Okay so I made a main post about why its difficult to type anybody, and that covers a lot of the main points, but now I want to get specific to INTPs, since I am one, and I confidently mistyped myself for so long.
Somehow, we manage to really elude people's understanding, especially us female ones, so I'll also address some gender differences. Feel free to just scroll to the parts that interest you.
INTPs and the J/P Scale ::: ENTPs who think they are INTPs/INTPs expected to be ENTPs or ISFJs
I'm pretty sure a lot of INTPs get mistyped as other things in both real life and fiction, but we're out there more than people realize. Our stereotype seems to be a combination of the ISFJ and the ENTP, because people overlook a simple fact: we are dominant judgers. We're actually pretty serious, and structured, even if this structure isn't applied to the outside world. In fact, it is that simple fact that makes live so damned hard for IxxPs in general. Our sense of structure is internal, and so we need to order most aspects of our internal lives to suit our own personal methods. Having our introverted judging function as our dominant function means that this is the very most important thing to us, but of course the external world does not bend to our will, and often won't leave us alone in general. This can make us kind of cynical, actually, and no matter how friendly we seem on the surface, it is easy to upset this balance.
An easy way to tell INTP vs ENTP is that most INTPs have absolutely no doubt they are introverts. ENTPs are the ones who are closer to the I/E line.
Female INTPs ::: INTPs expected to be INFPs or ISFJs
WE EXIST. Maybe not in fiction, but we're here in real life! I promise! People type Luna Lovegood as an INTP, I guess, but I'm not too sure about that. Anyway. Because we're so rare and unassuming, though, people get mad when they realize we aren't ISFJs or INFPs. Although female INFPs don't seem to be any better liked than we are (<3 kindred spirits), they are indeed more expected than female INTPs. They also show up in movies and TV shows a lot more. But that is beside the point.
Basically, people think we should be feelers. When we get dramatic or frustrated, then we become INFPs in everyone's eyes. When we are good, people notice the functions and expect us to behave like SFJs. Little Snow Whites and such. But we aren't. So when we act out against that Fe because we're tired and want to be left alone, it is decided that we are bitches. When guys behave the same way, it is just "boys being boys". I'm not a modern feminist or anything, but I definitely get frustrated at certain expectations placed on gender roles. We can't even be "one of the guys" because we lack the Se - we're in our heads. So as much as I love INFPs and ISFJs, I am not one of them and would like to be respected for my thinks, and not have so much feeliness expected of me. </rant>
INTP Emotions ::: INTP vs INFP
INTPs can get emotional too. It is just our weakness. We definitely experience them on a daily basis, and they do in fact affect us, though being inferior AND Fe, we don't really connect to them very well. As a writer, its easier for me to explain sensory detail, thought processes, and sterile action than to explain how anyone feels deep down. At least not without feeling corny about it. An INFP would be less likely to explain logical planning and plotting, and far better at the internal feels. It can be hard to tell either type apart, on occasion though, because the Fe and Te of each type ought to have similar placings.
A few ways to tell us apart:
-INFPs speak their mind more than INTPs
-INTPs use their internal sense of logic and order to create their moral perspective. INFPs use their internal sense of what is right and wrong to help them develop a sense of order. I think. I'm not an INFP so its a little hard for me to get Fi.
-INFPs wear their "drama" on their sleeve. INTPs internalize it/don't realize it, until they have a massive outburst of frustration, as could be seen in the new Star Trek series with Spock (new Spock is an INTP - old Spock was an INTJ).
-INTPs expect society to be socially accepting of their own personal brand of logic, while INFPs expect society to be ordered to accept their own personal brand of values.
Both types can be very creative, and get excited about ideas. Neither likes getting out much on average and typically does so out of obligation. The outside world severely interferes with our internal structure.
Te on the INTP ::: INTPs Mistyped as INTJs
INTPs are actually very prone to use their Te, especially males. I find it so depressing that one of our token fanable INTPs, Dr. Gregory House, is so often mistyped as an INTJ. He is an INTP, through and through. There's no way that man uses tertiary Fi. He's just one example however. INTPs can actually be extremely J-ish, if given the chance, and if encouraged, we will learn to speak our minds (Te). When we are able to structure things to our liking, as Ti enjoys doing, we can become rather organized in many ways, and very confident, even if unfriendly. INTPs prefer this side of themselves, actually. When we use it in conjunction with our Ti, it means we are able to stand up for ourselves better, and not get quite as pushed around by social expectations as we would otherwise, and therefore are able to accomplish more and from there, be better respected.
I think a lot of guys mistype themselves as INTJs because they are able to be structured and organized more than the average, socially frustrated INTP.
The easiest way to tell an INTJ and an INTP apart is to determine whether the preference is for Si or Fi. One should be easily identified, while the other more or less shunned.
