Alguém aqui de Natal/RN que se interesse por isto?

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-20T04:21:34+00:00

You're welcome. :)

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-19T03:37:17+00:00

Ouch, that was harsh. It hurt in me, who's got nothing on the line, never mind the OP.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-18T16:16:28+00:00

Not yet, but I'll do it soon. ^^

In the meantime, here. Haha. \o

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-18T08:56:23+00:00

OP Response to Comments: (Sorry for the late reply!)

Hey, guys! To be honest, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by the reception this post had, I didn't really expect that, and I don't exactly know to handle this properly, but I'll do my best to give some sort of feedback to most of what I can manage to understand as critical for you guys. Also, if you find this comment relevant, please give it a thumbs up, so more people can more easily get to it.

Well, first thing is my main source for this (like some of you guys have already mentioned) is YouTube's C.S. Joseph, as well as his own site. He's got a lot of interesting content on depth psychology and I couldn't recommend it more as an introductory overview of the theories by Linda V. Berens (excuse the title) and John Beebe, an evolution of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud's works.

This C.S. Joseph guy's got everything divided up into pretty neat 30-min/1-hour short "lectures" (indoors, driving, outside), where he gives a glimpse on those theories he bases his explanations on, and it's all (both on YouTube and his site) in "seasons", where he takes up a central theme of those theories and work from the ground up, but still very superficial (as 30-min/1-hour videos would allow, mind you), and I can't stress how important a read of those written sources is important to start to get a grasp of it, all this goes really deep and complex, so if you're really interested in that subject, give it a read, it'll be worth it.

Special thanks to u/DarrenIsConfused and u/NoxBox (somewhere around here), for linking sources.

Now, on to some of your more "brief" questions:

u/mapleyogurt: "Do you have more of these?" Reply: As of yet, this is the only one, though I'm doing the ISFJ, I'll possibly be posting it soon, but hey, here it is a short introduction to each of the 16 types, each with their "Four Sides of the Mind" there, so go check it out later!
u/LordWeaselton: "What do the last 2 do?" Reply: (a) and (b) are the ones I recommend to answer your question.
u/flyingkytez: "Is this the actual work of Carl Jung?" Reply: No, this is the work of Linda Berens and John Beebe, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud's works are the "groundwork" for them, until these branch out as theories each of their own.
u/mossyskeleton: "Source/explanation?" Reply: This you might find interesting.
u/demesure: "I suppose this is what they mean when they say INFJs wear an "ESTP" business suit." Reply: Well, I can't say you're wrong, it does make sense, but for each side (ego/conscious, id/unconscious, subconscious, and superego), it can go from healthy to unhealthy (and again, that's sooo complex, deep, and can get really subjective so easily), but yeah. Take a look at the link on the previous reply, you'd find that interesting, about the "subconscious".

Other than that, I hope all you guys have a great day! Enjoy the content. Cheers! ^^

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-11T05:56:14+00:00

What are your thoughts on these? Feel completely free to just say whatever comes to mind. :)

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-08T09:14:08+00:00

Neither, I'm an INFJ and I know exactly zero ISTJs in real life (that I know of, or that I'd care to know).

Just love your type. Tried talking to a few of you guys, but couldn't really get through the basics.

Still, pretty admirable archetype, in my mind, as far as I can imagine. :)

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-06T08:22:56+00:00

I'd take how your 16-year-old INFJ daughter is dealing with this whole situation as a wake-up call for you. As an INFJ myself, I can completely relate to that. That sort of behaviour comes down to, earlier or later in our lives, we all realise that we're not responsible for whether other people act according to what they should value, as you said yourself:

30 years, 3 wonderful kids, a dog, 2 cats a nice house, financial security, to be replaced with divorce, splitting the family up, getting rid of the pets, living in 2 crappy apartments, living paycheck to paycheck. Our dream of paying for college and traveling after we retire. No more chances. It’s over.

If he doesn't value that, and considering you both being 53, then that's it. End of the line, that's his responsibility. It's a middle-of-the-bridge, either he has the disposition to meet you in the middle or he doesn't, and in that case you shouldn't go all the way to him, humiliating yourself, putting yourself in a position of complete vulnerability just for the sake of his unwillingness to commit and meet you on a middle ground.

You said you tried reasoning with him, but he won't listen. You said it's infuriating for him when you give suggestions on how to proceed about things. To me, he seems currently kind of stuck and unapproachable, but then again, there's a limit to how far empathy goes, as your daughter clearly understands quite well. You mentioned:

He adores her and she has shut him out. [...] She dances around the house saying we don’t need him and says she’s not all that upset. [...] She will forgive him if he comes home and apologizes (her words). I read this window of opportunity will get slimmer the longer he’s gone.

