how can I work to this my advantage?” then you laugh at what should register as a terrible tragedy.

Do all INTJs have a built in “Dark Side” that overrides what should be a sympathetic response or is it as I have seen on this forum first hand, that few share this disturbing yet “useful” reaction override.

Useful in the sense we can laugh and even find trauma enjoyable, disturbing? No question, useful though? No question.

It is a stretch but with what research I have accumulated some interesting things about the human psyche have appeared. Despite the personality types many people seem to carry a deep down programming, between light and dark, a division that naturalizes how we react to certain scenarios. Like Jung’s Shadow and The Anim, these forces conflict and ultimately you are either for one or the other. I personally embraced my shadow and become the nature I had resisted for most of my childhood, it was probably then all my doubts towards religion became real and accepted in my mind.

Light seems to dominate this world, despite how one might view it little darkness or even D-type people exist. Though the number is on the rise…

There is Light and Dark
Then there is evil which can corrupt either.

Despite objections, we live in a world dominated by corrupted light.

One only needs to study the most ancient philosophies to understand the natures of either side, you might be surprised.

… Aside from the rant, please focus on the initial topic and not my research, which by all respects could be flawed however for the time being I feel it is solid.

[Jgib5328]

Well, I've always thought of myself capable of doing evil, I'm more neither good nor evil. I think going out of your way to harm someone or being happy with someone's misfortune is a sign of weakness. If 12000 people died in an earthquake, I just wouldn't care. Why would they deserve it? Maybe if they were all runaway Nazis, then they'd deserve it. I laugh at other people's trauma only if it is something that is relatively minor. When my friend got into a minor car accident (rear ending some woman) I laughed. If he got into a serious car crash, it wouldn't be funny.

Your argument about light and dark is way to polarized. This world isn't black or white, it's usually gray. I'm neither light nor dark, I'm capable of both though. I wouldn't mind killing a person in order to further my plan, but I wouldn't kill a person without reason.

I think you may be a little twisted in your reasoning, but oh well. If a secret evil organization wanted me to join them, I would in a heartbeat. I also wouldn't mind creating my own secret organization too.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I would say that all people have both 'dark and light' sides. Everyone (generally speaking) is capable of good and evil.

[pinkroger]

I would say that I tend towards the "Dark" side of things, by your views. I, however, don't believe in any sort of division. It's like the argument between conformity and non-conformity. It's just a stupid argument, not worth anyone's time. If I heard that 12,000 people just died, I wouldn't care about most of the people. But then I would think - "Hey, some of those people were probably Muslims, this is a good thing after all."

[Blacklustre King]

I' am terribly sorry my point was not meant to polarize the topic, I understand the presence of the shades of grey however I was playing on the more dominant nature people display or represent.

I personally would not care either if a sum able number of people were slain for any reason unless it somehow played to my advantage or did not. Either way I would not be traumatized more so I would probably be elated, creepily enough.

Like others here I’ll stand to say I do not like having things I have said repeated to me however I was not clear enough in my first post so I’ am at fault for even presenting such findings. Despite the shades of grey one or the other will always be slightly more dominant.

This world is black and white in the respect that there is a black and white, even if people live in the shades of grey that does not erase the existence of a black and white world where people are drawn to either side because of their own personal nature.

Far be it for me to make too many assumptions though, I have proven myself wrong in the past and these finding are hardly relevant to any topic other then segregating natures and personalities.

Darkness is not evil though, it would be wise to not associate such a thing with either light or dark natures. Evil is evil and will remain as such, a corruption that can take hold of either nature.

I’ve spent the better part of a decade fumbling through countless philosophies and beliefs and never had darkness been associated with evil until monotheistic religions emerged. Since I’ am not a monotheist I can only say that according to far more ancient beliefs and philosophies where the balance and separation of dark and light are more dominating can one find what makes evil, evil. There is no such thing as good and evil only good and bad and they can be vice versed.

Evil is a foreign element, a mindset that corrupts either, say the extremes of either end someone who has followed their nature to unhealthy lengths. Whatever beliefs exist whether one can accept it they will always be drawn to one or the other, one will always be more dominant then the other.

But I could always be wrong, I just speak from experience and personal knowledge on the subject, personal knowledge attained through means one may not understand. But again its all speculation.

I probably should have posted this in MBTI and Personality Theories...

I have a destroyer archetype that just loves to burst peoples bubble.

[Alcuin]

In terms of any disaster, I usually don't connect on an emotional scale (oh, those poor people, boo hoo, etc.) because disaster has happened in the past, will continue to happen, and no one is immune to death. But, while I'm not affected that way, I WILL wonder the best way to remedy the situation. How do we get resources because to victims of natural disaster? (Food, water, shelter, etc.) If an effort to help is inefficient, it annoys me and I'll obsess over ways to improve the system. Katrina was a big 'disappointment' for me, because I knew a guy from NOLA and I actually kept notes on what could have been done to improve the disaster relief.

Though, I also wonder how it will affect us on a national level, even to my advantage. Every disaster has a silver lining next to the red lining.

[sriv]

Katrina was stupid. If you live in an area that is extremely prone to flooding, move out. If you do not have the means to move out, find the means. Simple answer to a stupid problem.

Is dark selfishness? Please define light and dark. You have only told us what is not.

[Jgib5328]

Good and bad are all perception. I told this ENFJ girl back in high school that I didn't care about Darfur and she thought of me as being a terrible person, but I think as we got to know each other better she started understanding me more, but the point is, is that perception dictates. Me not caring about Darfur is just a case of indifference. To an NF, it's immoral not to care for others. Thus an NF would consider me morally bad, while I'd consider myself morally ambiguous. I don't care about being good or evil. All I do is follow my intuition towards my plans. If that leads me to do some evil or some good, then so be it. I do things out of necessity. The dark side is very interesting though, like I said, I'd love to join a secret evil organization, it'd make life so entertaining.

[umop_3pisdn]

It depends. Some things seem more disastrous to me than others. I tend to find more sympathy towards a more human-oriented disaster. Like stupid political shit and war, etc. Natural disasters are often somewhat unavoidable, and more of a force of causality. These things are natural, and considering the exponential growth of the human species, I'm sure there must be some natural means of population control we would still be subject to.

But yeah, I believe I may be capable of evil, but I have difficulty imaging what could possibly drive me to it. I think in incredibly dramatic circumstances, like a killer rapes/kills my whole family... then I'd consider possibly torturing him. And if I did, I would give it as much attention/obsessive interest as any of my "projects," plus an incredibly intense vindication/self-righteousness. I'd probably try to employ as many different means as possible, and I'd be quite calculating in my approach. I think I could allow malicious and spiteful thoughts to consume myself, if the situation were right, and I lacked the appropriate insight so as not to martyr myself to such feelings.

As said previously, that would be in extreme circumstances, and I tend to think that going down that path would kill a piece of my soul. I still hold some of my more childlike ardor for life within me. I would not wish to destroy this capacity for the sake of some other, insignificant person. I think in the end, I would be damning myself to lose some of the enchantment of living.

[sam988]

I also have embraced my "dark side", although i don't consider myself "evil". It's more like i don't care nearly as much for others as i do for myself. So if a tragedy occurs that could give me some advantage of any kind, i feel no guilt if i am happy about it. It's not like i could go back in time and stop it from happening anyways... so just seize the opportunity and that's it.