Intuition on the ISTP ::: ISTPs Mistyped as INTPs
ISTPs are commonly mistaken for INTPs. This seems to be pretty prevalent in fiction, where everyone is grasping around to find their token INTP computer geek in the story, but honestly: INTPs seem to get bored of computers, actually. I've met more S-type programmers than Ns. Once an INTP has solved how the programming works, we're done and ready to move on, unless we need it for some more abstract project or puzzle. And then it is a tool, not an interest. INTPs are also very big-picture oriented. We get our ideas, and then the details are just a means to create the larger idea we already have. ISTPs are more likely to just start doing it.
ISTPs can also mistype themselves as INTPs due to their overuse of Ni, but Ni is a more directed and focused function than Ne, and of course for them it really is overshadowed by Se, even if the user forgets to indulge in their Se. For example, an ISTP scientist will value kinesthetic work, in which they get to touch and especially DO something in the field, or something tangible. INTPs prefer to work with the intangible, and theoretical ideas. Touching things is nice, but we'd rather be wherever is most comfortable and least distracting so we can go mad-scientist on whatever it is we are trying to accomplish. INTPs also look a lot more random than ISTPs, to everyone who isn't an NP (it'd be harder for a fellow NP to recognize the randomness ;P)
Male INFJs thinking they are INTPs ::: Female INTPs thinking they are INFJs
This is the trap I fell into. Partly due to HSP, but I'll address the main part of this mistype now. INFJs and INTPs have a lot in common. Functionally, we are the only introverted Ns that use Fe/Ti. We are often considered good relationship matches.
Lets start with the boys. INFJs are already prone to delve deep into their tertiary function, Ti. It seems, in fact that Ti and Ni have an affinity for each other, causing one to seek out the other if possible. This can create a rather scientific feel on an INFJ, despite them being auxiliary Fe users. Because females tend to use more feels and males tend to use more thinks, it is easy for a male INFJ to think he might be an INTP. He feels he is analytical enough, and although he might come off as serious toward others, inwardly, he feels as though he relates to the INTPs supposed sense of humor that is often described. Being a dominant Ni user, he relates well to Ne, also.
Now for the girls. INTPs tend to take life more seriously than people generally expect, especially females who do not feel recognized for their prowess of the brain and might feel as though they have something to prove. In this way, we relate to the serious undertones of the INFJ description, and might even resonate with their relationship to Fe. Mistaking Ti for Ni, we might pursue this route, wondering why everyone thinks we are rude, when we feel as though we ought to be coming off as wise. We don't entirely relate to the other INFJs and their fluffy-cuddly-feely posts, but maybe we're just in better touch with our tertiary Ti. But that is not the case, O Female INTP. You'd have to be quite the evil INFJ to think of something that rude to say.
An easy way to tell between an INFJ and an INTP is whether the user recognizes Si.
Another note: Ne users connect faster to others over shared ideas; Se users connect faster to others by shared activities. Over time, Ne users tap into their Si and wish to have shared activities while Se users over time would tap into their Ni and care more about shared ideas, though the Ne still prioritizes ideas over activity and Se the other way around. Js will make this switch faster and more strongly than Ps.
Heartless INTPs ::: Our ENTJ Shadow
Contrary to the goofy exterior everyone thinks we also have underneath, we're actually kind of similar to ENTJs in several ways. ENTJs are our shadows. This means, we share none of the same functions. INTP functions are like this:
Ti>Ne>Si>Fe
And then ENTJ:
Te>Ni>Se>Fi
Because of this, we are very different, but note that all of the functions are in the same order:
T>N>S>F
So we may or may not feel similar to the ENTJ, but if anything, we get along quite well with them. I surprised everyone I knew in college by marrying one, even though I'm pretty sure I looked like... something else. Certainly not inferior feels. Anyway, some INTPs can behave simiilarly as well. This is because when looking at dominant functions, the INTP will understand Te very well, while the ENTJ will understand Ti really well.
The main note I'd like to make here, however, is this: ENTJs are harsh on the outside (Te) but mushy on the inside (Fi). INTPs are squishy and fun on the outside (Fe) but can be very cold and hard on the inside (Ti). But we still have feels. I promise. It is just a lot harder to bring them out than it is on the ENTJ, because we don't even notice them half the time.
HSP on an INTP
INTPs are not commonly known to be HSPs, but just because it made such a huge difference for me, I feel like I should address it. HSP means "Highly Sensitive Person" and refers to a phenomenon in which certain people receive too much sensory stimuli. It is said to affect approximately 15-20% of the population, and about 70% of those are introverts, but most of them seem to be INFxs.
How HSP affected me as an INTP:
-Increased Si ~ I seem to have really oddly high Si sometimes. Like, other INTPs seem to enjoy atmospheres, but I'm so particular about creating them that I go on cleaning frenzies once or twice a month so I can arrange my house/room to have a specific atmosphere I like. If I could, I'd be able to rearrange it between various sci-fi, fantasy and cultural feels, but I can't because that would require money. So it remains slightly multicultural/fantasy and cozy because I need that cozy more than I need the sci-fi.
