Type blame

[Architect]

Something I've been thinking about, comments welcome.

How much can we blame a person for their less savory type characteristics? When does a person cross the line with that? For example, consider the ESTJ. I know several and grew up with one. All of them (as far as I can tell) are narcissists. Especially the males, an ESTJ female I know was more nuanced. The men however are prone to affairs, usually posses guns and really aren't interested in you. Oh, they make a good show of being interested, they keep in touch, they are complimentary, but it only goes skin deep.

Are they evil? No, their narcissism is hard to spot because it's so well hidden under their geniality, but basically they are power obsessed. They will command the social situation, whether others will give in to that or not. I have too many examples to go into here with too much detail, but suffice it to say that their narcissism is evil. Quick example; tendency to have affairs (again the power hunger).

Now compare this to your average INTP. A genial type, prone to forgetting birthdays and missing nuance, but that's not too bad really. In here I see an asymmetry, where some types are more obnoxious than others, because their bad traits are more oppressive. In this example the ESTJ extraverts their poor behaviors, so we all have to suffer.

So the question is; can we blame them for this? Should people with extroverted bad habits and behaviors learn to control them more? Or is it just who they are? If we blame them, then why not blame others for their, perhaps introverted and less troublesome tendencies?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Architect, you have stolen my heart with your Ne <3


tl;dr

you are correct. Many people blame other people for characteristics that seem to be almost natural to that person, and usually because they are different from themselves, but if you recognize that to a certain degree it is their nature, then i'm sure a lot of misdirected anger can be forgone.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

blame

Spoiler

They're not to blame, as they're the product of systemic processes beyond their and everyone else's control. They have a role in the meta; that's all I'm concerned with.

 

[Hadoblado]

Blame is a tool used for refining a process. You assign blame to identify an area that needs improvement. This means that we should blame them for their 'evil' traits if we can mitigate the damage somehow, is this the case? I think so.

 

[TimeAsylums]

You assign blame to identify an area that you think needs improvement.

I assume the scale would either be personal, or the larger social-cultural scales.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

We all extrovert certain aspects of ourselves to the delight or detriment of others. My Fe could exert warmth for others to bask in and you feel particularly understood but it could feel manipulative or critical when I over step my self assurance. Both is in my nature. I am to be both accepted and called on my shit as it's the only way to temper and self-modulate. We, each of us, ultimately have the final say but if a number of people tell me something about me and it becomes a pattern, then the wise person will take it upon themselves to check it out. "If the shoe fits" type of examination.

The tortoise and the scorpion fable. We have an innate nature but as humans we're able to transcend. Transcendence means I metabolize/incorporate the nasty parts of me and through this process, I have more compassion for myself and others.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Blame is a tool used for refining a process. You assign blame to identify an area that needs improvement. This means that we should blame them for their 'evil' traits if we can mitigate the damage somehow, is this the case? I think so.

Blame tends to be circular and we also tend not to recognize our own evil.... probably because it tends to be what we value.

Spoiler

(I also notice that googling "scapegoat" returns holocaust results...)

 

[Hadoblado]

I assume the scale would either be personal, or the larger social-cultural scales.

I'd assume the scale universal. If there is blame, the purpose of it is as outlined.

There are other reasons to blame, but they are a counter-productive abuse of the process (blame-shifting, slander etc.).

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'd assume the scale universal. If there is blame, the purpose of it is as outlined.

There are other reasons to blame, but they are a counter-productive abuse of the process (blame-shifting, slander etc.).

I was being slightly facetious. THD brought up the point, though.

What scale? That would be utterly ridiculous. Who says whether the extravert should talk less, or the introvert more. Blame is usually assigned only when it offends that person, which it may not offend everyone 'universally.' Meet halfway? what?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

we also tend not to recognize our own evil.... probably because it tends to be what we value.

This...Others are a mirror to our evil as I am a mirror to their evil.