No wonder my 2 favourite books are "The Prince" and "The 48 Laws of Power".

[vkut79]

Good and bad are all perception..

That is certainly true.

All I do is follow my intuition towards my plans. If that leads me to do some evil or some good, then so be it. I do things out of necessity.

Here I disagree - just because notions of good and bad are a matter of subjective perception, doesn't mean that they should be treated with indifference. In following your "intuition" to commit some action with good or bad consequences, you can't just disregard your moral responsibility for those consequences of those actions, whether it be to yourself or to others. You don't do things out of necessity, you make choices. The illusion of necessity is more likely a product of stubbornness and/or closed-mindedness. So if you are making the choice to act only in accordance with some set of personal plans, that is a moral choice with good and bad associated with it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can't skip over issues of morality just by saying they don't apply to you, because they always do, since you make choices. This is sort of the playing field where morality is defined, of course you can choose to not discuss morality at all, at which point its a moot concept and it doesn't need to be considered. But if it is being considered, it should be discussed in the right sense. (if that makes sense)

[Jgib5328]

That is certainly true.



Here I disagree - just because notions of good and bad are a matter of subjective perception, doesn't mean that they should be treated with indifference. In following your "intuition" to commit some action with good or bad consequences, you can't just disregard your moral responsibility for those consequences of those actions, whether it be to yourself or to others. You don't do things out of necessity, you make choices. The illusion of necessity is more likely a product of stubbornness and/or closed-mindedness. So if you are making the choice to act only in accordance with some set of personal plans, that is a moral choice with good and bad associated with it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can't skip over issues of morality just by saying they don't apply to you, because they always do, since you make choices. This is sort of the playing field where morality is defined, of course you can choose to not discuss morality at all, at which point its a moot concept and it doesn't need to be considered. But if it is being considered, it should be discussed in the right sense. (if that makes sense)

What I do is always bounded by MY OWN morality, not societies. I was referring to me doing good or bad in how society would view it.

[SeaCzar]

I know my "dark" side well, and have learned how to keep it in check. I read somewhere (perhaps in this forum) that someone described themselves as having a ten mile fuse hooked to a hydrogen bomb. I am guilty of this as well. The bomb only expolded a few times in my life (with very good reason). I do not do anger well. Afterwards, I feel physically sick from it.

[Rohsiph]

The concept of "darkside" is interesting; I can vaguely remember coming across it in some speculative psychology readings. It's something I mean to eventually research in greater depth.

That said, I arrived at similar conceptions regarding light/dark a while back--particularly the idea that the majority "follows the light," and that much therein is corrupt. Also, that light and dark have nothing, necessarily, to do with good, bad, or evil.

There are things that many people miss out on for their thoughtless fear of darkness . . . there are ideas that are revealed only among the shadows, and there is a rarely-acknowledged peacefulness about the darkest corners.

[Antares]

Like Stalin said: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

I never feel for those who die in a disaster, because they're a statistic after all. I would feel sad for those like Dawn (the AIDS victim) after hearing her story, but if you present me with a number of how many children die of AIDS each year, I probably won't even stir. At most, I would say "how terrible" when feeling no sadness just to appear 'normal'. I want to help those in Darfur or the starving children not because I care; but because I can. I think to myself: "It's totally worth it if $1 can buy $10 worth of supplies, and I have plenty of $1s, in fact, I can't use them all. I'll make them useful then."

When hearing about Stalin and Mao purging people just because they can, I think: "Thank goodness they aren't here to reproduce anymore; or we'd have a bigger population problem, and it's not as if it's not big enough already." Don't get me wrong; I hate both of them. I think they don't take others' rights into account. You can do what you want, even if it violates anothers right to live? That's just preposterous. They might use the 'greater good' argument, but I'd never sacrifice for the 'greater good'. Their reasoning is lost on me.

My mother, a month ago, came to me and told me of this story of an abused 9 year old commiting suicide. I asked her: "What of it? Suicides happen a lot." She answered: "Don't you think society is twisted? The fact that 9 year old girls would be suicidal!" I said: "Oh well."

I think I have a strong dark side, but I don't think it's a crime to not feel for deaths. After all, in my logic, this bit of sentimentality here and there is redundant and useless; why make yourself feel sad for someone you don't know and a situation you don't have control over? But people are shocked that I don't feel for these people. When I told my classmate that my grandmother died, she said: "You said that as matter-of-factly if you said 'I breathe air'." But what am I supposed to say? "I don't really want to talk about it because she sadly passed away?" And start crying?

[Blacklustre King]

The concept of "darkside" is interesting; I can vaguely remember coming across it in some speculative psychology readings. It's something I mean to eventually research in greater depth.

That said, I arrived at similar conceptions regarding light/dark a while back--particularly the idea that the majority "follows the light," and that much therein is corrupt. Also, that light and dark have nothing, necessarily, to do with good, bad, or evil.

There are things that many people miss out on for their thoughtless fear of darkness . . . there are ideas that are revealed only among the shadows, and there is a rarely-acknowledged peacefulness about the darkest corners.

Thank you for reaching that point before I had to repeat myself a third time. That was very insightful and you would seem to at least share to some degree my understanding if not an advanced level of it. Nice to know there are others who can see it.

Associations of good and bad and evil have nothing to do with Dark and Light natures. I' am only sighting a segregation of natures that has existed since the most ancient times.

Light followers are gigantic in number, making the darkness look like little more then a fleeting shadow however this imbalance has created a fundamental corruption on the part of light.

As far as the previous post regarding the fuse, I can also relate. Despite the patience I have for people and their subtle nuances it eventually snaps and I regress into a state of madness, describable only as temporary insanity I'll just attack the object of my rage with feverish ferocity, not letting up for any reason. During these moments I' am completely out of my own control but thankfully this has only happened twice in my entire life...

Powerful adrenaline rushes surge over my body and everything starts to look like its slowing down before all logic is completely disconnected and I become no more capable of rational thought then a feral beast. Enough of my problems...

[umop_3pisdn]

Thank you for reaching that point before I had to repeat myself a third time. That was very insightful and you would seem to at least share to some degree my understanding if not an advanced level of it. Nice to know there are others who can see it.

Associations of good and bad and evil have nothing to do with Dark and Light natures. I' am only sighting a segregation of natures that has existed since the most ancient times.

Light followers are gigantic in number, making the darkness look like little more then a fleeting shadow however this imbalance has created a fundamental corruption on the part of light.

As far as the previous post regarding the fuse, I can also relate. Despite the patience I have for people and their subtle nuances it eventually snaps and I regress into a state of madness, describable only as temporary insanity I'll just attack the object of my rage with feverish ferocity, not letting up for any reason. During these moments I' am completely out of my own control but thankfully this has only happened twice in my entire life...

Powerful adrenaline rushes surge over my body and everything starts to look like its slowing down before all logic is completely disconnected and I become no more capable of rational thought then a feral beast. Enough of my problems...

Would this be something like the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy? With Apollo embodying things like light and reason and civilization, and Dionysus things like nature and passion and destruction?