-Seemingly Increased Fe ~ I can tell that my Fe isn't that good still, but I *seem* to have it well-developed from my perspective. Anyone who knows me well would know that isn't true, but I thought it was for quite some time, hah. I have a lot of empathy for people to the point where I almost can be NF-Idealist about it and I can get up-in-arms about injustice. HSP makes it so that I don't have to actually experience something physically to experience it emotionally. However, I still put logic, efficiency above harmony in regards to priorities and thus it is easy to tell I'm actually inferior feels. I do happen to act on harmony more often than logic or efficiency however, because it is simply easier and I tire quickly.
-Hypochondria ~ I sometimes end up running through a million reasons (Ne) why I might be sick from something because of some little detail of my body that drives me insane. HSP increases one's bodily awareness, which Si did already as well. Worse yet, tert Si users aren't very good at taking care of themselves, so I have trouble drinking enough water, getting enough sleep, eating appropriate types and amounts of foods (sometimes I'll eat too little and other times too much), so I often think maybe I caused a problem myself. Now that I can logically deduce I'm overreacting, its not so bad, but when I get stressed out it can take over.
-Hyper-Introversion ~ I'm not actually any more introverted than the next INTP, but I have more trouble being out of my house because people disturb my required peace intake for the day :[ I need darker, quieter, calmer atmospheres than most. What is just a bright light to one person, is a supernova in my face. What is just a loud noise to someone, is nails on a chalkboard. What is just background noise is a cacophony to me. I need to have my space to recollect and recharge before having to get back out. I'd be happy to not leave my house for more than 4 hours a day, and then I could maybe tack on 2 hours worth of socialization at my house (but not over the phone - I despise phones). I also suck at multitasking. I'm supposed to be good at it because I'm a girl, but I'm not. I'm just not. I hate multitasking. It is extraordinarily overwhelming, particularly social multitasking. If I'm not being forced to respond to anything, then fine, but otherwise I need to be left alone to complete a task.
-HSP Differences ~ I don't fit the HSP description perfectly, and many of us won't. Here are my differences.
>HSPs are supposed to also be more attuned to their surroundings due to the stimulation, and I am in certain ways, but overall not really. Like I said in regards to hyper-introversion, I do seem to hear/taste/see things more strongly, but I don't really notice the minute details of the room all that quickly. Or if I do, I don't say anything and forget that I did. But, INTPs have almost no Se, so that wouldn't exactly make the strongest impression either.
>HSPs are supposed to have trouble with violence. I'm not too crazy about action movies, but mainly because of the noise and I tend to zone out and have trouble keeping up with the plot, and then the INTP issue of it simply not being that engaging to me compared to something more cerebral. I do have issues with guts. I hate seeing or even thinking about guts being removed from one's body. But blood doesn't bother me, nor even impalement. Its more the removal of parts of the body that should remain there.
>I don't avoid emotionally engaging things. I seek them out. HSPs typically avoid it because it makes them upset. I'm still trying to figure out why I like things that make me upset, but I do. Sometimes I'm even relieved after fighting with a friend. Its very strange. I just channel it into a story I'm going to write, and I am suddenly at home.
>I've never noticed a correlation between caffeine and my body at all. It does seem to make me move physically faster, but not mentally. HSPs are supposed to be strongly affected by caffeine. I don't seem to be affected much at all.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Common Reasons for MBTI Personality Theory Mistyping and Difficulties with Typing
It seems like there are a lot of reasons people mistype themselves or others, and I thought I'd provide as best a guide as I could to reasons that I have encountered thus far.
Introverts and J-P Preference
In MBTI theory, IxxPs are dominant judging types while IxxJs are dominant perceiving types. This can cause a lot of confusion. Judging versus perceiving is not a debate between whether someone is organized or not. It determines which of your top two functions is extroverted. For introverts, this is always the auxiliary function, and not the dominant, and so an IxxP can appear more adaptable and an IxxJ more structured, but underneath that outer shell, IxxJs can be quite adaptable and IxxPs can be very structured.
Male Fs and Female Ts
It does seem that when I skim the "what's my type" forum, most people like to guess men as Ts and women as Fs. Sometimes, even the poster is quite certain and later discovers they may have been wrong. There are plenty of male Fs and female Ts, however. Although it probably IS most common for a woman to be a feeler and a man to be a thinker, it is not always the case and male feelers will still use their thinking function more than a female of their same type, and vice versa for a female thinker.
HSP and Other Psychological Contributions
HSP is one of the reasons I originally mistyped myself. I was absolutely certain I was an INFJ for months, until I realized that I really couldn't possibly be an auxiliary feeler. I just thought I was because I can't help but cry at things normal people don't cry at, and I feel stuff so strongly, etc. Anyway, HSP is the only one of these I know well, but it makes one very sensitive to stimuli, and in turn, sensitive in general. Ts can be strongly moved by this and thus mistype themselves as Fs, or confuse themselves in regards to their sensing functions, which can be affected by HSP (typically, both Se and Si appear to be heightened). Sometimes, HSP can also make an extrovert believe they might be introverted.
