[calliope]

@calliope
Do you mean something like trying to get someone to buy free-range eggs instead of caged-hen ones?
Or picking up an object that appears to have no owner and is just lying on the street and saying "finders keepers"? or....

Yes, those are very good typical examples.

Eggs:

Q: You should buy free range.
A: I get that they are healthier, but if I were to micromanage my life to that extent, I would not have any enjoyment. It's worth it to me to die earlier in order to not have to think about everything I put in my mouth.
Q: You should buy free range. I think people who don't buy free range are such idiots. You are wrong not to buy them. You should think about your health more.

Money on street:

Q: I found money on the street.
A: What did you do with it?
Q: I kept it.
A: You should have given it to whoever dropped it.
Q: I don't know who dropped it, and I knew anyone I asked would say yes so I kept it.
A: You should have returned that money. People who keep money they find are such idiots. You were wrong to keep it. You should think about other people's feelings more.



Still waiting to hear of a perfectly ethical reason why it's okay to coerce people to abandon their values for yours.

If a good reason is not presented, at some point I will decide that people have EMOTIONS and they don't have good cognitive wiring to allow them to analyze and resolve them INSIDE themselves, so they have to RELEASE them or else they horrible inside, so they say what they feel no matter how controlling or manipulative it is, regardless of what their ethics are.


.............

[birdflyaway]

This thread spread out interestingly. It's always fun to see where they end up. :) For some reason I am thinking of making myself a black and white t-shirt with a rabid lol-kitten on it that says "I HAWBLE!"

[Quinault NDN]

Still waiting to hear of a perfectly ethical reason why it's okay to coerce people to abandon their values for yours.

I would say first that the definition of perfectly ethical is kinda tricky. Then of course we run into difficulty with the idea of values. Coerce is probably the word that will always be the fail though.

I would counter that there are instances where it is ethical for someone to present the idea that your "values" are harmful, thus giving you an understanding that what you are doing causes harm. A everyday example would be recycling or reducing use of resources in order to reduce harm done to our atmosphere / planet. Conspicuous consumption of finite resources or use of resources that pollute the planet are poor choices that impact everybody. Simple acts can assist in allieviating the problem but many do not partake in recycling or using alternatives to fossil fuel. This does not preclude the idea that eventually that more coericion will be required in the future to address this issue. Also take into consideration that the acts of recycling can have a positive impact on endangered species or environments. Then you have people not just advocating for themselves but for those creatures or places that have no human voice with which to make their pleas. I don't know that I would claim it is perfectly ethical but someone making the argument could be operating in an ethical manner.

Of course there are things that are done for the benefit of society that have involved coericion. Like for example when China limited couples to a single child. Coercing women to be have surgury and take birth control. Penalizng people who break the rule and such. One could say this is imposing a "value" on others for "logically" based reasons.

[calliope]

Yes. For your last examples, they are grey areas also linked to law, which are not directly tied to this conversation, although relevant.

As far as the recycling example, the reason people get together poltically in grassroots organizations is to try to effect change in these areas by educating and using public speaking. This bypasses pushing your beliefs on others personally. As long as no one is presently in danger, it is very manipulative and rude (in the commons definitions that we all share) to personally tell someone they are bad to not recycle.

You can certainly try to change someone's mind that not recycling harms the environment, and you could be quite forceful, and it is not manipulative because you are only stating something correct/incorrect. But you have no right to tell someone how to run their lives by saying they should recycle. That is not ethical. That is why we use public education and awareness. You address a group that agrees to listen to you.

[birdflyaway]

When a lot of innocent people are being hurt by someone's actions, and changing his/her actions would benefit a larger number of people and hurt fewer, then I may present a case to them IF it is personally affecting me or someone I love. It's thorny though because people's value systems just differ, and mostly I find proselytizing of any sort annoying.

[Optimist Mind]

Hell is other INTJs as far as I'm concerned. I spend most of my time in the topical forums. I also like lurking in the INFJ forums.

'zactly. I spend more time in ENTP/ENFP/INFP forums than I do in the INTJ forum.. Though my posts probably won't show that..

I just like occasionally checking back here to give my perspective as a means of influencing the collective INTJ portrayal.
</big words>

[Quinault NDN]

We are in agreement then. Said different ways but to me sees samesies.

I say: I would counter that there are instances where it is ethical for someone to present the idea that your "values" are harmful, thus giving you an understanding that what you are doing causes harm.

You say: You can certainly try to change someone's mind that not recycling harms the environment, and you could be quite forceful, and it is not manipulative because you are only stating something correct/incorrect.