I do find great appeal in the "dark" side of things. For one, it tends to be all mysterious and full of intrigue.

[Blacklustre King]

The concept is similar but not as it is described by the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Darkness is drawn to individualization not grouping and pleasure is probably one of that last things on my mind at least, the Dionysian philosophy borders more on satanic philosophy then natures of darkness or light.

And fascination for the other side can only mean your a light natured person attracted to the darkness. It is not mysterious or intriguing to me, but the light and their "logic" often tests my ability to understand the human mind. How then can they be like ants in a colony following the the orders of one or many feverishly and without question. Living for reasons that should obviously be held in question but are accepted despite how flawed they may be.

The Nature of light is civilization, order, and the group. Darkness is life by principle, though there might be a leader his/her purpose is radically different, much akin to a wise man or an elder rather then a figure of enforced authority.

Light people become so attached to their leaders they are almost programmed to become violent if these beings, whether imaginary or not, are threatened.
Pissing Christians off is so much fun... Be it irrelevant to my own evolution it does display a figurative point about how light and dark can interact.

Attracting and opposing at the same time.

[umop_3pisdn]

The concept is similar but not as it is described by the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Darkness is drawn to individualization not grouping and pleasure is probably one of that last things on my mind at least, the Dionysian philosophy borders more on satanic philosophy then natures of darkness or light.

And fascination for the other side can only mean your a light natured person attracted to the darkness. It is not mysterious or intriguing to me, but the light and their "logic" often tests my ability to understand the human mind. How then can they be like ants in a colony following the the orders of one or many feverishly and without question. Living for reasons that should obviously be held in question but are accepted despite how flawed they may be.

The Nature of light is civilization, order, and the group. Darkness is life by principle, though there might be a leader his/her purpose is radically different, much akin to a wise man or an elder rather then a figure of enforced authority.

Light people become so attached to their leaders they are almost programmed to become violent if these beings, whether imaginary or not, are threatened.
Pissing Christians off is so much fun... Be it irrelevant to my own evolution it does display a figurative point about how light and dark can interact.

Attracting and opposing at the same time.

Hmm, if that's the case, I see most people on this forum identifying with the darkness. Individualism is supposedly quite iconic of the INTJ. I can be prone to individualism to the point of it being a vice.

And I meant darkness in more symbolic terms, as far as mystery or intrigue goes. Darkness tends to refer to the obscure or occult, the veiled, etc, according to my internal symbols. Like, say, the hidden or unapparent. Perhaps even lending itself to the nature of the subconscious mind. That, by nature, tends to hold intrigue to me.

[Jgib5328]

Black, can you give us some links to the light vs. dark stuff. I kind of understand now that you used the Apollonian and Dionyisan dichotomy, since I read 'The Birth of Tragedy', but I'd like some more information on it since it's interesting.

[thod]

you hear 12,000 people just died in an earthquake and instead of thinking, “Oh, that is terrible.” You think, “Hmm, One they probably deserved it,

Nope I think:

"I didnt know those 12,000 people used to exist until this moment, am i supposed to care now that they dont?, I cant do anything about it anyhow, they are dead".

[Antares]

Nope I think:

"I didnt know those 12,000 people used to exist until this moment, am i supposed to care now that they dont?, I cant do anything about it anyhow, they are dead".

Another input. I think: "Does the death of those 12,000 people directly influence me getting a chocolate bar from the fridge? No? Then tell me when I should start caring. For now, good bye."

[DeadSpace]

A dark side, ye, usually kept firmly locked away. Mass deaths from a natural or unnatural catastrophe, not amusing, or something i would think to take advantage of, my darkness isn't that dark. Requires a stimulus, something personal done to me, and done often to bring it out. Other than that...it never sees the light.

[sriv]

Mass deaths...I do not fret over the human losses. I would fret over the economic losses and would make sure that measures were took to avoid a similar disaster. One of the greatest dishonors of the Vietnam Veterans is letting the same scenario happen in Iraq. I am not be crying over them but I honor and respect them by remembering the lesson they died to teach.

[aexis]

Dark Side? I call it my "ENTJ" side.... :crowngrin:

[Blacklustre King]

I believe we may have lost touch with the subject... The 12,000 people were only a metaphor, an example. The topic is to ascertain whether you believe you have a dark or light nature and if so what are your own personal feelings towards the subject. I could not possibly give anyone, one concrete source for my research since it spans such a vastness in no possible way could I have kept track, even with bread crumbs ;). Much of it is developed from my own personal experiences coupled with research into psychology, esoterica, and even the occult-(Being the most ancient beliefs, mythologies, and philosophies I could attain).

We live in a world dominated by light, the nature of which should be obvious. However it is as though preaching normalcy to "normal" people, to understand the differences between the two natures I suppose it is utmost necessary to be a dark natured person looking out at a light dominated world.

I'll attempt to cognify all of this once I' am able to sort it all out, since I've little need for written documentation since my brain is capable of rationalizing and storing the vast amounts of my research, Despite the gigabytes sized file on this and other computers I keep the vast majority of my finding stored away as hardly ration able thoughts. Sorting through them will take time if I' am to create a sensible documentary example without using cryptic messages in some feeble attempt to believe others will understand what I' am attempting to convey.

This could take some time... But for those who already understood, :thumbsup:

[Antares]

We live in a world dominated by light, the nature of which should be obvious. However it is as though preaching normalcy to "normal" people, to understand the differences between the two natures I suppose it is utmost necessary to be a dark natured person looking out at a light dominated world.


Exactly. There is no balance. You don't donate to charity? You are a 'dark' person!

[cda]

AEXIS: My ENTJ side comes out when I get ridiculously bored in a routine situation. Not sure if I'd call it my dark side, but its when I blatantly say controversial things for stimulating results (youtube 'town talk' for an example).

But sure, sometimes a dark moment occurs. I'm into real estate and the foreclosure market has been marvelous. And I think about the heartbroken children who have to switch schools after moving into public housing or what not. But thats not so bad, I've had chips stacked against me before and its when I perform best. Sometimes bad news is the key to social sobriety.

The one thing I can't get over though, and I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this. But when there is no news, you can always count on BBC World to start talking about starving communities in Africa and how they need help. The first thing I'd suggest is to move to a place that has water.

[Antares]

Dark Side? I call it my "ENTJ" side.... :crowngrin:

My 'dark' side is still my INTJ side. I have a darker and a lighter INTJ face.

The Dark INTJ:

-Celebrate deaths (Yes! More idiots vanquished. The forests finally can give a bit less)
-Manipulate people to get her way
-Make people uneasy just because.
-Desire for 'vengeance' and intentionally hurt and harm people (not in a physical way)
-Jealous, resentful and spiteful

The Light INTJ:

-Devise (logical) ways to end suffering
-Envision and contribute to a better world that is environmentally friendly and no one needs to starve.
-Has a high moral standard
-Want others to succeed; sincerely
-Earnest and unantagonistic.

[Jgib5328]

He said the dark vs. light =/= bad vs. good. It's more of an Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy.