Liking People and Extroversion
Just because you like people doesn't make you an extrovert. Introverts can like people just as much as extroverts. We just can't handle as many of them. Also, extroverts can very much dislike people.
Liking People and F-ness
Just because you like people doesn't make you an F. T types can love people too. I love people. I just don't want them around me all the time, and my emotional approach to them is admittedly shallower than a feeler's would be. Meanwhile, plenty of Fs can also dislike people if they have lost their ability to trust them.
Introverted Perceiving Functions and Perceiving Types
Introverted functions (Si and Ni) are difficult to define, and can sometimes be confused with other things. For example, I as an INTP might relate to Ni and Si, because I am an intuitive type, and because I use Si. An ESFP might feel like they related to both as well, because they would use Ni and because they are a sensing type (though it is thankfully more difficult to confuse Se and Si than Ne and Ni).
Dominant-Tertiary Loops
Every type can get stuck in a loop using their dominant and tertiary functions, and skipping their auxiliary. I'll label each loop:
INTP - Ti/Si
INTJ - Ni/Fi
INFP - Fi/Si
INFJ - Ni/Ti
ISTP - Ti/Ni
ISTJ - Si/Fi
ISFP - Fi/Ni
ISFJ - Si/Ti
ENTP - Ne/Fe
ENTJ - Te/Se
ENFP - Ne/Te
ENFJ - Fe/Se
ESTP - Se/Fe
ESTJ - Te/Ne
ESFP - Se/Te
ESFJ - Fe/Ne
So take an ENFP, for example. Their loop is Ne/Te. An ENFP stuck in a loop might appear very similar to an ENTP overall, however if one pays attention to their functions, it should become clear if the ENP is using Te or Ti. ENFPs in this loop could be highly abrasive and easy to rile up about emotional topics, but may seem to take more practical approaches to life than what one would expect.
Auxiliary-Inferior Loop
Similarly to Dom-Tert loops, I'm pretty certain someone can seem to fall in an auxiliary-inferior loop. This one is a little different than the dom-tert, because it is difficult particularly for introverts to not notice that they are behaving strangely and out-of-character. Introverts will get tired using their auxiliary and inferior functions so often, and then go home and retreat into their introverted functions.
What is happening here, usually, is usually an introvert attempting to be an extrovert. I'm not sure how/if this happens with extroverts yet, but I'm sure it can. I have yet to see an example, however, so I'm going to use myself. I am an INTP, however in high school, someone might have thought I was an ESFJ or maybe an ENTP. I appeared to use far more Ne/Fe than I actually feel equipped to use, and then came home and dwelt in my Ti/Si for the rest of the day (which my mom hated, hah). This loop is less common, but it can occur, especially in teen years when someone is still developing and experimenting with their weaker functions.
Relationship Influences
Some types may be heavily influenced by the other types around them. For example, someone else I once knew was also an INTP, however she and I are quite different. She is the only strong Ti user in her family, and therefore has a very Te sense of humor. I, on the other hand, was raised by an ISFJ father and had strong ENTP influences in my mother and brother. This provided a stronger preference for Ne and Fe than other INTPs might have. I still enjoy Te humor although my family doesn't, but there is no doubt in me that my Fe especially, was affected by my family.
Also, because I was so encouraged by my mom and brother to get out and be friendly with people, I did so (and over-exhausted myself in the process) and now many of my past high school friends are left with a very extroverted, airheaded, and friendly image of me.
Circumstantial Influences
People fail to realize that ENTPs, for example, CAN plan, even if they are not always inclined to. My mom makes plans all the time, and they are usually very detailed. She rarely follows through, but she DOES plan. Furthermore, an ENTP might be raised to need to plan, and thus have skills that would appear just as natural on them as on an ENTJ.
ISs and Extroversion versus Introversion
ISs are often mistaken for extroverts by others, because ISPs like to get out and do stuff, and ISJs can be very outspoken (ISTJ) or very social (ISFJ). Not all introverts like staying at home or doing quiet brain things like us INs.
SJs and Imagination or Quirkiness
I remember early on, reading descriptions of SJs and thinking how dull they all sounded. But then I found them in real life, and I've discovered that SJs are actually quite quirky and often very imaginative. My father exhibits a punny humor that can be attributed at least partly to Ne. Another SJ I know collects socks and scarves, and writes stories with some of the most entertaining premises I've ever heard, and another friend makes jewelry, cooks, acts, and writes creatively. They are always described to be practical, but I would revise that to say that they are simply more concerned with the here and now, physical and/or present concerns.