I say: Coerce is probably the word that will always be the fail though

You say: But you have no right to tell someone how to run their lives by saying they should recycle

I will say that I interpreted the question as "telling people" as in everyone
you went to specifics as in "telling a person or individual"

On the Side and IMO: Interpersonal communication is difficult. Sometimes individuals speak in terms of absolutes because they operate from a principle that when they say "You must" it is understood that this is "unenforceable" and not meant as a literal attempt to coerice. I think maturity and practice in social situations makes this "rude" behavior more obvious to those who behave in such a manner. I find that I enjoy people who can speak with passion and conviction though because it is refreshing from everyday apathy.

[calliope]

We are in agreement then. Said different ways but to me sees samesies.

I say: I would counter that there are instances where it is ethical for someone to present the idea that your "values" are harmful, thus giving you an understanding that what you are doing causes harm.

You say: You can certainly try to change someone's mind that not recycling harms the environment, and you could be quite forceful, and it is not manipulative because you are only stating something correct/incorrect.

I say: Coerce is probably the word that will always be the fail though

You say: But you have no right to tell someone how to run their lives by saying they should recycle

I will say that I interpreted the question as "telling people" as in everyone
you went to specifics as in "telling a person or individual"

On the Side and IMO: Interpersonal communication is difficult. Sometimes individuals speak in terms of absolutes because they operate from a principle that when they say "You must" it is understood that this is "unenforceable" and not meant as a literal attempt to coerice. I think maturity and practice in social situations makes this "rude" behavior more obvious to those who behave in such a manner. I find that I enjoy people who can speak with passion and conviction though because it is refreshing from everyday apathy.

I am sorry, I got too loose in my words. What I mean is if you present your ideas that recycling is harmful, do you get angry at them when they don't do it, and do you feel justified in being angry.

That is a personal test to see if you think others should adopt your values, emphasis on "should." If you are angry and feel that it is justified that they are not adopting your values, you are believing that your values are superior to theirs.

We use this concept in law. We don't want a leader deciding what is best for us because we know people are naturally biased. Just because you think it will help someone doesn't mean it is good for them. Laws are enacted because all of us have the tendency to think we know best for others. Each will naturally believe their values are more important than others'. That's why we don't try to impose our values on others.

There is actually a clear line between trying to influence and covertly or overtly manipulating. Most people believe in respecting others' values because we are aware of the natural wish to see things through our own perspective and wish to keep others' bias out of our personal lives.

[lirulin]

Most people believe in respecting others' values because we are aware of the natural wish to see things through our own perspective and wish to keep others' bias out of our personal lives.

I think you may be an optimist here. I share the opinion that it is better to have that respect, but on a certain level I think it can be more natural for Fi than Fe. Since Fi automatically recognises others have different values and Fe...doesn't so much.

Since I doubt we'll get a real answer, something that was hinted at in another thread:

If one uses Te/Ti as an analogy - imperfect but possibly illustrative. With Te I can apparently give the impression to a Ti of "imposing" on their "internal reality" with "my internal reality." When for me it is not competing internal realities - there is the one that is right there *points* and how is it an imposition simply to point it out? (Manipulating a person into seeing, yes, is crap. However it was pointed out that not stating every single sensible working hypothesis you use can seem 'manipulative' to Ti, as if one was trying to slip those by or something.) It seems from some of the discussions that Fe has a similar thing going on - in discussions with other INFJs they mentioned that they had no real sense of ownership re their values, they don't feel they are their own but that they are outside, even 'objective.' In the past I was annoyed by Ti since 'my own reality' just looked like embracing bias and almost ignoring THE reality. It still annoys me but not like that anymore, not now that I read about mbti and know what Ti and Te are. With Fe, perhaps, Fi looks like abstaining from THE values, which would be probably something people would be more likely to attack someone for - dangerous! values vs ignorance. One would hope, though, that a better understanding of Fi and types would help them back the fuck off when they mature a little more.

[birdflyaway]

Thanks for everyone's answers. *scratching chin* I can disagree with someone else's value system and still not consider them ignorant, because I know we all have our blind spots, and "types of intelligence"/"types of wisdom", and moreover, learning is a lifelong process, and we adapt our value systems to incorporate new knowledge (that is not stupid - I consider it smart). It is just about choices and I would never consider myself so evolved that my opinions could not change. Depending on one's perspective, a stance could be stupid or it could be wise. From one pov, committing a crime would be stupid (you might be caught, thrown in jail, ruin your life). From another, however, it would be smart (leaking information that shouldn't be kept from the public, for instance, if you think the established order needs bringing down because it is utterly corrupt).

INTJs are less likely to passionately defend a value system and more likely to advocate the idea that people who don't share their own are somehow less intelligent, then unplug because it is not worth their time to debate something they have already made their minds up on.

So when INTJs DO change their opinions, then, what sorts of things will do it? If an INTJ has discounted the validity of information supporting a thesis he/she did not agree with previously, then what sort of new information would be deemed valid enough to sway the INTJ into considering that the thesis has merit? Especially if consensus-reality SJ establishment thinking is not something automatically lend unquestioning validity TO (so...does peer review do it for us ;) )?