[Serket]

I have always felt I have a dark side, which I tend to favor. I agree with Richard Dawkin's view that caring for our fellow man is a result of evolution, and as such not an issue of good or bad. Everything we do, we do for our own advantage. I am sure that under the right circumstances I would kill without a care and maliciously torture others, in fact I know a few people who right now I would consider causing minor harm to. I think as INTJ's we simply accept the more negative aspects of humanity that other types prefer to pretend don't exist.

[AresX9]

My dark side is not labeled such a term. I call it justice.

[umop_3pisdn]

If that's the case, I'd be mostly "light," but that's generally because I find most of the "dark" qualities to be ugly and self indulgent, so I tend to avoid making these qualities obvious to others. When I'm alone I can be as "dark" as I want, but in social situations there's really no reason for me to subject other people to it. It generally goes unappreciated... and even if I despise the person in question, I tend to avoid making enemies... unless the other person decides to escalate the situation and I'm left with no choice. I tend to rationalize it. Like as a means of maintaining moral high-ground, so I can be as vindictive as I want without guilt... since "they started it!", or whatever.

I don't even think it's that indicative of my values, though. It's not like I necessarily believe that society trumps the rights of the individual... but I think it's far more admirable to be able to honestly account for perspectives outside of one's own. I mean, sure, our perspectives create our reality... but at the same time, they can just as easily imprison us. I think following one's darker inclinations is very narrow and self indulgent frame of thought, which doesn't lead to much personal growth. I tend to recognize it merely as an enticing trap, now. I really have no excuse to be taking my own narrow perspective so very seriously.

We tend to form our identities according to how society views us, anyways. If there was no society, we'd probably have no identity. Coming to terms with society and outside perspectives generally refines my individual viewpoints on things, and makes them less dogmatic and more open to the various shades of grey that exist everywhere. The "light" just strikes me as more holistic of an approach, regardless of if one's motivation is a genuine concern for others, or just to further one's self. For instance, I don't really care about humanity as a whole. I'm not polite and kind to others because I care deeply about their emotional state or bettering their lives. I do it more for selfish or image conscious reasons.

Otherwise, one tends to alienate others. That, or they start taking issue with me, which just complicates matters ... though I would be alright with these complications if I actually cared about the topic of dispute... but I never really do, as most disputes I find myself in strike me as petty... so rarely will I find it worthwhile to do so.

I don't know, it generally annoys me when people act in a "dark" way towards me. It's not like society and manners are of utmost importance, but there is really no need to draw other people into my BS. I have a tough time seeing what I would accomplish, other than perhaps inflating my ego. If people extend this courtesy to me, I think it's proper to extend the same courtesy in return. Plus I find taking myself and my perspectives so seriously all the time to be very stifling and self isolating. Which tends to land me in some sort of depression due to anomie or whatever. I think people tend to have a lot more in common with each other than we may initially think. Especially as those prone to individualism or isolationism will tend to think.

[bocephus]

Hmm...dunno about the original post, but I find myself a little discompassionate when disasters hit third world countries and the "civilized" world feels compelled to bail them out. We got thru it, you get thru it. Even take that domestic (U.S.) for Katrina, saw way too many sob stories about people that wouldn't even help themselves, if a tornados hit me in the Midwest I wouldn't go onto TV and cry, would pick up and move along.

[desg90]

I'll attempt to cognify all of this once I' am able to sort it all out, since I've little need for written documentation since my brain is capable of rationalizing and storing the vast amounts of my research, Despite the gigabytes sized file on this and other computers I keep the vast majority of my finding stored away as hardly ration able thoughts. Sorting through them will take time if I' am to create a sensible documentary example without using cryptic messages in some feeble attempt to believe others will understand what I' am attempting to convey.

I liked the contextually correct use the words "cryptic messages", "feeble attempt", and "convey".
You could just give a brief and straightforward definition of what you mean by light, dark, and their corrupt natures.

But then... we will be asking for documented examples... :rolleyes:

This could take some time... But for those who already understood, :thumbsup:

Sigh... no thumbs up for me then. :p
I'll just have to wait some time to understand what seems to be a very interesting topic. ;)

[suzyk]

Yeah. I don't mind it, it's not even going to affect anything anyways.

Like 9/11, people were making such a huge deal about it, and I thought to myself-- well, America probably did deserve it. And there have been a lot of worse things going on in the world for a long time, why the hell are you still bitching and moaning about the World Trade Center?

That's just me.

[Antares]

Like 9/11, people were making such a huge deal about it, and I thought to myself-- well, America probably did deserve it. And there have been a lot of worse things going on in the world for a long time, why the hell are you still bitching and moaning about the World Trade Center?

I don't know if America deserved it, but I always thought they deserved 'something' for the incessant 'nose-poking' in others' business.

[Jakalwarrior]

My darkside is ruled over by my need to be fair. I can not bring myself to infringe upon anyone else in any way unless its unavoidable, they dont mind, or they have already infringed upon me (or somone else).
Killing somone would be the ultimate infringement upon their choice of how to spend the little bit of time alloted to them.

Disasters though? I usually just see it as nature, statistics, and in the case of people starving in other countries, natural population control. Feed people who breed without any reguard for how they will feed and take care of their children, you just end up with more starving people in pain. They are acting like animals. We stress the planet enough. The less of us there are, the better.

[Beery Swine]

Well, once I saw a news story about a girl who fell into some water gardens in Texas who was held down by suction at the bottom and one person dives to save her, the suction takes hold, then a second person, same happens, third person, again, no surfacing. Four people either fell or dove into a body of water and died. Horrible, right? All I could think at the time was the Monty Python sketch about the simming competition between non-swimmers. The ref blows the whistle, they all dive in, and that's the last you see of them. I just started laughing hysterically, and then start thinking about a Monty Python bit that could have been. "Don't worry; I'll save you," "Don't worry; I'll save you both," "Don't worry; I'll save all three of you!"

[mkay]

Have you ever been sitting around talking or just listening and suddenly had devious even terrible thoughts regarding the conversation. For instance you hear 12,000 people just died in an earthquake and instead of thinking, “Oh, that is terrible.” You think, “Hmm, One they probably deserved it, two how can I work to this my advantage?” then you laugh at what should register as a terrible tragedy.

I worked as a newspaper editor for years. We'd often crack about news like that -- "There's got to be a way to work the angles and make some money off this," as a friend and I would joke.

In disasters, initial news often comes over the wire service in only a sentence or two -- like "Major quake in China." If that came over and we weren't rushing on deadline, we'd all whip out a dollar and try to guess closest to the death toll or the magnitude of the quake. Closest to the correct answer would win the pot.

It's not that we didn't care; we just heard a lot of that kind of news day in, day out, and that's one way of coping, joking.

[Thrifty]

I often think in Dark or Light terms. But it doesn't have anything to do with morality. It's more of a Chaos/Law, creation/destruction, Ying/Yang dichotomy. Two opposing forces that are present in the universe and are vital to its existence. If you've played the Megaten (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) games you probably know what I'm talking about.

[enWTFp]

INTJs are good people, BECAUSE they have a Dark Side. They *think* about dark and light, they question themselves, they are aware of the dark things they do, and later analyze these actions judging themselves, even with regrets sometimes.

I am not afraid of people who embrace evil, I am afraid of people who think there is no good and evil.

