Apathy as a defense?

[desg90]

As the tittle conveys, let's talk about using apathy to defend your mental self.
But, I'd like to talk about it as a preference and not as a trait.


Personally, I prefer acting with diplomatic apathy when asked about anything.
I stay on safe ground, and remain open to all other possibilities (no matter how improbable they might be).

P.E.
Someone: "What do you think about religious people vs atheists?"
Me: "Oh, I don't know. Everybody should be able to believe whatever they please, and be left alone about it. It's part of their/our human rights. But, ultimately, that's their problem, not mine. I prefer to leave people's beliefs uncontested."


But, when deprived of a good night's (or week's) sleep, I act completely apathetic, not even minding if "Dunno" sounds too dumb for an INTJ. It's more of an "aggressive" defense system used to block any information that could overwhelm my feeble nervous system.


I prefer to avoid conflict with people with strong opinions and beliefs.
I mean, I do mentally shred their arguments into pieces, but provide a vague and impartial answer that will, most of the time, save my otherwise wasted breath and time trying to tell them why they're wrong or have stupid arguments.

However, when pushed/asked, I can provide a lengthy rant about a subject in which I actually hold an opinion.


Am I the only one restraining my opinions in a selfish way (protecting my integrity rather that caring for others')? Would you call it prudence or cowardice? :p

[fINTiP]

Interesting.

I know what you're talking about, and that subtlety of 'preference, not as trait' is something I haven't thought about much; only the rare times it comes up.

Same way, mostly. When I was a kid, I was viciously argumentative ("he'll be a lawyer", the simpleminded parents of mine said.). It didn't take me long in life to realize that arguing is not the way to convince people of things, and that it gets rather tedious.

I rarely give defining statements on controversial issues. I also use apathy as you describe. It's not so much a defensive system for me (at least I don't perceive it as such), but more of an intelligent 'keep-the-peace' initiative. I kind of like being in good standing, and I have little to gain by showing them they're stupid, ignorant, etc.

On the other hand, apathy is reserved for that described above- I do enjoy good intellectual stimulation between two intelligent beings (especially if I am one of them), so if it can be done in good nature, sure, I'll be glad to show just how polarizing a choice I subscribe to (assuming I do, of course, not to say that is a matter of course).

Conclusion: my ego's fine without belittling there's. So, unless they seem open minded enough to go into it, why bother? I've nothing to gain & plenty to lose.

[pinkroger]

I tend to be rather argumentative, and I think that if people can't understand, then there wasn't much to belittle anyway, so why care about them as human beings? It's more of a preference with me, but a very strong preference.

[desg90]

Same way, mostly. When I was a kid, I was viciously argumentative ("he'll be a lawyer", the simpleminded parents of mine said.). It didn't take me long in life to realize that arguing is not the way to convince people of things, and that it gets rather tedious.

I rarely give defining statements on controversial issues. I also use apathy as you describe. It's not so much a defensive system for me (at least I don't perceive it as such), but more of an intelligent 'keep-the-peace' initiative. I kind of like being in good standing, and I have little to gain by showing them they're stupid, ignorant, etc.

Quite! That's why I chose to evade all arguments.
It's a defense mechanism (in my case) because I'm defending myself from the tedious and unprofitable time that will lead into a temporary grudge or depression. By temporary, I mean it will last 20 minutes at most, even if I keep feeling a bit sick (frustraton after-effects? emotional over-exertion...? bile...?)

Conclusion: my ego's fine without belittling there's. So, unless they seem open minded enough to go into it, why bother? I've nothing to gain & plenty to lose.

It's the "plenty to lose" part that worries me most.
Once, I had almost an entire classroom bullying me on a regular basis.
It was a year I'd raher forget... :blank:

But, I learned from my mistakes and came up with a "passable" defense mechanism.
Which I don't need to use here, as INTJs aren't afraid lengthy rational arguments. :laugh:

[suzyk]

I'm the same. I try to be as neutral as possible about topics like God, because you can't prove God doesn't exist. Same with cryptids, etc. But if it's something I strongly feel about, like climate change or child labour, I'll provide more details about why it's wrong or something. I'm not that strongly opinionated, every issue has two sides.

[malefide]

My opinion is only as strong as the reasoning of the argument behind it. Sometimes I'm in the mood for arguing, but often I just don't care about trying to convince other people that I'm right, especially when they are not willing to carry on the debate in a civilized and intelligent way. It does not really have a practical purpose, and since I derive no joy from arguing with irrational people, it's a waste of my time.