ENs and Extroversion versus Introversion
Almost every EN I know has thought they were an introvert at one time or another. Especially ENTs. This is probably because the stereotypical extrovert is an ES. ENTPs are particularly easy to drain, as their dominant function (Ne) is very cerebral, rather than physically active, and Ti finds humans inefficient and in the way. ENTPs who mistype themselves as introverts often mistake INTPs as broken versions of themselves, who simply never learned to socialize. But, if ENTPs are so quickly drained by social interaction, I'm sure you can imagine INTPs are even more so. ENTJs are also rather prone to believing themselves to be introverted, as well as some ENFPs. I haven't met as many ENFJs like this, though I think ENDJs are easy to mistake for introverts looking in from outside.
S-types, F-types and Intelligence
It should go without saying, but this kind of discrimination still happens on a subconscious level, I think. I've known many ST programmers (I think programming actually bores a lot of NTPs) and every SF in my life is well-spoken. Many are actually very intellectual. In fact, my grandfather is an ESFJ and my husband an ENTJ. My grandfather reads much, much more.
And many a feeler will passionately assure you using lovely words that they are indeed very smart. If you are trying to type someone you know to be intelligent, don't immediately shun the idea that they might be an S or an F.
Thinkers and Creativity
People tend to be mistaken in thinking that if you are creative, you must be a feeler because you put emotion into your work. This is by no means true, and I'm pretty sure anyone who consciously thinks about it comes to the same conclusion. Many famous artists have been thinkers. I'd like to take a moment to brag that INTPs make up a large number of famous creative peoples. I also know other T-type individuals that are quite creative - INTJs, ISTJs, other INTPs, ISTPs, ENTPs.... pretty much any T-type has the capacity. These people write stories, make jewelry, decorate food, make music, and everything else.
Introverts and J-P Preference
In MBTI theory, IxxPs are dominant judging types while IxxJs are dominant perceiving types. This can cause a lot of confusion. Judging versus perceiving is not a debate between whether someone is organized or not. It determines which of your top two functions is extroverted. For introverts, this is always the auxiliary function, and not the dominant, and so an IxxP can appear more adaptable and an IxxJ more structured, but underneath that outer shell, IxxJs can be quite adaptable and IxxPs can be very structured.
Male Fs and Female Ts
It does seem that when I skim the "what's my type" forum, most people like to guess men as Ts and women as Fs. Sometimes, even the poster is quite certain and later discovers they may have been wrong. There are plenty of male Fs and female Ts, however. Although it probably IS most common for a woman to be a feeler and a man to be a thinker, it is not always the case and male feelers will still use their thinking function more than a female of their same type, and vice versa for a female thinker.
HSP and Other Psychological Contributions
HSP is one of the reasons I originally mistyped myself. I was absolutely certain I was an INFJ for months, until I realized that I really couldn't possibly be an auxiliary feeler. I just thought I was because I can't help but cry at things normal people don't cry at, and I feel stuff so strongly, etc. Anyway, HSP is the only one of these I know well, but it makes one very sensitive to stimuli, and in turn, sensitive in general. Ts can be strongly moved by this and thus mistype themselves as Fs, or confuse themselves in regards to their sensing functions, which can be affected by HSP (typically, both Se and Si appear to be heightened). Sometimes, HSP can also make an extrovert believe they might be introverted.
Liking People and Extroversion
Just because you like people doesn't make you an extrovert. Introverts can like people just as much as extroverts. We just can't handle as many of them. Also, extroverts can very much dislike people.
Liking People and F-ness
Just because you like people doesn't make you an F. T types can love people too. I love people. I just don't want them around me all the time, and my emotional approach to them is admittedly shallower than a feeler's would be. Meanwhile, plenty of Fs can also dislike people if they have lost their ability to trust them.
Introverted Perceiving Functions and Perceiving Types
Introverted functions (Si and Ni) are difficult to define, and can sometimes be confused with other things. For example, I as an INTP might relate to Ni and Si, because I am an intuitive type, and because I use Si. An ESFP might feel like they related to both as well, because they would use Ni and because they are a sensing type (though it is thankfully more difficult to confuse Se and Si than Ne and Ni).
Dominant-Tertiary Loops
Every type can get stuck in a loop using their dominant and tertiary functions, and skipping their auxiliary. I'll label each loop:
INTP - Ti/Si
INTJ - Ni/Fi
INFP - Fi/Si
INFJ - Ni/Ti
ISTP - Ti/Ni
ISTJ - Si/Fi
ISFP - Fi/Ni
ISFJ - Si/Ti
ENTP - Ne/Fe
ENTJ - Te/Se
ENFP - Ne/Te
ENFJ - Fe/Se
ESTP - Se/Fe
ESTJ - Te/Ne
ESFP - Se/Te
ESFJ - Fe/Ne
So take an ENFP, for example. Their loop is Ne/Te. An ENFP stuck in a loop might appear very similar to an ENTP overall, however if one pays attention to their functions, it should become clear if the ENP is using Te or Ti. ENFPs in this loop could be highly abrasive and easy to rile up about emotional topics, but may seem to take more practical approaches to life than what one would expect.
