[Tactical Panda]

Something along those lines have cropped up on the internet here and there in peoples' comments or descriptions.

Do INTJs view people in terms of part of a means? If so, how does that manifest - can you lend any insider knowledge? Hopefully beyond post-rationalized superstition of a group of 'the other'.

And if you are an INTJ, and if this is so, do you view yourself or your life as part of a means to something? And if so, if you don't mind telling us, what is it?

- - -

For example, I suppose you could say I view keeping friends as there in order to develop relationships, deepen human connections, mutually mitigate loneliness, there for sharing the good and bad for the sake of health or a contingency route for risks, deepen my understanding on that aspect of the human condition, experiencing natural joy and care, etc.

There are goals and ends, and they are part of the means I suppose... But I value them, and view everything as part of something that has the potential to be used as a means to a goal - it doesn't even need to be morally dubious - the ends and the means can justify themselves without needing to justify each other if you play it right. For instance, a dog is a potential means for a trained companion for some tasks, or a guard dog, or part of a natural food cycle system, or something you introduce to another ecosystem to mess it up, or... the list naturally goes on.

In comparison to others, as to have some sort of down to earth comparison or context - Do parents then use children for satisfaction, do people use others for status or entertainment from boredom or for company, and do teachers use students as a means of employment? What is the scope of the concept of use in this broad area of life?

[Shadizar]

We're all just cogs.

[goth]

	INTJs view people in terms of part of a means

so does everyone else.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We're all just cogs.

I disagree.

Our abilities do not completely define us nor do they provide root meaning to our existence.

As to our ability and capacity to interact with reality - in practice it tends to go beyond mere logic and neat, or more specifically simplistic, human construction.

For instance, just because your mother can and has cooked you food, she is not bound by that role, utterly defined by that role or limited by that role. If she is intelligent she can still whoop you in chess, if she is career gifted she can still be your boss within a company and if she has courage she can still be a better defender of what is worthwhile than you.

But on the other hand, her cooking is a temporary means for survival for some. Perhaps an act that is appreciated, but in part and purpose very much a means.

[Shadizar]

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

I disagree. Our abilities do not completely define us nor do they provide root meaning to our existence. As to our ability and capacity to interact with reality - in practice it tends to go beyond mere logic and neat, or more specifically simplistic, human construction. For instance, just because your mother can and has cooked you food, she is not bound by that role, utterly defined by that role or limited by that role. If she is intelligent she can still whoop you in chess, if she is career gifted she can still be your boss within a company and if she has courage she can still be a better defender of what is worthwhile than you. But on the other hand, her cooking is a temporary means for survival for some. Perhaps an act that is appreciated, but in part and purpose very much a means.

Just because this cog can fit into many different holes, doesn't change the fact that we are all cogs. The massive machine of progress grinds to a halt without those cogs; just look at any third world country where most or all the cogs are still on the table.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just because this cog can fit into many different holes, doesn't change the fact that we are all cogs. The massive machine of progress grinds to a halt without those cogs; just look at any third world country where most or all the cogs are still on the table.

I don't think you described a machine of progress, but a machine that tends to be built on corruption.

The sooner those people aren't viewed as cogs for anothers use or politics use, but as people, probably the better.

Without that, how aren't they merely there to be killed in order to instill fear; are merely there to have the sympathy donations raided on route from developed countries; as meat shields against foreign forces trying to unlodge the people in power, and numbers to tax and use?

[hi5yourface]

	Originally Posted by goth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	so does everyone else.

Nah, not really though.......

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by hi5yourface To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nah, not really though.......

Of course they do. People aren't stupid. How people perceive other people is colored by what they can do for them. This isn't an 'INTJ' thing.

[teraczy]

I suppose I have superficial relationships with people and could possibly be categorized as seeing them this way.

But no, as a whole, people to me are as valuable as myself, although it does depend on the depth of our relationship. So anyone that can break the barrier, comradery and kinship isn't a means - it's true human connection.


Really though, I think INTPs are the type that would most likely than any other type to see relationships or view people as a "means."

[Joonas]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course they do. People aren't stupid. How people perceive other people is colored by what they can do for them. This isn't an 'INTJ' thing.

Which of these did you mean?

1. Every single person in the world views people in terms of part of a means.
2. Every MBTI type is capable of viewing people in terms of part of a means.

Edit: I just noticed that you aren't goth o.o (my question applies to both of you though, so doesn't really matter)

[deckard]

I've personally made a conscious effort to avoid any such dealings and it has sometimes been to my own detriment, because I can often wrongly assume that people hold the same modus operandi. It's the difference between standing in front of a person or beside them.