[Tenacious B]

I mean, I do mentally shred their arguments into pieces, but provide a vague and impartial answer that will, most of the time, save my otherwise wasted breath and time trying to tell them why they're wrong or have stupid arguments.
That's exactly it for me. I don't want to piss everyone off by ripping them a new one (even if it is well deserved) nor do I want to expend energy on them. I generally save my real opinions for like minds and/or people I'm pretty close to (those who won't hate me for shooting them to pieces).

[eclecticjoker]

I used to argue relentlessly as an adolescent, and I think I've just grown out of it.

Frankly, I don't really know what I think about a lot of things. I have some general ideas, but when I look at my track record of what I "believed" a year ago and a year before that and so on, my "beliefs" so far have ranged from cute supposition to downright offensive. So I rather prefer to just hear the opinions of others and slowly ferment my own, rather than subjecting them to my explorative thought process.

[Antares]

Well, I'm very outspoken and opinionated. My school has a lot of believers, and one commented about Medieval Europe (the lack of morality) and attributed it to the absence of religion. That was hit one to my personal integrity, at least. Then my history teacher was talking about 'active' missionaries. I raised my hand and asked testily: "Do you mean militant?" My teacher said: "Yes I did, but it's somehow... not right to say it." Then we were talking about Hinduism and the caste system; where you were reincarnated hundreds of times, from lowly mold to human (that's something he made up, but it basically works like that). I remarked: "This really reflects upon our sense of superiority; and arrogance as a species." And it was in a room full of those who adhere to religion who praise human superiority. I always analyze an issue until I take a side on it and I'm very argumentative. For example, I don't think religion should be exempted from examination and scrutiny; like everything else.

I'm apathetic as to most matters, and when people ask me whether it'd be better if they did A or B, I'd tell them: "It doesn't matter to me what you do." And when I was debating love with my ISFJ mother, she said: "Well, I believe that love is sacred." Then I reminded her of how destructive love and be, and asked her to specify what she meant by 'sacred'. Then I explained the process of chemical reaction of 'love'. "You can't do it this way! I believe that..." Then I told her outright I don't care she believes; and can't imagine why she wouldn't want to know more about it to preserve her illusion.

[eclecticjoker]

There's more to being right than arguing all the time. Socrates said "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".

Even though it is good to try to support your belief and know thoroughly what you believe, if you ardently and coarsely argue every single opinion you have at every stage in your life, you'll alienate a lot of intelligent people that believe differently.

Maybe I'm just in shock that you told your mother you didn't care what she believes. Haha. My mother is an INFJ, and she'd tear me a new one. INFJs have that brutal sarcasm. And rage. Lots of rage.

[Antares]

Maybe I'm just in shock that you told your mother you didn't care what she believes. Haha. My mother is an INFJ, and she'd tear me a new one. INFJs have that brutal sarcasm. And rage. Lots of rage.

Rage. Very accurate. But it's the truth. I don't care what she believes. I care about science and logic in the argument; apparently she doesn't (I don't care about logic! she says). Never underestimate my honesty :devilish: I can be very much so when I choose to.

[raconteur213]

As the tittle conveys, let's talk about using apathy to defend your mental self.
But, I'd like to talk about it as a preference and not as a trait.


Personally, I prefer acting with diplomatic apathy when asked about anything.
I stay on safe ground, and remain open to all other possibilities (no matter how improbable they might be).

P.E.
Someone: "What do you think about religious people vs atheists?"
Me: "Oh, I don't know. Everybody should be able to believe whatever they please, and be left alone about it. It's part of their/our human rights. But, ultimately, that's their problem, not mine. I prefer to leave people's beliefs uncontested."


But, when deprived of a good night's (or week's) sleep, I act completely apathetic, not even minding if "Dunno" sounds too dumb for an INTJ. It's more of an "aggressive" defense system used to block any information that could overwhelm my feeble nervous system.


I prefer to avoid conflict with people with strong opinions and beliefs.
I mean, I do mentally shred their arguments into pieces, but provide a vague and impartial answer that will, most of the time, save my otherwise wasted breath and time trying to tell them why they're wrong or have stupid arguments.

However, when pushed/asked, I can provide a lengthy rant about a subject in which I actually hold an opinion.