[Cesare Borgia]

Well, I've always thought of myself capable of doing evil, I'm more neither good nor evil. I think going out of your way to harm someone or being happy with someone's misfortune is a sign of weakness. If 12000 people died in an earthquake, I just wouldn't care. Why would they deserve it? Maybe if they were all runaway Nazis, then they'd deserve it. I laugh at other people's trauma only if it is something that is relatively minor. When my friend got into a minor car accident (rear ending some woman) I laughed. If he got into a serious car crash, it wouldn't be funny.

Your argument about light and dark is way to polarized. This world isn't black or white, it's usually gray. I'm neither light nor dark, I'm capable of both though. I wouldn't mind killing a person in order to further my plan, but I wouldn't kill a person without reason.

I think you may be a little twisted in your reasoning, but oh well. If a secret evil organization wanted me to join them, I would in a heartbeat. I also wouldn't mind creating my own secret organization too.


True, like you i just don't care, i have no emotional response to tragedy outside of my family or the few close people, i don't know them so screw them.

[Confusion]

I have this "Dark Side" as you call it, I refer to it as a sense of humor, but your term works too.

[Jinxu]

The light side/dark side idea is basically about positive/negative mood. Your mood state has an influence in how you act. There was a study on how society express themselves if they were in a positive or negative mood state. They did this by researching history, determine what the mood state of society was at the time, and look for pattern in society behaviors. Here is the list they came up with from that study.

Positive mood – Negative mood

adventurousness – protectionism
alignment – opposition
benevolence – malevolence
clarity – fuzziness
concord – discord
confidence – fear
constructiveness – destructiveness
convergence – polarization
daring – defensiveness
desiring power over nature – over people
ebullience – depression
embrace of effort – avoidance of effort
forbearance – anger
friskiness – somberness
happiness – unhappiness
homogeneity – heterogeneity
inclusion – exclusion
interest in love – interest in sex
liberality – restriction
optimism – pessimism
practical thinking – magical thinking
search for joy – search for pleasure
self providence – self deprivation
sharpness of focus – dullness of focus
supportiveness – opposition
tendency to praise – tendency to criticize
togetherness – separatism

[ProgFusionRoman]

How about this?

Dark - wanting to be "big" in your own "imaginary" world and get revenge because in the "real" world you feel "small". So expanding beyond your "boundaries" at the expense of others and getting away with it could be one (of the many) drivers of some types of thinking that could be described as "dark"?

Light - when you realise nothing really matters. So dropping the walls that make up your "boundaries" to help others at your expense?

Co-operate or take - strategies programmed into us.

While I had a dark side when young and still love dark music I cannot say I am dark anymore relatively speaking.

[Autoptic]

How about this?

Dark - wanting to be "big" in your own "imaginary" world and get revenge because in the "real" world you feel "small".

Light - when you realise nothing really matters.

While I had a dark side when young and still love dark music I cannot say I am dark anymore relatively speaking.

I'd argue that light would appeal to a code that'd probably not allow revenge except, of course, when the code would define it as indignation or possible in the case of others. That would be "justice". This would also be, in your terms, making yourself feel big by latching onto something imaginary.

[Airius]

I'm ambiguous between the two.


Edit: On another note, I don't believe that it's necessarily "dark" to say that 12,000 dead from an earthquake were deserving of such a fate, as much as it is ignorant. Why would you say that 12,000 strangers deserve to die? And is it a logical deduction?

No, it isn't.

[smashy]

For instance you hear 12,000 people just died in an earthquake and instead of thinking, “Oh, that is terrible.” You think, “Hmm, One they probably deserved it

If you believe in karma, you believe those people deserved it.

[Airius]

Karma, for doing what? Existing? The OP didn't say that it was situational.

[smashy]

Karma, for doing what? Existing? The OP didn't say that it was situational.


Again, IF you believe in karma, you believe that in the past those people did things that brings them a bad karma, and so they were there in the earthquake and died. That can explain why some people that were also there didn´t die.

[Airius]

Again, IF you believe in karma, you believe that in the past those people did things that brings them a bad karma, and so they were there in the earthquake and died. That can explain why some people that were also there didn´t die.

Saying that thousands of strangers "probably" deserved to die in an earthquake (or otherwise catastrophic tragedy) is still ignorant to me, no matter what you call it. And secondly, I didn't think this thread was about an individual's belief in karma but I have a supportive example on the subject.


An earlier interview with Sharon Stone.

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

"And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, 'is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?'"


In this case, the death count was roughly at 68,000.
Dior saw the speech as grounds to drop her from their contract.
And she apologized for it later, offering to do some relief work.

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

[smashy]

Saying that thousands of strangers "probably" deserved to die in an earthquake (or otherwise catastrophic tragedy) is still ignorant to me, no matter what you call it. And secondly, I didn't think this thread was about an individual's belief in karma but I have a supportive example on the subject.


An earlier interview with Sharon Stone.

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

"And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, 'is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?'"


In this case, the death count was roughly at 68,000.
Dior saw the speech as grounds to drop her from their contract.
And she apologized for it later, offering to do some relief work.

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

I didn´t say this thread is about an individual's belief in karma, what the OP wrote reminded me of karma, so I wrote it. I´m not even saying I believe that all those people died because of karma, I was just saying that IF you believe in karma, you can say that they deserved to die somehow. This is the vision in Buddhism and I know it can seem chocking to most people, like it was for Dior regarding Sharon Stone.

Why are you so worried? If you feel this thread is not about an individual's belief in karma, so just ignore my post and write what you think instead.

[zibber]

I am not afraid of people who embrace evil, I am afraid of people who think there is no good and evil.

Boo.

[Airius]

I didn´t say this thread is about an individual's belief in karma, what the OP wrote reminded me of karma, so I wrote it. I´m not even saying I believe that all those people died because of karma, I was just saying that IF you believe in karma, you can say that they deserved to die somehow. This is the vision in Buddhism and I know it can seem chocking to most people, like it was for Dior regarding Sharon Stone.

Why are you so worried? If you feel this thread is not about an individual's belief in karma, so just ignore my post and write what you think instead.


I don't believe you would catch a practicing Buddhist would say that a natural disaster killing 68,000 people was caused by karma. Maybe a really insensible one, but it still isn't justified.

[ProgFusionRoman]

I'd argue that light would appeal to a code that'd probably not allow revenge except, of course, when the code would define it as indignation or possible in the case of others. That would be "justice". This would also be, in your terms, make yourself feel big by latching onto something imaginary.

Good point, I agree.

Grey - wanting to be "big" in your own "imaginary" world by helping others potentially at your expense and of others?


ProgFusionRoman added to this post, 1 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Boo.

I raise your boo with all the boos of those who have ever suffered in history because one side thought they were good and the others were evil.


Karma seems like yet another away to explain away something beyond our limits to cope with. I see no reasonable basis for its application to anything so have ignored it as a subject.

[smashy]

I don't believe you would catch a practicing Buddhist would say that a natural disaster killing 68,000 people was caused by karma. Maybe a really insensible one, but it still isn't justified.

Actually, it is Dalai Lama itself the first one saying that. And please don´t judge before you know what really is karma in a Buddhism sense. Thank you.