 

[Latte]

The question of blame confuses any situation when one looks deep enough. The idea of blame is inherently flawed/inconsistent from the beginning if one includes any measure of "couldn't help it".

Types with both Si & Fe are probably the most likely to get sucked into thinking about things in terms of blame. Which is your own fault of course ; ) ; )


The most intellectually honest and (usually) emotionally productive approach to any situation is to regard things through the lense of interpersonal pragmatism and understanding.

To not blame someone does not mean one can not cut someone off from oneself if they are a negative influence in one's life. To not blame someone does not mean one can not kill someone if one deems the world that springs forth from that option a better world than the one who springs forth from alternate paths (one's own subjective world, that is).

To set aside the logic of blame is to set aside the need for justification and forgiveness.

To circle back around to the topic: Any action to take... be it reforming, bearing with, being angry with, showing anger towards, tolerating own emotional responses to or escaping interaction from... one will figure out as best as one can what is possible, what is fruitful towards one's wellbeing and what is feasible based on one's understanding of the inclinations, individual cognitive mechanisms and abilities of oneself and the other.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This...Others are a mirror to our evil as I am a mirror to their evil.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcMFxI3eF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf53oFb4IKA

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I would add those who are unwillingly to see their own evil or nasty side are the most pernicious especially to those they love.

 

[Grayman]

I don't believe in evil.

People always want to pin blame on a single person when in reality the blame is assigned to their genes, their upbringing, the people around them that allow them to act a certain way, and finally the choices the individuals make.

I don't think I can point the finger at the individual and not at everyone else and the 'god' or nature that created him without feeling a hypocrite. I do believe they should be held accountable for the future decisions they make.

 

[Epicure]

I'm with Grey on this, I think most of us know deep down that good and evil are simply constructs that help us to feel morally superior to others or guide us in seeking a brand of justice on our enemies.

Some may comfort themselves with the idea that truly horrendous things won't happen because they are too evil, but Yellowstone could explode tomorrow or a coronal mass ejection could be sent directly at earth at any time. These things happen because of nature, and we do these things because of our own nature. People are ignorant of their own weaknesses and don't really know how they are affecting others.

INTP's may be focused within themselves, but that means they have a good understanding of how others may feel inside and what it feels like to be hurt. We might think negative things about others, but are less likely to lash out unless provoked. I feel like I'm dropping down to the level of other thoughtless assholes if I do that.

 

[Latte]

Regarding the idea of some types being more likely to develop aggressive behavioral patterns (externalized/controlling social negativity) than others, it's probably true and is a good thing to think about.

An argument for the case of one's cognitive setup affecting the likelihood for developing more general things like avoidant patterns or patterns of acting out can probably even be made on the basis of correlation studies if studies relevant to such an argument exists, at least with things such as introverson & extraversion.

 

[nanook]

I like this thread. A whole punch of people who do not fuse the necessity of subjective personal responsibility with objective delusions of guilt/free will/"should have been different".

In my understanding Fi is the true mother of blaming. Blaming makes some sense within introspection, it cuts your personality into pieces and prioritises good parts over bad parts. This moral based organization of the subject is a big part of what Fi does in everyone (rather unconsciously in some of us). If conscious, it's self empowerment, it creates the sense of "knowing who you are" by means of being consciously decisive about what you want to 'be' and what not, by means of doing. It's the root of independent conviction and sometimes authority over others.

It's natural (common) but wrong to project introspective principles into the world. You can communicate suggestions, but you don't have a right to "power" (intimidate) into someones psyche, the same way you can do in your own. It's dysfunctional.

The ESTJ that architect has in mind, whether he is a real person or a clichee, is apparently guilty of intimidation. Projecting his internal power into others. EXTJ are considered bullies, right? Someone should help them to become aware of their Fi shadow. So that they stop blaming other people for being imperfect, according to their values, which are camouflaged as objective rationality, but which are actually motivated by their Fi priorities. So that they can become patient and respect the Fi agendas or priorities, that are below everyone elses' thoughts (everyone has Fi, consciously or not).