I didn't realize this was an INTJ trait, to use others or see them as simply a means to an end. Sounds a little suspect. Though I can understand the appearance of this 'mutual leeching' being seen as the drive behind any and all social constructs, I'd hope people are rather indifferent to their company's uses or see those as secondary to having company itself.

Even in business relationships (though I opt out of the employee/employer model) it would be better to value the person's friendship over potential gain from the relationship. When viewed in this light, it makes it easier to predict their most basic expectations as human beings rather than just another link in the chain. That approach, in turn is stronger by happenstance rather than calculation. Also easier.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Joonas To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which of these did you mean? 1. Every single person in the world views people in terms of part of a means. 2. Every MBTI type is capable of viewing people in terms of part of a means. Edit: I just noticed that you aren't goth o.o (my question applies to both of you though, so doesn't really matter)

People, in general and regardless of MBTI type, tends to view other people in terms of a means. Integral to our relationships is the conception that one will do things for another person from total self-sacrifice in say a mother-child bond to helping a friend move across town.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just because this cog can fit into many different holes, doesn't change the fact that we are all cogs. The massive machine of progress grinds to a halt without those cogs; just look at any third world country where most or all the cogs are still on the table.

Sounds very practical, and very machine-like. Not a feeling in sight.

I submit this attitude is very much more T-like than F-like, and is probably much more prevalent in Ts than in Fs.

[Shadizar]

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

I don't think you described a machine of progress, but a machine that tends to be built on corruption. The sooner those people aren't viewed as cogs for anothers use or politics use, but as people, probably the better. Without that, how aren't they merely there to be killed in order to instill fear; are merely there to have the sympathy donations raided on route from developed countries; as meat shields against foreign forces trying to unlodge the people in power, and numbers to tax and use?

You can't have corruption without progress. You can't have progress without a system. You can't have a system without cogs. The cogs are free to consider themselves individuals with no real impact; and true enough, you can remove many and the machine keeps plodding along. But as Europe proved, if you remove too many (several plagues and wars) the machine of progress grinds to a halt, no matter the intentions of the individual cog (many probably thought they could rebuild Rome... but the necessary cogs were no longer there).

Western society outsources much of it's minor cog duties. If the information network were to crash (EMP or the like) we are for the most part, fucked; we don't have the necessary cogs anymore. As I said in another topic (yours in fact) in an INTJ society, I would be a sewer technician, because shit shovelers keep plague at bay.

Be all melodramatic and self important that you want; the fact is, we're all just cogs.

[Zsych]

I think that idea might mean more that we are likely to judge whether we want to keep people in our lives, more by practical standards.

Like a friend who is a good person, but is otherwise not of direct value to any of your objectives. How strongly do you maintain the relationship?

But a better example might be: You're with someone you enjoy being with, but hanging out with them is getting in the way of you being productive in areas that you believe are important in your own world view.
Do you choose the feelings over your objectives? It may pain you, but for an INTJ, I'm inclined to say that the answer is "probably not".

I'm of the opinion that people's emotional preferences represent different survival strategies. Its just that most people are not aware of what circumstances their strategies are better for, and what results their preferred strategies are intended to achieve.... So the main difference here might be one of being guided by decision making processes that you are consciously aware of, or not.

People who are ruled by emotions, may be less trusting of people who do the right thing for reasons that aren't based in emotions - because they can't fully relate, or trust the intelligent person to always come to the kind of conclusion that they would prefer.

[Tactical Panda]

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

You can't have corruption without progress. You can't have progress without a system. You can't have a system without cogs. The cogs are free to consider themselves individuals with no real impact; and true enough, you can remove many and the machine keeps plodding along. But as Europe proved, if you remove too many (several plagues and wars) the machine of progress grinds to a halt, no matter the intentions of the individual cog (many probably thought they could rebuild Rome... but the necessary cogs were no longer there). Western society outsources much of it's minor cog duties. If the information network were to crash (EMP or the like) we are for the most part, fucked; we don't have the necessary cogs anymore. As I said in another topic (yours in fact) in an INTJ society, I would be a sewer technician, because shit shovelers keep plague at bay. Be all melodramatic and self important that you want; the fact is, we're all just cogs.

You can have corruption without progress. All you need is process. It can be a standstill with an illusion of progress.

You can have progress without a system. Its called dumb luck and good instinct.

You can have a system without cogs. One of them is called a group of equals who can work together or apart depending on the cause, just as two seperate blacksmiths can decide to work together for a project here and there. Or builders, etc.