[Kisai]

I'm married to a Thai Buddhist. I'm sorry to say that yes, there are some silly things that they tell lay practioners. If someone does something bad you, it's possibly because you did something bad to them in the last life. You can pray to Buddhist monks for money and material success, stuff like that.

[Airius]

Actually, it is Dalai Lama itself the first one saying that. And please don´t judge before you know what really is karma in a Buddhism sense. Thank you.


When did the Dalai Lama say that?
Also, you don't have to make this personal.. :p No hard feelings.

[smashy]

When did the Dalai Lama say that?
Also, you don't have to make this personal.. :p No hard feelings.

I won´t make it personal, I didn´t even say here I believe that, I only said that people who believe in karma believe it.

Well, I guess that to understand why Dalai Lama says that, you would have to understand all the concept of karma, that cannot be explained here in a few sentences. But believe me that he doesn´t say that in a mean way!! It can look like it from someone from the outside, but it´s not in a mean way, since karma it´s the law of causality, everything happens for a reason.

I advise you to make some research on this in order for you to understand it better (if you wish, of course).

[Airius]

If you must know, I have done extensive research in the past, but this isn't about discrediting or scapegoating on each others pressumed knowledge.


I'll move on from that and continue again with this theory.

Again, IF you believe in karma, you believe that in the past those people did things that brings them a bad karma, and so they were there in the earthquake and died. That can explain why some people that were also there didn´t die.


Karma is cause and effect, right? It's an idea that facets your life, i.e. your diet, how you approach people, work, etc. They all have rebound effects. Everything we do intrisically influences not only the present, but the future. How things are perceived presently, coupled with our actions to better or worse, or maintain the 'norm' will directly impact those things in the future.

As I understand it, karma governs your station in life when you are reborn. If you have good karma, you're born into a better life the next time. If you have bad karma, you're born into a different situation (at most, that might mean being born in an area with disasters and poverty). While it plays a shaping factor in life, it isn't predetermination - giving you a chance to still make a difference.

But storms and disasters, such as an earthquake are just that, it's nature. At any time you can die. It's not bad karma. It just is.

Natural disasters could be karmic in that, they occur because of the perpetual cycle that is nature. When we grow as a society, we require resources. Our resources are from the earth.
When we disrupt the natural state of things to survive, that is the cause.
The effect is erosion, pollution, global warming, etc.

We cannot control the elements but we need them to survive. In turn, nature tries to establish balance, and what happens? The aforementioned.



To quote the scholar Robert Thurman,

"Abstractly speaking, karma is not really a theory of fate; it's a causal theory. And it says that anything bad that happens to you is a resonance of something bad that you perpetrated in a previous life.

The main thing about karma, what we might want to call collective karma, when there's a disaster where people haven't done anything and a terrible thing happens from nature, is that the bodhisattva, or the outside person looking at the situation, never invokes the karma theory and says, "Well, I don't have to worry about them because that was their bad karma and they got wasted and too bad--as if it were some sort of fate or a way of writing off the disaster. It should never be used that way."


That's how I see it. And getting back to an earlier point that I made, that is why I don't believe a practicing Buddhist would say what you did.

[smashy]

But storms and disasters, such as an earthquake are just that, it's nature. At any time you can die. It's not bad karma. It just is.

I didn´t say a natural disaster is karma, that´s nature, you´re right. I said that the people that were at the natural disaster and died, that´s karma.

Hope you understand the difference now (in the Buddhist perspective). I don´t know what type of research you did in the past, but I´m speaking especifically about what karma is in the Buddhist perspective, not others:

[I]"An example of this came in an interview between with Lati Rinpoche, the eminent Gelug lama, and Richard Hayes. In the interview, Hayes asked how Buddhists could explain the suffering of the Jews in the Second World War. The answer was troubling.

Rinpoche: The proper Buddhist answer to such a question is that the victims were experiencing the consequences of their actions performed in previous lives. The individual victims must have done something very bad in earlier lives that led to their being treated in this way. Also there is such a thing as collective karma.
Hayes: Do you mean that the Jewish people as a whole have a special karma?
Rinpoche: Yes. All groups have karma that is more than just the collection of the karma of the individuals in the group.

[Airius]

Death is fate, right? Not karma.

What's mildly insulting is that I don't think you even bothered to read my post. I feel trolled, but whatever. :uneasy:

[smashy]

Death is fate, right? Not karma.

What's mildly insulting is that I don't think you even bothered to read my post. I feel trolled, but whatever. :uneasy:

Yes, I read your post, but in your post you´re focusing in nature disasters, and that´s not the point (if the natural disasters are karma or not). The point is the people that died, got injured, and suffer at the natural disaster!! And what happened to them at the disaster, that´s karma.

- Death is fate, when and how you´re going to die, that´s karma.
- A natural disaster is nature, the people that died, got injured, etc, at the natural disaster, that´s karma.

Hope you get it now.

[Airius]

No, it wasn't focusing on natural disasters. Somehow you completely missed it. I would go over the points and break things down again but it would be a waste of time.

You keep editing your post, so I'm going to leave it at that before you change your opinion again.

[Alcatar]

Have you ever been sitting around talking or just listening and suddenly had devious even terrible thoughts regarding the conversation. For instance you hear 12,000 people just died in an earthquake and instead of thinking, “Oh, that is terrible.” You think, “Hmm, One they probably deserved it, two how can I work to this my advantage?” then you laugh at what should register as a terrible tragedy.

Aside of discusion, being new to INTJ maybe I can give a more general and shallow view of my such thinking.
I believe that people become who they are (personality, not genes duh) through their early lives, we pick up so much, that all these factors affect us is varying ways, all related to eachother, our very being made of 2 contradicting sentences by our parents 2 years apart. For instance I am half German, living in England, it didn't help me in primary school directly, that was me learning rly, after that I became my own person, I have concrete ideas and speculations on everything, pride also kicked me through as the people I came into contact with generally had a very different idea of Germans than the reality. Especially stressful when i have proof of my German family's moral fibre; actually I think thats why I suddenly became less social at large, and can be apathetic at will.
But now i've found the INTJ group, so I have more identity in humanity, aside of the worries of retards such as which rock we lived on before, or ure favourite colour.

Now, onto the relevant.. I do find I like to observe objectively, give benefit of the doubt etc. but I channel to the "greater good", which is tied to acceptance of collateral damage - byproduct of apathy. But as you say, if something terrible happened, like 12,000 people have died, I straight away, register the bad of it's happening (i don't like to judge the dead unless its controvertial); and then move straight onto all the new calculations which this could set in motion.. such as, businesses destroyed? production lost? (is it an industrial area?), does this now allow the area to be dominated by some I consider undesirable to do so? Do I need to take ACTION? What outcome DO I want, and what outcomes COULD happen?

Kind of like... for common knowledge.. Hitler- Germany is defeated, he considers himself Germanic, Germany has been humilated in a war which was being won militarily still, he binds his historical knowledge to a theory of origin to race, his ideas are supported by some, which gives him enough backing and self-value to disregard all others, even if only those that followed him were to survive in the new Germany, he would re-create a nation he saw the "race" as worthy. and of course, Communists in the reichstag.. it's only logical to be rid of all opposition in any way neccisary with so mcuh at stake.

