Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Ashley C

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Ashley C

  • Rank
    New Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Astrology Sign
    Capricorn
  • Brain Dominance
    Balanced

Converted

  • Interests
    Sociology, politics, english language and literature, human behaviour and astronomy.
  • Gender
    Female
  • Personal Text
    meh

Recent Profile Visitors

186 profile views
  1. "butchering your oppressors" : Do I have a problem with butchering my oppressors? Well yes, kind of? It's like asking whether you believe in a eye-for-eye approach to problems. For example, the BLM protest in Dallas, Texas caused the death of 5 policemen because another man was pursing a vendetta against while policemen (he shot them). Morally, isn't that wrong? Because the gunman's here saying "don't be racist" but he shoots 5 white policemen because of their race. Same thing with 'fighting' for 'peace'. It's a moral dilemma, because people are fighting for no more fighting? "Who's fighting for peace?" : Right now, a lot of people are. It's just that there are different definitions of peace depending on the individual. HeforShe, BLM, and other organisations are all fighting for a more equal society where there is no more discrimination because to them, a peaceful society is an egalitarian society, is it not? When people feel oppressed by a higher power, they aren't at peace. There's a lot of tension. So yes, people fight because they oppose something, and essentially, they're fighting for peace.
  2. So you're saying that peace has many definitions, therefore, because of the fact that "peace" is so unspecific, struggles will always be here? Because peace means something different to everyone? I agree with that. Though, my question is, if someone were to fight for: An egalitarian society, and it ends up with people taking revenge on those who have committed injustice on them, does that contract the whole movement? A trustworthy leader, where they are in a country of a tyrant and are trying to overthrow the government but it ends up in civil war, is it worth it? Basically, fighting for peace is a good cause. But with the risk of an outbreak of war and potential deaths, is this fight for peace worth it? Also sorry but I don't quite get what you mean by: "peace may mean that they are the ruling class that can effectively prevent people of other classes from having hopes or social mobility." Do you mean that to some, peace is being the one who is all-powerful? Not disagreeing with your statement, just want to clarify that that is what you meant. Thanks for response!
  3. It's no doubt that peace is something greatly desired and sought for by (most) nations. In today's (mostly) democratic society, more demonstrations of solidarity are popping up as people are fighting for their rights... but isn't this phrase a paradox? In many cases, "fighting" for peace and freedom has led to civil war in the modern age: examples would included the ongoing war in Syria. Something else: protest marches can sometimes lead to the death of people, such as the Black Lives Matter march where one individual shot and killed 5 policemen. The phrase itself is a paradox as the word "fight" contradicts the word "peace". So really, is fighting for peace a contradictory action/statement? I am all for democracy and people fighting for their rights. But how can we strike a balance and make sure that, whilst we fight for peace, we do not precipitate war in the end? I'm interested in hearing your response, even if you may think your opinion is offensive. Do let me know your thoughts on this matter! Thanks!
  4. Big Five personality Test: ROLEI Cognitive Test: Thanks :) Look forward to replies (also, happy new year)
  5. Link to talk that inspired this topic here (If you didn't watch the video you wouldn't understand this) In our society it's important to specialise in one thing but the video argues that these "multipotentialists" are important in the fields or work too. When I watched the video I expected an answer as to what "multipotentialists" can do, but it just gave me 12 minutes of strengths of multipotentialists and how they are important so... then what? What I can do to utilise all of these strengths? If there's anyone in this forum who's working a job they LOVE and is also, like me, someone who has many many interests, please help a to-be adult find what she's supposed to do. Thanks :)
  6. Oh that's interesting... But personally, scary. So they're saying just stay lukewarm for the rest of your life? Sorry if I misunderstood But as human beings we're stupid and we chase after happiness :') I don't want to say that I'd cling to happiness per say but rather that I want to feel contented and happy with my life overall, I guess. I want to be able to look back and be satisfied with where I am. But then again, it's a theory to explore. If you don't try to cling to either maybe you can achieve inner "peace". My mother is a Buddhist, but I see her constantly searching for happiness to give her peace. So it's a bit of a paradox, I guess? If you're more informed about Buddhism please let me know if I misunderstood. To many people, yes. At the end of their lives, they'd like to look back and think "yes. That was a good journey. I'm happy." But then again I'd agree with you on your stand that it'll be negative mentally, because chasing for happiness is like a never ending chase (that sounds so cheesy my apologies)? Like if you think about it, humans aren't ever really satisfied: after winning the lottery we'd keep gambling to win a bigger prize, after we get promoted we want to get promoted again. It's like we constantly want that supply of endorphins and it's insatiable, so in a way, it kinda drives us crazy.