 

[Epicure]

You can also consider that there is a huge spectrum of how much someone may "Feel" negativity from others and let it bother them or just brush it off. This could also make someone less sensitive think less of what they are doing to others, a sort of mental pain threshold. Its not so different from a physical pain threshold, some are disturbed even by low levels of pain, some not. Those not wonder why others make such a big deal about it. This would make me wonder if certain types could be more prone to fraudulent or criminal acts.

A good example of extremes would be to consider those with the Antisocial Personality Disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

 

[nanook]

yes, Te types are often oblivious about how they are bullies. they're just wondering: why isn't anyone standing up to me. i'd reply: because we are not so quick to assume that the first thought on our mind has enough objective merit. and it's unjust to expect something else, because that's how we work. and i get pretty mad about unjust expectations.

 

[nanook]

In my understanding Fi is the true mother of blaming. Blaming makes some sense within introspection, it cuts your personality into pieces and prioritises good parts over bad parts. This moral based organization of the subject is a big part of what Fi does in everyone (rather unconsciously in some of us). If conscious, it's self empowerment, it creates the sense of "knowing who you are" by means of being consciously decisive about what you want to 'be' and what not, by means of doing. It's the root of independent conviction and sometimes authority over others.

In contrast, your stereotypical esfj mother wasn't truely blaming you, personally, she was voicing expectations within a situation. perhaps within a very general situation ("get a job"). she commands you to produce a certain behaviour. it's the Fi in you that interprets this as you being blamed personally, your values being attacked, if you don't want to or can't produce that behaviour. she might not understand, because she is out of touch with her Fi. therefore also out of touch with why this even hurts you. that's why she would call it self pitty if you acted like a victim upon her calling you out. "just produce the damn behavior that the situation requires for ethical reasons!" "this isn't about you"

it's perhaps closer to shaming, than blaming. in my mind blame is about having something wrong about you, within you, bad morals, and shame is about lacking something required. classic example: money or pubic hair. or you lack the ability to produce the expected behaviour. shame on you.

 

[Epicure]

I hear that, and what really gets me is when a highly extroverted type simply thinks that their way of living is right, and any other way is wrong, so clearly there is something wrong with you and hey everyone lets all get some jollys off of that person. They are wrong and clearly inferior so its ok. There are people that get others to join in on these aggressive behaviors when they wouldn't otherwise by somehow making it socially acceptable and inclusive.

 

[Grayman]

In contrast, your stereotypical esfj mother wasn't truely blaming you, personally, she was voicing expectations within a situation. perhaps within a very general situation ("get a job"). she commands you to produce a certain behaviour. it's the Fi in you that interprets this as you being blamed personally, your values being attacked, if you don't want to or can't produce that behaviour.

My wife is ESFJ. Everything is personal.

 

[nanook]

she might be egocentric or just manipulative. you have to see through the crap to spot typological patterns. things are not what they present themselves as. in oder to be extroverted you have to be in the flow, your values have to be situative, relative to the situations, not to your self, in that sense, they have to change from situation to situation. sure the ego can always be attached to it. but the logic of the feeling doesn't care about the personality. it cares about the situation. "it's about the thing i want. i never get what i want. i want my family to be happy and to respect me. i need you to support me. things have to be like this or like that." see, none of that is personal, it's about how things unfold. of course the ego owns it. extroverts have egos. doesn't matter how she words things, i'm concerned with what drives the internal logic.

 

[Grayman]

she might be egocentric or just manipulative. you have to see through the crap to spot typological patterns. things are not what they present themselves as. in oder to be extroverted you have to be in the flow, your values have to be situative, relative to the situations, not to your self, in that sense, they have to change from situation to situation. sure the ego can always be attached to it. but the logic of the feeling doesn't care about the personality. it cares about the situation. "it's about the thing i want. i never get what i want. i want my family to be happy and to respect me. i need you to support me. things have to be like this or like that." see, none of that is personal, it's about how things unfold. of course the ego owns it. extroverts have egos. doesn't matter how she words things, i'm concerned with what drives the internal logic.