Please don't turn this into an historic debate lol, WW2 just happens to have every moral story, logical calculation and human error in existance all wrapped up.

So yea, i'm a "light" guy, who will take and use that little yang in me, to save the greater ying (or those I know by fact of benefit of the doubt, to be in accordance to my aims). No "They deserved it here". xP

[smashy]

No, it wasn't focusing on natural disasters. Somehow you completely missed it. I would go over the points and break things down again but it would be a waste of time.

You keep editing your post, so I'm going to leave it at that before you change your opinion again.

I was changing my post because I wanted to clearly explain my point of view in order for you (and others here) to fully understand it, not because of changing my mind because if you notice, I´ve had the same opinion since we started speaking about this subject and I don´t understand why you´re saying that.

You clearly focused in the natural disasters, now you say you didn´t. Whatever, waste of time for me, I´ll not post again regarding this issue.

[Airius]

I was changing my post because I wanted to clearly explain my point of view in order for you (and others here) to fully understand it, not because of changing my mind because if you notice, I´ve had the same opinion since we started speaking about this subject and I don´t understand why you´re saying that.




I'm sorry, I'm done for this thread. If you have anything more to say to me, you can send a message.

I'm not going to debate with someone who continues to change their posts and arguments after I respond.

[smashy]

I'm sorry, I'm done for this thread. If you have anything more to say to me, you can send a message.

I'm not going to debate with someone who continues to change their posts and arguments after I respond.

I changed the post only grammatically speaking, because English is not my first language and after I write a post, I read it and if I see some typos or sentences that are not correct, I change the post to a more correct English. But I never changed my point or my opinion, that´s been the same since the beginning of this thread. Clearly you didn´t understand this or you´re just pretending you didn´t. End of story for me.

[Mike D]

The lack of empathy in this thread disappoints me. Wouldn't anyone here empathise with the great pain and suffering caused by such a tragedy (12 000 killed by an earthquake)?

[gedreosan]

The lack of empathy in this thread disappoints me. Wouldn't anyone here empathise with the great pain and suffering caused by such a tragedy (12 000 killed by an earthquake)?

Not I. I've got an overdeveloped emotional disconnect from things like this, especially if it is caused by a natural event (i.e. flooding, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.).

[Liquid]

I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread, but I have to agree with Airius when she questions how a natural disaster could be the result of bad karma on a society. An earthquake would not be the result karma, it would be considered fate.

Either way, karma and fate don't exist, there's only cause and reaction. So why don't we take a nice stroll down the valley side and celebrate with cake.

[Jinxu]

Either way, karma and fate don't exist, there's only cause and reaction.

I don't know about that. I've been questioning about the existence of fate a lot lately.

[Kisai]

The lack of empathy in this thread disappoints me. Wouldn't anyone here empathise with the great pain and suffering caused by such a tragedy (12 000 killed by an earthquake)?

Why? What purpose would it serve? Would I get to feel that I'm a great person because I'm able to get all mopey because others had bad fortune?

[Mike D]

Why? What purpose would it serve? Would I get to feel that I'm a great person because I'm able to get all mopey because others had bad fortune?

I didn't suggest you would feel like 'a great person' or that you would 'get all mopey'. I don't feel like a great person or mopey when I hear about huge death tolls from natural disasters, or other tragedies. In fact, like most INTJs here, I'm not often emotional. But I do feel a sense of empathy because I can imagine (well, at least I think I can) what it would feel like to be involved, in some way or another, in such a tragedy. I wouldn't want to be 'in their shoes', and I can recognise this. No-one else seems to have articulated in any way, so far as I can see, a similar sort of position.





Mike D added to this post, 10 minutes and 54 seconds later...

If I heard that 12,000 people just died, I wouldn't care about most of the people. But then I would think - "Hey, some of those people were probably Muslims, this is a good thing after all."

Yes, I agree Mr Racism, all Muslims should die.

[thod]

The lack of empathy in this thread disappoints me. Wouldn't anyone here empathise with the great pain and suffering caused by such a tragedy (12 000 killed by an earthquake)?

Nope. I heard 50,000 died in that Chinese earthquake, I figured thats 0.001% of its populace, barely a drop in the ocean, theres 99.999% left. Its no big deal even if it provides tragedy for those involved. Same with 9/11. I figure a few thousand dead Americans and a couple of office buildings. Big deal, we have lots of office buildings, its business as usual. If I am to make correct decisions I must put aside personal feelings and look at the big picture. Its a case of deciding what matters and what doesn't. Far more significant events may raise no emotion at all, it about having the head rule the heart.

[Harmony]

I do empathize with certain things... But I also don't know just how much the media blows things out of proportion...

I do have a dark side... I have the ability to keep it suppressed for the most part. It tends to sneak out when someone double-crosses me... And then I retaliate and it's never pretty. I have a sick and twisted mind when it comes to revenge. =\

[Mike D]

Nope. I heard 50,000 died in that Chinese earthquake, I figured thats 0.001% of its populace, barely a drop in the ocean, theres 99.999% left. Its no big deal even if it provides tragedy for those involved. Same with 9/11. I figure a few thousand dead Americans and a couple of office buildings. Big deal, we have lots of office buildings, its business as usual. If I am to make correct decisions I must put aside personal feelings and look at the big picture. Its a case of deciding what matters and what doesn't. Far more significant events may raise no emotion at all, it about having the head rule the heart.

If I'm quite frank here, I see this as a really ignorant position. Would you still think 50 000 people dying was 'barely a drop in the ocean' if it happened around you (by the way, it's almost 70 000)? I don't think that's the head ruling anything.

[Liquid]

Conveying a sense of empathy would be worthless in terms of concise thought process and communicating those thoughts. That, and it goes against all that is INTJ. Death has existed for as long as life has, it's in our nature. Getting bogged down in emotions won't solve anything, or boost morale.

[dalidaisy]

Hehe, I'll say it again here... I thought it was just me...

Although I try to be empathetic to most people's situations, I often fnd that I simply don't care unless it affects me directly.

As for thinking dark thoughts about things that should pull at my heartstrings, well, as much as I hate to admit it, I do it just about every time.

[Kisai]

I didn't suggest you would feel like 'a great person' or that you would 'get all mopey'. I don't feel like a great person or mopey when I hear about huge death tolls from natural disasters, or other tragedies. In fact, like most INTJs here, I'm not often emotional. But I do feel a sense of empathy because I can imagine (well, at least I think I can) what it would feel like to be involved, in some way or another, in such a tragedy. I wouldn't want to be 'in their shoes', and I can recognise this. No-one else seems to have articulated in any way, so far as I can see, a similar sort of position.



You still haven't answered my question: What purpose does it serve? What good does it do anyone for me to commiserate the suffering of other people?

[Olympics2010]

Whenever I heard the expression "dark side", or the expression "light side", I associated them with "introversion" and "extroversion". People who dominate the dark side are those who are drawn to their inner worlds. People who dominate the light side are those who are drawn to the exterior world around them. When people say "you've crossed over to the dark side" this, to me, refers to having crossed over completely to your inner world, without regards to the exterior world. I do this sometimes. Further, I consider these two modes different from good/evil. They are just two different ways of seeing the world. Maybe this speaks for itself in how much I myself tend to favor the dark side. Even though to the light side it may seem that what the dark side does is evil, being on the dark side, I don't see what I do as evil. Just another way of seeing things. So, being on the dark side is not being evil. And if the light side is just the opposide of the dark side, and the dark side is not evil, then the light side will also not have anything to do with neither good, nor evil...