Auxiliary-Inferior Loop
Similarly to Dom-Tert loops, I'm pretty certain someone can seem to fall in an auxiliary-inferior loop. This one is a little different than the dom-tert, because it is difficult particularly for introverts to not notice that they are behaving strangely and out-of-character. Introverts will get tired using their auxiliary and inferior functions so often, and then go home and retreat into their introverted functions.
What is happening here, usually, is usually an introvert attempting to be an extrovert. I'm not sure how/if this happens with extroverts yet, but I'm sure it can. I have yet to see an example, however, so I'm going to use myself. I am an INTP, however in high school, someone might have thought I was an ESFJ or maybe an ENTP. I appeared to use far more Ne/Fe than I actually feel equipped to use, and then came home and dwelt in my Ti/Si for the rest of the day (which my mom hated, hah). This loop is less common, but it can occur, especially in teen years when someone is still developing and experimenting with their weaker functions.
Relationship Influences
Some types may be heavily influenced by the other types around them. For example, someone else I once knew was also an INTP, however she and I are quite different. She is the only strong Ti user in her family, and therefore has a very Te sense of humor. I, on the other hand, was raised by an ISFJ father and had strong ENTP influences in my mother and brother. This provided a stronger preference for Ne and Fe than other INTPs might have. I still enjoy Te humor although my family doesn't, but there is no doubt in me that my Fe especially, was affected by my family.
Also, because I was so encouraged by my mom and brother to get out and be friendly with people, I did so (and over-exhausted myself in the process) and now many of my past high school friends are left with a very extroverted, airheaded, and friendly image of me.
Circumstantial Influences
People fail to realize that ENTPs, for example, CAN plan, even if they are not always inclined to. My mom makes plans all the time, and they are usually very detailed. She rarely follows through, but she DOES plan. Furthermore, an ENTP might be raised to need to plan, and thus have skills that would appear just as natural on them as on an ENTJ.
ISs and Extroversion versus Introversion
ISs are often mistaken for extroverts by others, because ISPs like to get out and do stuff, and ISJs can be very outspoken (ISTJ) or very social (ISFJ). Not all introverts like staying at home or doing quiet brain things like us INs.
SJs and Imagination or Quirkiness
I remember early on, reading descriptions of SJs and thinking how dull they all sounded. But then I found them in real life, and I've discovered that SJs are actually quite quirky and often very imaginative. My father exhibits a punny humor that can be attributed at least partly to Ne. Another SJ I know collects socks and scarves, and writes stories with some of the most entertaining premises I've ever heard, and another friend makes jewelry, cooks, acts, and writes creatively. They are always described to be practical, but I would revise that to say that they are simply more concerned with the here and now, physical and/or present concerns.
ENs and Extroversion versus Introversion
Almost every EN I know has thought they were an introvert at one time or another. Especially ENTs. This is probably because the stereotypical extrovert is an ES. ENTPs are particularly easy to drain, as their dominant function (Ne) is very cerebral, rather than physically active, and Ti finds humans inefficient and in the way. ENTPs who mistype themselves as introverts often mistake INTPs as broken versions of themselves, who simply never learned to socialize. But, if ENTPs are so quickly drained by social interaction, I'm sure you can imagine INTPs are even more so. ENTJs are also rather prone to believing themselves to be introverted, as well as some ENFPs. I haven't met as many ENFJs like this, though I think ENDJs are easy to mistake for introverts looking in from outside.
S-types, F-types and Intelligence
It should go without saying, but this kind of discrimination still happens on a subconscious level, I think. I've known many ST programmers (I think programming actually bores a lot of NTPs) and every SF in my life is well-spoken. Many are actually very intellectual. In fact, my grandfather is an ESFJ and my husband an ENTJ. My grandfather reads much, much more.
And many a feeler will passionately assure you using lovely words that they are indeed very smart. If you are trying to type someone you know to be intelligent, don't immediately shun the idea that they might be an S or an F.
Thinkers and Creativity
People tend to be mistaken in thinking that if you are creative, you must be a feeler because you put emotion into your work. This is by no means true, and I'm pretty sure anyone who consciously thinks about it comes to the same conclusion. Many famous artists have been thinkers. I'd like to take a moment to brag that INTPs make up a large number of famous creative peoples. I also know other T-type individuals that are quite creative - INTJs, ISTJs, other INTPs, ISTPs, ENTPs.... pretty much any T-type has the capacity. These people write stories, make jewelry, decorate food, make music, and everything else.
So if you're having difficulty typing yourself or someone else, or are second-guessing someone's type, hopefully this should help you pick things apart.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Reintroduction
I'm going to reintroduce myself. I've done a lot of pointless rambling on my blog and dabbled in a few political posts, but honestly I'd rather stay out of the political scene (for the most part). I'll keep the good posts I've made up, but hopefully I can keep from going on too many passionate rants. I'm pretty sure no one really follows my blog too carefully, but if you have been stalking it despite the lack of recent posts, you might notice I cleaned things up a little. I left the posts I thought were interesting or well-written (enough) behind and now I hope to be a little more organized and focused.