The cogs are contructed ideas that define the roles within a system, not the real people.

If we are just cogs intelligence doesn't exist - we do what we are designed to do without individual development, and then we change in any form unless extreme luck occurs or design that is brilliant, we become flawed and the entire system grinds to a halt until that cog is eliminated and replaced.

The capacity to learn, to start your own business and to see new needs and innovate means to meet them suggest that if you are merely a cog you are blind to what has happened throughout history.

That is change and intelligent adaptability.

[jonathanb]

I identify with the idea Panda had written down. I tend to think like that. However, one has to recognize that this is the T taking over too much. It causes us to think of other people living beings as 'things'. It's just as bad as people with too high F, who can't kill mosquitos and plants when needed. We need balance in our lives. Too much of that sort of thinking makes us non-human in my opinion. Yes, as INTJs we can come up with end-to-means for anything and everything. We also got to spot at some point to remain sane.

[Shadizar]

I disagree, Panda's just deconstructed the machine and pointed out how it works. No different than my description really; just a hell of a lot more feely. Doesn't change what I said in the post he quoted.

[CanrHoldLimes]

Sure, I view some people and think of ways I could make them useful I guess, kind of like assigning them a number for a particular strength.
I tend to try to keep relationships open with people that I feel would be helpful in the future.That's with just regular people.

With friends I'm a lot more lenient of course, but friends do need to add value to my life. If someone is adding less value than they're requiring from me and therefore draining me I'll cut that 'friendship' off.

[FruitLoop]

I do not want anything from people. I exist only to contribute unconditionally. If they are happy, then I move on - mission accomplished. Next!

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree, Panda's just deconstructed the machine and pointed out how it works. No different than my description really; just a hell of a lot more feely. Doesn't change what I said in the post he quoted.

Except the part about cogs and everything related to it to those who didn't miss the point by walking back in the other direction in order to avert eye contact with it.

[True Rune]

I think it's a part of extraverted thinking. Even ENFPs can view someone as an object and make plans for them, though it's usually in a "unlock your potential" (subservient to Ne and Fi) kind of way more than "I control you". It's sort of a half baked analysis, since it'd be better to see how it works in the INTJ's mind. (Subservient to Ni)

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Except the part about cogs and everything related to it to those who didn't miss the point by walking back in the other direction in order to avert eye contact with it.

Oh??? you found corruption in a herd of cows? They're all cogs without a system, without progress, there should be corruption. How about fish? Birds? Pray tell, how does a hunter gatherer society operate without a system?

[ImINFJ]

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

I think that idea might mean more that we are likely to judge whether we want to keep people in our lives, more by practical standards. Like a friend who is a good person, but is otherwise not of direct value to any of your objectives. How strongly do you maintain the relationship? But a better example might be: You're with someone you enjoy being with, but hanging out with them is getting in the way of you being productive in areas that you believe are important in your own world view. Do you choose the feelings over your objectives? It may pain you, but for an INTJ, I'm inclined to say that the answer is "probably not". I'm of the opinion that people's emotional preferences represent different survival strategies. Its just that most people are not aware of what circumstances their strategies are better for, and what results their preferred strategies are intended to achieve.... So the main difference here might be one of being guided by decision making processes that you are consciously aware of, or not. People who are ruled by emotions, may be less trusting of people who do the right thing for reasons that aren't based in emotions - because they can't fully relate, or trust the intelligent person to always come to the kind of conclusion that they would prefer.

That last part doesn't fit with the experts saying that people are BORN with their MB type preferences which they manifest from earliest days of childhood. I remember reading how the types are in childhood before they have developed cognitive reasoning developmental skills.

[TheObserver]

I don't think of people as cogs in a machine because machines generally have a purpose. Just because people derive meaning and purpose from things does not mean that they in fact have purpose and meaning in an objective sense. In a subjective sense, I could that say everything exists for my own enjoyment and the whole world revolves around me. I could say everything serves an unknown system/machine that nobody can define simply by doing whatever they heck they end up doing. The albino dwarf masturbating to pictures of Brian Peppers in her house right now is feeding the machine. The child molester exists to feed the system by molesting children. Once he is in jail he will be there so the prisoners can enjoy stabbing him. Yes. How meaningful.... How profound....

I see potential in people, but I don't want them to serve me. Don't ask me what to do. I want people to serve themselves. They can all do whatever they heck they want to do although they should consider the consequences of their actions. If they get angry and hit someone they don't know on the street, I won't be surprised nor will I likely feel sorry for them if that man pulls out his gun and kills them. Live as you want to and die.