When younger you could consider her egocentric, and in constant need of attention. With maturity and confidence I would call them emotionally idealistic.

 

[r4ch3l]

I would add those who are unwillingly to see their own evil or nasty side are the most pernicious especially to those they love.

This is similar to what I was going to say.
MBTI has helped me see that it's not necessarily the inherent qualities of a person that make them a good person, its the capacity and desire to be honest with oneself and others. Reflection and communication. I don't blame specific actions so much as a lack of awareness and the desire for it. It's impossible to be 100% objective but as others have said in the thread, others are a mirror for the self.

I realized this when I was upset with someone for being so cold and calculating in both work and in relationships. I took it personally instead of realizing that it was simply his nature. He pointed out that I had a lot of anger about being harassed and mocked for things I could not control about myself when I was younger (social retard/extreme introversion, general weirdness) and that I was doing the same to him. I also realized that his worst traits were his best traits as well and that the difference was the manner in which he applied them.

 

[Mr Write]

"Blame" essentially means to acknowledge one's responsibility. At the core, this turns into a question about free will.

Which is more fair: for one to subject us to their undesirable but natural behavior, or for us to demand that they suppress their natural inclinations? The latter is extremely stressful, but increasingly necessary* due to our increasingly incongruent environment. The sensors especially suffer this, even if they still dominate in numbers. In a way, that might be somewhat fair, as we N's seem to always compromise ourselves for them, but they hardly ever do so for us.

I generally don't much hate people for the things they do anymore (I just try to avoid them). Though I do make an exception for ISFP's, who from my experience tend to be particularly selfish, lazy, and hateful. At least an ESTJ will get stuff done and contribute something. I'll admit this is entirely subjective reasoning. I don't think there's really a hard, objective rule to this.

*Curiously, we've come to call this "maturity", which I think is a mistake. We should not confuse our growth with the suppression our own nature; the two definitions are antithetical.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

*Curiously, we've come to call this "maturity", which I think is a mistake. We should not confuse our growth with the suppression our own nature; the two definitions are antithetical.

As soon as I get my shit together, I'm spinning off your comment and making a post on self-hood, maturity and differentiation. I think this needs an in-depth look.

 

[Grayman]

As soon as I get my shit together, I'm spinning off your comment and making a post on self-hood, maturity and differentiation. I think this needs an in-depth look.

I'll be there also, I was considering doing the same thing, but I'll wait on you.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Something I've been thinking about, comments welcome.

How much can we blame a person for their less savory type characteristics? When does a person cross the line with that? For example, consider the ESTJ. I know several and grew up with one. All of them (as far as I can tell) are narcissists. Especially the males, an ESTJ female I know was more nuanced. The men however are prone to affairs, usually posses guns and really aren't interested in you. Oh, they make a good show of being interested, they keep in touch, they are complimentary, but it only goes skin deep.

Are they evil? No, their narcissism is hard to spot because it's so well hidden under their geniality, but basically they are power obsessed. They will command the social situation, whether others will give in to that or not. I have too many examples to go into here with too much detail, but suffice it to say that their narcissism is evil. Quick example; tendency to have affairs (again the power hunger).

Now compare this to your average INTP. A genial type, prone to forgetting birthdays and missing nuance, but that's not too bad really. In here I see an asymmetry, where some types are more obnoxious than others, because their bad traits are more oppressive. In this example the ESTJ extraverts their poor behaviors, so we all have to suffer.

So the question is; can we blame them for this? Should people with extroverted bad habits and behaviors learn to control them more? Or is it just who they are? If we blame them, then why not blame others for their, perhaps introverted and less troublesome tendencies?

Whats wrong with possessing guns and why should I care about such so-called 'poor' behavior? Just ignore them all if they bother you that much. Problem solved.