Am I the only one restraining my opinions in a selfish way (protecting my integrity rather that caring for others')? Would you call it prudence or cowardice? :p

NO.

"You can take a horse to water, but you can't make'm drink" - It's the same with 'true believers' and the dolts of society.

Best to reserve your talents for someone who will appreciate them.

[fINTiP]

I also find love sacred, and don't find that it is detrimental to that definition to speak of love's infliction of pain on others. In fact, I find it fitting that only something as sacred as love has been able to cause so much pain.

I also find, easily, that humans are a superior species to all others. I can respect other species, but I'd have to go out of my way to argue that they are my equal. Of course, that is because I believe in life having a purpose, but that's a ways out into the argument...

And religion should always be subject to scrutiny. Anyone who has a religion that doesn't allow that isn't worth your time. That is a controversial opinion I am not afraid to tell to anyone who says otherwise, though I would prefer to say it in a productive manner than a destructive manner.

(Not to get us too distracted on tangents...)

[TheLastMohican]

Rage. Very accurate. But it's the truth. I don't care what she believes. I care about science and logic in the argument; apparently she doesn't (I don't care about logic! she says). Never underestimate my honesty :devilish: I can be very much so when I choose to.

That is a very scary thing to hear from a person with an intact frontal lobe.

[fINTiP]

Actually, I know I'm in the minority here, but I wonder if there is intuitive justification to getting frustrated with logic being applied to things that they shouldn't be applied to.

What I mean to say, is, some things seem beyond logic; when we apply logic to love, we say we find love lacking.

Rather, I wonder if is our logic that is lacking... And we see the NF know that something isn't right with the NT analysis, and getting frustrated, and expressing it plainly and ineloquently.

The NT holding logic as the highest standard to which all holds, meanwhile, (ironically), takes an almost emotional front at an attack on so lofty a thing as logic...

Hmmm, and it sounds like we've come full circle. The logician attacks love, the feeler attacks logic. Both feel offended that their highest value is insulted, and both really end up missing the mark in the argument.

Just another way to look at this...

[desg90]

The NT holding logic as the highest standard to which all holds, meanwhile, (ironically), takes an almost emotional front at an attack on so lofty a thing as logic...

Hmmm, and it sounds like we've come full circle. The logician attacks love, the feeler attacks logic. Both feel offended that their highest value is insulted, and both really end up missing the mark in the argument.

Just another way to look at this...

And here's another:
Love is a... "f**ling" that is interpreted so by the brain when certain chemical reactions occur and various hormones travel trough the blood irrigation system.

Apparently, it's one of the functions of the "mammal brain". Said function becomes more complex as the cortex reprograms certain aspects of it.
Now, that you think about it... that might be considered as the origin of many social rules that govern us since ancient times. :suspicious:

Love is a part of a necessary function that has maintained all animal races alive to this day.
Without this... "f**ling" our society would be quite different from the one we know.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Then again, the most intelligent species are the ones with complex social systems. Love seems to be one of those factors that make our society a complex one.

So, it's a necessary evil. :blank:
Good thing we have a cortex!
We can still reprogram such a consuming function.


OK, it is a logical function but, it's not a fact that should be accepted as universal and never changing.
If we start to think about evolutionary deviation, time-travel and a bit of eugenics.... :thinking:


ANYWAY...
Maybe each type defends what gives them personal support or a reason to exist?
If you attack this moral base, be prepared to receive a disproportionate counter-attack.

Basically, if you don't hear what I have to say... you're indirectly telling me that my reasoning is something you disdain. That's why we INTJs take it as a form of highest insult. Reason is our personal support in life. The lens through which we observe our surroundings. The tool of our thoughts.

Now, if we come back to apathy as a defensive system... :cool:

[Homini Lupus]

I think argumenting with somebody is a sign of respect. If I argue with somebody I do it because he's accepting to do it in rational terms so maybe he's come to interesting conclusions wich are better then mine. I would probably never admit and use "dirty" logical tricks to overcome him anyway, but sooner or later I would integrate his view.

With unreasonable people my standard attitude is "yeah, whatever". They think I let them won and I keep my toughts without wasting my breath and time.

Sometimes I argue with large crowds. It's quite stupid but I enjoy when I can demostrate that intelligence is quality over quantity. But since people is not going to hear me anyway i'm probably going to become aggressive doing that. But I'm make them a favour if I manage to shake their views and make their brains work. Also, this increases my sel-esteem.