  7. Interesting. Scary, but interesting!
  8. Welcome to the dark side (new to the forum too, so, hello.)
  9. (Another "Type Me!" post) Starting to doubt my own personality type... I'm wondering if I could be an ENTJ? -Generally I like being by myself, but I'm not typically "bad with people" per say. What I've read is that INTJs tend to appear "cold" but I've always been told that I can never appear intimidating or distant even if I tried. And I'm usually quite okay with public speaking, in fact I love a good public discussion. I'm not so much for a full on debate, but discussions are cool. I think my problem is that I've got a struggle choosing between extrovert and introversion, because I kind of enjoy both being around people and being by myself. I don't really know what else to say about myself so please prompt me with questions, thanks!
  10. I guess people want the "authenticity" in happiness. They might not believe that happiness isn't just a set of chemicals but scientifically, it's true whether one wants to believe it or not ("The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"-Neil Tyson) Then again, there are errors in the Ted-Ed video as you say, because there's the fear of parting with your own life and conscious that will remain at the back of one's mind. I'm curious as to how the results of the experiment would go if the question posed were to go like this: "If I were to give you a pill that will grant you eternal happiness, meaning that everything that happens in your life will be viewed by you through a lens of optimism and no pain, would you take it?" Because then, it reduces the "negative" consequences, so maybe more people would opt for that type of life? It's sad that people view machines as monsters :') (but then again kind of reasonable I guess) You've got a point, now that I watch the video back, it's more of a life of continuous pleasure rather than so called "happiness".
  11. "Homo Deus" by Yuval Noah Harari. Damn. What a great book. I highly. highly, highly recommend this to anyone who's interested in transhumanism/futurism/politics/history/socialogy/The World
  12. But is the reason they don't want to plug in because they are afraid that the machine will break down, or is it because they believe there's something more than just constant happiness and pleasure? The term "ignorance is bliss" is applied here. Would people rather live a life of ignorance and continue to be blissful, or would they rather be awakened and learn more about the (horrible) world, but pay the price of being sad? It's like a child saying they never want to grow up. Them staying in their innocence makes them happy. However, I, probably along with a few others, don't want to go back to ignorance. I don't want to live a life where I am unaware of things even if I get the reward of being happy. It sounds strange, but I'd rather live a life of awareness and sadness than a life of ignorance and bliss. But then again, I could ask myself whether I feel this way because awareness=happiness in my eyes
  13. Welcome! I'm pretty new myself too, so, hello.
  14. Welcome!
  15. I'm currently reading a book called "Homo Deus" by Yuval Noah Harari (by the way, fantastic read, I highly recommend everyone to pick it up) and in one of the sub chapters he talks about how achieving infinite satisfaction and happiness is what humans ultimately want in life. Harare's argument is that humans have been pursuing happiness for decades. From the 1930s when "The American Dream" was created, showing a vision of the perfect family and being a successful salesman, to the 2000s, where phone games and faster internet made sure no one had to be bored waiting in line ever again. Humans have been chasing one thing: ultimate happiness and satisfaction. He further elaborates on how people are so fixed on the pursuit of happiness that in modern times, we've turned to manipulating bio-chemistry in the pursuit of happiness: e.g. anti-depressants and illegal drugs to make someone "feel good". Happiness is, after all, just a feeling caused by different chemicals in our body reacting to each other. So is that it? Our ultimate goal in life, if you think about it, is just achieving some chemical reaction in our body? THEN AGAIN, there is an amazing Ted-Ed video which talks about how a life of hedonism isn't exactly what humans want–there's something more than just a life of continuous happiness. (I won't explain the whole video you can watch it by clicking on the link above it's like 5 minutes long) My question is, is happiness really the meaning of life? The most common response to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" is "Happiness.", but is it really?