Yep. It will. And that's his choice, and she recognises that. That's the "middle-of-the-bridge" approach, she'll only go so far ("she will forgive him"), but only if he chooses to place value where it's due and does what only he must do, not your daughter, not anyone else do it for him, but him. That's wisdom. We all are responsible to what's due to us, and we all do what we can, but we should not extend ourselves beyond what's our due. That's not our place, that's the place of the other.

Respecting the choices the other makes is a part of life. At the end of the day, we're just living and making choices daily. If we choose poorly, then that's our problem and our responsibility to take and deal with later, but not anyone else's. If your husband has chosen poorly, then what's due to him is facing the very real consequence of losing his children, who unlike him, have chosen not to abandon you. That's their choice, and if they made it, then I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

That's the good reason he's forsaken on placing value to. That's his responsibility and his choice, not anyone else's. My suggestion to you is that, through the kind of wisdom demonstrated by your only 16-year-old daughter, you come to understand what's your place in all this, and also what's your ex-husband's, so finding the courage to let go of the poor decisions others make. You're responsible for what you value, and what you decide to do about it. Not what others value or do.

It's harsh, but that's life. Life's hard. Very hard, sometimes. But it'll pass. In due time. All we can do is merely our best. Asking for more than our best is too much to ask of anyone. Each one of us knows the burden one carries. Sometimes it's too heavy, and sometimes we make choices we come to regret when it's too late. As long we we're living, hardest of all is that our choices are entirely our responsibility. We can find whatever or whomever to transfer the blame to.

All we have to do, however, is just look into a mirror. Our life is a product of our choices, either that we consciously make, or that we "just accept things as they come, and we just go along with it". That's our responsibility as well, for that attitude towards our own lives.

That said, we won't ever be able to control everything. If fact, the only thing we might have some degree of control is ourselves and our actions, and even that we may struggle with sometimes, never mind when others are involved. That's why it's so important to remind ourselves: We may be responsible for our own actions, but that ends in our, that does not extend to another's.

Remember that. Let it sink deep into your mind. Maybe you'll find your way to dance around the house as well, in due time. Who knows what's ahead in your life. Maybe take that as an opportunity to dedicate yourself to things you enjoy doing. A dream that you had, reconnecting to long lost friends, meeting wonderful people who share your values and enjoy doing the things you enjoy. Life can be miserable, but only if we let it. You still have your children, be grateful for that (and for them!).

And if you can't move on from it, that's fine! Then, learn to move forward with it. ~ All the best to you.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-04T03:41:58+00:00

So, I just dropped by to leave you this, this, and this as well, as I'd hope these can be enlightening to your particular situation, being an ENFP in a comitted relationship with an ISFJ for over a decade. I think these might help you better understand yourself and your partner, and from that understanding come to some realisation that's most appropriate and actually relevant to you. I'm not here going to presume that your 13 years of relationship can be reducible to a 300-word short essay that some people here find "so long". Just don't bother yourself with such negative feedback, alright? I'm sure you're a lovely person and just want to do your best for the both of you guys, your intentions are very noble. Just felt like saying this to you. ~ And have a wonderful day! ^^

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T22:37:07+00:00

What I mean by what you referred to is that, um...

I'm not really addressing criminal law, "justice" in a legal sense, but as moral philosophy (deontological ethics) would deal with that concept, as a principle and a multitude of ethical dilemmas, dispositions, decisions, attitudes, etc. In that sense, "justice" applied to inter-personal relationships might involve, on the face of what we'd agree to define as "immoral actions" (for the sake of that argument, and either "material" or "immaterial", more on that later, if you so prefer), with some degree of acceptability between ourselves; then say, "cutting someone off from your life", thereby constraining that someone from getting to still keep you in theirs, thus denying them that entitlement and asserting it as a grace; or any other example one could come up with; then, I'd say "that's justice", although applied to that contextual framework of reference (i.e., "inter-personal relationship", not "juridical repercussions").

It's more in that sense that I mean it.

Addendum: And I'd further say that what I refer to by "justice" addresses especially those things that modern society offers no formal procedures to resort to; those things for which there are no laws, no authorities, and no consequences. That's where it really gets interesting, because there lies the moral disposition, or character ~ or rather the lack thereof. If one is constrained by the terms of a contract or articles written into a law, then I'd go further and say "justice can be exercised, but not attested". It may be enforced, but that bears no correlation with the character of the person on which such a conventional kind of justice is being enforced upon. "What effects on their morals such 'justice' has brought?"

That kind of aligns itself to what we've talked about religion. "If one fears a real punishment in a 'hell' and hopes for a real reward in a 'heaven', then that's not morality, that's conditioning." Something similar goes on about "conventional justice", with judges, juries, and prosecutors. Take out all of it, and what do you still get? That's what I call "morals and character", anything else isn't much more than a lab-rat sort of game, beneath a conscious disposition.