The things I'd rather talk about on here are as follows:
Christianity
Personality Type Theory (MBTI only at the moment)
Writing
Connections between the those three things
I don't really write all that much about writing, but I was going back through some of my old stuff, and I finally feel confident that I'm a pretty good writer. I'm not anything extraordinary, but I can write pretty damn well when my brain is up to it. I'd actually like to talk a lot more about "the writing life". Currently, mine is in its fetus phases still seeing how I haven't published anything, but there is definitely still plenty to talk about.
Regarding Personality Type Theory: I'd actually rather have a youtube channel, but I know sitting down and making myself look nice enough to film won't happen, and if that won't happen, then I also won't spend the time to make the editing interesting. I'll have to work on that.
Anyway, I would like to teach a little about personality type theory, and particularly make sense of the INTP to other people, since that is what I am. Every type is fascinating in its own way, though, and the way they relate to each other is especially interesting.
I'll also no doubt post up some Biblical knowledge from time to time because I'll allow that to spill into whatever part of my life I want it to. I won't be forcing it though.
The things I'd rather talk about on here are as follows:
Christianity
Personality Type Theory (MBTI only at the moment)
Writing
Connections between the those three things
I don't really write all that much about writing, but I was going back through some of my old stuff, and I finally feel confident that I'm a pretty good writer. I'm not anything extraordinary, but I can write pretty damn well when my brain is up to it. I'd actually like to talk a lot more about "the writing life". Currently, mine is in its fetus phases still seeing how I haven't published anything, but there is definitely still plenty to talk about.
Regarding Personality Type Theory: I'd actually rather have a youtube channel, but I know sitting down and making myself look nice enough to film won't happen, and if that won't happen, then I also won't spend the time to make the editing interesting. I'll have to work on that.
Anyway, I would like to teach a little about personality type theory, and particularly make sense of the INTP to other people, since that is what I am. Every type is fascinating in its own way, though, and the way they relate to each other is especially interesting.
I'll also no doubt post up some Biblical knowledge from time to time because I'll allow that to spill into whatever part of my life I want it to. I won't be forcing it though.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Worship.
wor·ship
ˈwərSHəp
noun
- 1.the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."the worship of God"
synonyms: reverence, veneration, adoration, glorification, glory, exaltation;
Today I was finally driven to write this. It has been irritating me for a couple of years now, but tonight on Good Friday it just hit me that I absolutely HAD to say something. I don't feel like worshipping at church.
Now I'm not trying to criticize my church - I would have left if I didn't like the church. Nor am I saying that I am entirely blameless. Of course I should be doing my best to connect with God on my own, and I don't need a band on a stage to tell me what to do. But, there's just something very wrong with worship at my church right now, and I can no longer stand it.
1. The songs are never the same
So some people may say, "I like to have new songs! It keeps things fresh and exciting!" But most of us just end up standing around mumbling and trying to keep up with the new words and new melodies. When I buy a new CD, it takes me at least a couple of days, if not a week or two before I know all of the words. And I usually listen to it over and over and over again within that time. I can't keep up with four new songs every week! Honestly, just ONE new song is enough for me, and considering the huge selection of worship songs we have that day, I don't think variety, freshness, or excitement will be a problem in considering which songs to make "the usual". Actually, I find it harder to get excited if I don't know the song.
Sure, tell me this is a matter of taste, but think about this: what if something happened to the church? What if everyone was stuck worshipping outside, or even in some basement or unfamiliar warehouse? Would we all know the same songs to sing? How long would that last?
I have attended Christian Fellowship Church for the better part of my life. Tonight, the only song I knew was "Nothing But the Blood". The worship team doesn't need to make a new album of songs every week. We just need to change it up sometimes.
2. It rarely, if ever, goes "old school", and doesn't branch out much
Why are we stuck in today? What about yesterday? Do none of those worship songs or styles apply any more? I don't even like eighties music, but I really strongly feel that the music we use to worship shouldn't be limited to one style or one era. No, there's nothing wrong with the songs we sing these days. They're good songs. But why throw out the old? It doesn't go "bad" with age. There's a reason that hymns are making a comeback in contemporary music. And no, of course most people (save my brother and probably some others) wouldn't want to go to church if they played metal for worship. But my favorite weeks have been these:
>when we sang "Jesus Freak" at the end and everyone was very involved
>when the drummer did a drum solo (though it should have been DURING worship)
>when some people were once refugees from Africa sang their traditional worship and led everyone to clap and dance along
>I absolutely love the Irish folk songs that we rip off of the Rend Collective Experiment.
>when worship played Trans Siberian Orchestra at the Christmas services.
Things like that really get me pumped up. Let's face it though: contemporary Christian music is nice and absolutely can be moving, but it usually isn't that powerful unless... we get excited. Which leads me to #3.