[JoshuaFairtex]

Interesting thread, my brother considers me ruthless because I find a lot of things entertaining when they aren't supposed to be. I laugh when I see a pickup spun into the ditch on the highway, or when my mom tells me about how two people were shot in our city I usually snicker or shrug it off. I am suppose to feel bad for them yet I do not know them and they contribute nothing to my life in anyway? to me they are nothing but another human being which is a potential headache or conflict for me if we ever met, so does it bother me they are gone? not at all, is it kind of funny? sometimes yes. I heard about a guy tieing a rope around his neck and around a tree and then getting in his brand new sports car and driving into traffic decapitating himself... if that's not hilarious I don't know what is.

*reads post over... alright that may have come off as a bit cold*

On a side note, if a family member or someone who contributes to an important role in my life dies then yes I would feel sad.

[Airius]

The lack of empathy in this thread disappoints me. Wouldn't anyone here empathise with the great pain and suffering caused by such a tragedy (12 000 killed by an earthquake)?

I'm sure this sounds familiar.

"The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

[IpsoFacto]

Conveying a sense of empathy would be worthless in terms of concise thought process and communicating those thoughts. That, and it goes against all that is INTJ. Death has existed for as long as life has, it's in our nature. Getting bogged down in emotions won't solve anything, or boost morale.


This is my thought exactly. If I heard that 12,000 died in an earthquake, I would just think, "A dent was made in the world population today. Now other people will have more of a chance to survive."

[Muumeh]

I recall reading an article about people having certain social sphere, where people inside it are whom we can empathize with. So it might not be just an INTJ trait, all people have hard time trying to be emphatic towards something that doesn't happen inside that 'sphere', though F type people might think more like 'oh that must feel horrible for those people there'.

[Franklin71]

The INTJ's "dark side" is simply the rational belief that if you care about all people equally you're shortchanging the ones who are actually close to you.

[Luthor Rex]

Yes, I agree Mr Racism, all Muslims should die.

Muslim isn't a race.

If I'm quite frank here, I see this as a really ignorant position. Would you still think 50 000 people dying was 'barely a drop in the ocean' if it happened around you (by the way, it's almost 70 000)? I don't think that's the head ruling anything.

I've been at the deathbeds of some of the people who raised me since a child and it didn't bother me to watch them go. I accepted death and suffering as a part of life a long time ago and feeling pain for other people is only an unnecessary burden on my soul. Perhaps you think that someone needs to feel empathy to be moral, but you would be wrong. Perhaps you also think, like a lot of people seem to, that you need hope to carry on but you would be wrong about that as well.

Whatever the issue is for you it's deeper than INTJ's not feeling bad about death. Us not feeling bad represents something else for you.

Whenever I heard the expression "dark side", or the expression "light side", I associated them with "introversion" and "extroversion"... and the dark side is not evil, then the light side will also not have anything to do with neither good, nor evil...

You need more Star Wars and less MBTI. :p

[Mike D]

Conveying a sense of empathy would be worthless in terms of concise thought process and communicating those thoughts. That, and it goes against all that is INTJ. Death has existed for as long as life has, it's in our nature. Getting bogged down in emotions won't solve anything, or boost morale.

When did I say someone needed to get 'bogged down' in emotions to feel empathy? Why is it 'worthless in terms of concise thought process and communicating those thoughts'? Who said it couldn't be concise? So what if it goes against 'all that is INTJ'? Why is understanding another person's situation such a bad thing? Perhaps if I understood another person's situation I could better understand how to help them or to save people from unnecessary harm, suffering etc.





Mike D added to this post, 11 minutes and 20 seconds later...

You still haven't answered my question: What purpose does it serve? What good does it do anyone for me to commiserate the suffering of other people?

I DIDN'T say commiserate. I think empathy can help us better understand another person's situation. You can't deny that people (including INTJs) have emotions/feelings that affect them. So why wouldn't it be a good thing to understand their emotions?





Mike D added to this post, 12 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Muslim isn't a race.



I've been at the deathbeds of some of the people who raised me since a child and it didn't bother me to watch them go. I accepted death and suffering as a part of life a long time ago and feeling pain for other people is only an unnecessary burden on my soul. Perhaps you think that someone needs to feel empathy to be moral, but you would be wrong. Perhaps you also think, like a lot of people seem to, that you need hope to carry on but you would be wrong about that as well.

Whatever the issue is for you it's deeper than INTJ's not feeling bad about death. Us not feeling bad represents something else for you.



You need more Star Wars and less MBTI. :p

You're quite right, Muslim isn't a race. I was wrong. Mr Prejudice then? Or maybe Mr Religious Intolerance?

I don't think someone needs to feel empathy to be moral. I don't think someone needs to be moral. I don't think someone needs hope to 'carry on'.

I do think that a little understanding of another's predicament (perhaps including their emotional state) is useful however.

[Cesare Borgia]

I find myself watching the news when tragic things happen and actually getting into it, not because i care about the people but because it is interesting to see what will happen next, i actually get "excited" while watching like it was a good movie or something.

During hurricane Katrina, i was laughing at the idiots stuck on the roofs thinking they were fools for not leaving and then expecting others to risk their lives to save them.

[Tishy]

A year or two back we had a race-riot here... and I got all excited that there was a catalyst for change. Felt something similar with 9/11. In one case, it stopped 'too soon', in the other, it caused the world to change for the worst with a bunch of reactive protectionist 'laws'.

Death is horrible, and sometimes its unwarranted and not connected with 'justice'. The universe is a messed up place and we all do what we can to keep the ones we care about alive.

In the big picture - things like riots and attacks CAN change a society for the better - and I always hope that it will.

[Nomadofthehills]

If I'm quite frank here, I see this as a really ignorant position. Would you still think 50 000 people dying was 'barely a drop in the ocean' if it happened around you (by the way, it's almost 70 000)? I don't think that's the head ruling anything.

But it didn't happen around him...

I would happen to agree with him. In a similar example, my grandmother recently died. I wasn't sad. She was old, old people die. I don't understand why I should be upset. I was sitting at the wake reading Stephen King's It. Most of my family are ExFx, they are not afraid to get very emotional, and show it, so some where upset at me that I wasn't showing any sorrow. Oh well...

[Mike D]

But it didn't happen around him...

I would happen to agree with him. In a similar example, my grandmother recently died. I wasn't sad. She was old, old people die. I don't understand why I should be upset. I was sitting at the wake reading Stephen King's It. Most of my family are ExFx, they are not afraid to get very emotional, and show it, so some where upset at me that I wasn't showing any sorrow. Oh well...

So what if it didn't happen around him? I'm saying, if it did, he probably would think about the situation differently. If you're inferring I said he should feel upset about 12 000 dying from an earthquake, then you have the wrong idea. I simply think that understanding the situation (including the affects it may have on people), as opposed to just seeing it as a statistic, is useful.

[Nomadofthehills]

With that, I agree :)