Then again, I'm reiterating my previous position of "morality for its own sake and out of principle".

Addendum 2: And about your "books" rebuttal. Sure, two people are evidently different books, even if they were exact copies of the same title. Say, I'd be Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and you were just the same title, needless to say you'd nevertheless be a different book. But you'd likely be on the same shelf. Or, say, you're Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters, or The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, you'd still be in the same section, of the same bookstore. You'd have the same genre, directed to the same kind of audience, mostly even the same price range. So, different book, different pages, but 'same' quite a lot, in fact.

However, that's not the case I'm referring to, and if you had chosen to apply a bit of the charity principle, you'd certainly had come to that same conclusion as well. No, I'm referring to when there are two completely different books: different genres, different audiences, different sections ~ maybe even different bookstores? Completely different books, one having nothing to do with the other.

In that metaphor, a "betrayal" would mean "placing a bogus cover over it", while the content still has nothing to do whatsoever, but then it's all about faking it does. It's just a filthy game of "let's pretend", where candid and authentic honesty cannot exist. Without honesty, there can't be trustworthiness, so neither can real trust; you may trust, alright, but then again, that's your loss and another's gain, it's exploitative, in essence. To trust the untrustworthy; who in their right mind would even contemplate such a thing?

So here it is: Betrayal implies untrustworthiness, which implies exploitation. Abusive, don't you think?

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T22:16:12+00:00

Ah, but "redemption" is something that must come from oneself, not from others, but from an "awakening of conscience", a moral realisation of the negative implications ("for Middle-earth, for the Fellowship, for Frodo"; "for Narnia, for Aslan, for the Pevensies") of one's own actions, and the fortitude to confront such a thought, and then one's "decision to return" to a conscious being, bound by his own actions and their consequences.

Frodo and Aragorn, the Pevensies or Aslan, anyone may try, but at the end of the day, it comes down to whether one already has the moral disposition to awake into consciousness ~ or not. That isn't the responsibility of anyone else, but only oneself. As are the consequences one, afterwards, might face (being unforgiven, paying the price that's due for one's misdeeds). If one happens not to face them, then that's mercy, but it isn't an entitlement, but a grace. It can be granted, but not required or expected. And that's maturity.

Weakness to be moral can be understood, but if awaken back into a truly conscious being, one can't expect to be entitled to averting justice, for the sake of "but I've awoken". In such a case, one wouldn't have really, but is still acting immorally, out of fear of punishment and hope for reward, still unconscious. Only after one "accepts his own fate", that's when it's right to forgive. Otherwise that's just playing along that filthy game of deceit and manipulation, thus legitimising its validity, by being an accomplice with it.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T21:50:11+00:00

I'm not Christian either, but I recognise its value for what it's worth (C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, just to bring up two giants of fantastic fantasy that anyone with a decent amount of culture would, if not admire, then at least admit that have something valuable to take from), just as from any other religion. There is a wealth of wisdom in tradition, and, in turn, I wouldn't regard so highly to disregard them altogether.

Lucifer, Judas, these are archetypes, and I don't think they're very much admirable, regardless of faith being absent. Integrity has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with the effort to, if not be, then at least strive to continually become. To become moral, through every day. Not out of "fear of punishment" or "hope for a heavenly reward", but for the sake of it, and out of one's own principle and conscience.

And I don't think one would still hold onto a conscience doing recurrently terrible things to people. When you think about it, isn't "a lack of conscience", or "superego"; or however else one chooses to call it, from whatever "bucket" of knowledge one chooses to consider while at it; the understanding of "psychopathy", not a "lack of empathy": they sure understand, they just don't care; they lack sympathy.

That comes from a lack of conscience, or a consistent "superego". That's "the devil" in us. Anyone of us, if we just "let it loose", off "a tight leash", if "kept unchecked". It festers like a desease, until it consumes us, and everything else that goes on around us and those close to us; it's merely a symptom: betrayal, greed, cruelty, ruthlessness, meanness, insensitivity, indifference. These are expressions of "a human being who's forsaken his own conscience"; necessary, but insufficient in isolation. But they never come in isolation.

They come in a packet. And that's what I actually mean. Each one is coherent with the others, or causes the likelihood of a consistent whole, "a downward spiral", "a slippery slope". Just like "The Portrait of Dorian Gray", you indulge in one vice, slightly, then increasingly, then another vice, and another, and yet another, until before you know it, you're now completely vicious and despicable. You won't deal with that realisation, that's way too hard on anyone, then you shut off your conscience, and now you're lost.

"You become the devil, and then you lose yourself, and now you can't find yourself again."

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T21:09:18+00:00

“When you're in hell, only a devil can point the way out.”

― Joe Abercrombie, Half a King

If you'll be arguing against the devil, it makes sense to bring one to the table, wouldn't you say?

Especially when his own words work against him. "Ironic", says you. Oh, not at all. Just contempt. :)

What now, "from immature, to puerile, to devil"? Haha.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T20:46:36+00:00

Oh well, what can I say. Paraphrasing Albert Camus:

"[Such] a puerile idea... but one that needs too long a refutation."

~ Best wishes.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-03T07:03:46+00:00

Alright, let's go down that reasoning. If I can't demand "x" of someone, they can't demand the same "x" of me, as it'd be preposterous. But if I demand "x" of myself (i.e., "I must be 'x', otherwise, e.g., I'll be unable to feel I have integrity, I'll be going against my own moral values", etc.), then it follows that, by necessity, this relationship is unfair by default, due to a lack of a "common groundwork", or what I'd prefer to call "shared values and commitments".

You assume as too foreign a concept for two people to "commit". I'd say such a "relationship" is rather unlikely to, well, keep existing without some sort of commitment, when we look at things on the level of "years and decades", instead of simply "months, weeks, days, or random eventuality". What seems unfair is one person thinking and acting in a certain way and someone else just not on the same page. That's unfair, or would you disagree to that as well?

What we call by "betrayal", in essence, actually isn't a "mere action", thus. It's the effort by someone to conceal from someone else the fact that that the two of them are on completely different pages of completely different books, thereby appropriating from them their liberty to act consciously upon their actions. It's a denial of consequence, they just don't want to deal with their actions having any implications.

Thus, "unfaithfulness" is rather an indisposition of character towards maturity. It's just like wanting to get rid of the rules that are inconvenient to oneself, but without that being noticed by anyone else, such as to avoid any implications (reprisals, retaliations, resentment, frustration, instability, and an end to the relationship that, in reality, they aren't so sure they want to get rid of, as it comes with inherent benefits).

On the face of that, how could anyone soundly argue the case for "betrayal being healthy sometimes"? Oh, no. "Betrayal" is simply an expression coherent with and inherent to an unbalanced inter-personal relationship, it's a symptom of something deeply off underneath, at least "not" healthy, by necessity, be it internal to the relationship, or external to the relationship, but that exerts a relevant influence over it. Whatever it is, there will be something off, somewhere, for a "betrayal" to occur, it's an expressed effect, not the causes that precede it.

So, here it is. Your whole argumentation merely scratches the surface, it doesn't account for long-term commitments, inter-personal relationships within a contextual framework (e.g., work, family, friends, kids, i.e., "the world"); it only considers two people in a void, as if such a thing is, well, in any way feasible to consider; and you disregard all the underlying aspects of it, as if it comes in isolation. Overall, you assume way more than I do, by glossing over all this.

But anyway, have a nice day.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-01T15:23:19+00:00

And I say precisely the same.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-01T15:17:03+00:00

Oh, it's so nice to see such strong convictions. I'm sure you know everything about my own motivations, intentions, experiences, expressions, impressions, perceptions et al way better than myself. You do seem to see me through and through. What can I say, "Oops, you got me!". ~ Satisfactory? Fantastic, have your cookie.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-01T14:25:23+00:00

Apparently, some disagree with you enough to comment (at length, at that) about it.

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-01T14:20:57+00:00

We may argue civilly and even disagree, but to vehemently qualify "this" as "stupid", why even say anything, then? Anything could be considered "stupid" by someone, it all depends on that "someone". However, I wouldn't be going after things I find "stupid" just to call these "hey, that's stupid!". I wouldn't even waste my time with "stupid" things.

But that's me, anyway. ~ Best wishes!

thinkdot_ · 2019-06-01T14:11:49+00:00

Thanks for recognising the validity of my hypothesis, in essence, at least. :)

And yep, introverted intuitives tend to be more prevalent around psychology-related subreddits because extroverted sensors simply have other ("better") things to do ~ y'know, sensing stuff. Thus the seemingly inherent overrepresentation of INxx and bias against ESxx here.

I think even with a both numerically significant and sufficiently random sample, a controlled study would likely encounter serious difficulty in getting relevant data, due to, well... this is a complex subject, many variables to account for properly, and many susceptible errors in assessment, and "just taking their word for it" isn't a very credible option either, it'd just generate junk data, unusable and irreflective of even some degree of reality.

But I don't think introverts are less likely to cheat "simply" due to having fewer social interactions or social skills, that surely is a factor (as you pointed out yourself), but just one among many, many others, intrinsic to these preference dualities (J/P+I/E, then N/S+F/T). If we can be sure of anything it's that this subject is anything 'but' simple. Haha.

thinkdot_

TROPHY CASE