3. No one seems excited
I always thought the worshipping of God should be sort of like attending a rock concert. The music might not be as good, but despite the two complaints above, it can all be ignored if we are simply REVELING in God's presence. I mean, call me crazy, but when I'm hit with the Holy Spirit, I want to cry, I want to dance, I want to pace around and wave my hands like a crazy person as I talk out loud to myself about the wonderful thing I just realized. I don't do that in public - no worries - but it does happen when I'm at home. It should also be happening at church, at least to some degree.
For instance, observe these photos of a rock star from one of my favorite bands:
Jumping on stage while playing guitar and singing:
I'm not sure what he's doing specifically, but he looks very into whatever it is:
Probably singing higher than most girls:
No, I don't expect our worship leader to throw guitars, play three different instruments in the same song, or even jump in the air while singing (though I wouldn't mind any of that). As I stated, it isn't about the quality of the music. Its about the passion. Its about what the people are doing. The quality of the music is somewhat important - bad quality is distracting and good quality is inspiring - but what really sells the mood is passion.
So let me ask a few questions that might make some people unhappy, uncomfortable or defensive. Why is it that when I look up at our worship team, there are people standing off to the side with microphones, but I can't hear them? Why aren't they dancing? Why do they sometimes just look scared? Is no one teaching them to be leaders? What is their purpose for being there? It actually makes it worse. If the worship leader doesn't feel like they can play guitar, sing and dance all at the same time, I completely understand (though they should be conveying emotion, of course), but what are the other singers doing? If you are standing on stage, you should be DOING SOMETHING. If you're expressing yourself in song, then I want to HEAR IT. If not, then get MOVING. I don't like being harsh, especially because I don't want to get on stage, but if you are, then you are a leader, so LEAD!
Something I have learned over the past few years is that young people are fearful. Young people are afraid of being weird. Usually. Personally, I was more afraid of being noticed than being weird, but either way, when you are young, you don't want to be singled out. You don't want to be the person that others are pointing at - I mean, if you're the only person dancing to a song it feels really ridiculous, so why start? That's how it feels to be in a congregation that isn't being led to dance, to express, or to feel. Our worship "style" is making a generation of zombies at our church! We don't know how to dance any more! I can tell you that I certainly don't. And I'm afraid to. I can't keep a beat when I clap and sing at the same time - yeah, I'm that girl. That shouldn't stop me from worshipping, but I let it sometimes. This is because when I start trying to move with the hopes that others will move with me, I can only see how painfully STATIONARY everyone is. And I am an INTROVERT. I am extremely introverted, actually*. Why is it that I feel like I'm celebrating God amidst tombstones in a graveyard every Sunday morning?
I have spoken to more than one person from more than one age group that agrees with me on this. Actually, no one I've talked to is really happy with worship at my church the way it is, and these seem to be the main reasons. I love my church - I absolutely do - but this needs to change. I want to be on fire when I am at church on Sunday morning. Not hung up on new lyrics, new melodies, with the same old styles and little to no feeling in the air. I want leaders on stage. Every church should have real leaders during worship.
*This doesn't mean I don't like people, or that I'm shy and quiet. I'm actually sort of loud, these days. But you can look up information on that elsewhere. The main thing is that introverts are not known for being bold.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
America: The Land of the Fearful and Home of the Enslaved
Fear has controlled humans for thousands of years. In ancient times, we feared the dangers of nature, barbarians and gods. In the times of proper civilization however, we have created a new thing to fear: our leaders. We gave them everything to avoid pain and annihilation, but drunk with power they have betrayed us. Today, again, we are afraid. The religious, the spiritual and the faithful fear persecution. Libertarians and conservatives fear government violence and political silence. Liberals fear that if we are left unattended by government, then not even God will step in to care for the poor. The America we live in today is no longer the America that our forefathers died for and titled "the land of the free and the home of the brave." No: despite how we have flourished in the past hundred years, we are now slaves to fear, and bravery is arrested for trying.
How do I come to this conclusion? Easily: examples of control - the consequence of fear - are everywhere.* We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this list to get so long. We should be outraged at the people in our capital city. We should be sharpening our pitchforks. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.” Unfortunately the book was titled Common Sense, a principle abandoned by humans frequently throughout history. As a result of our fear, we elected temple robbers, fools, tax collectors (in the Biblical sense), and Pharaohs. Despite what is said in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, we have indeed bestowed royalty upon our governmental officials. Just look over the list I put at the end of the blog. In our bustle to throw our freedoms away, we have given so much power to Washington. Our fears have transformed the American people from a monument of courage and hope to ignorant sheep for shearing and greedy pigs for slaughter.
“Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.”
“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but
the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression.
Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa,
have long expelled her.?Europe regards her like a stranger, and England
hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in
time an asylum for mankind.”
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
― Thomas Paine, excerpts from Common Sense
How do I come to this conclusion? Easily: examples of control - the consequence of fear - are everywhere.* We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this list to get so long. We should be outraged at the people in our capital city. We should be sharpening our pitchforks. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.” Unfortunately the book was titled Common Sense, a principle abandoned by humans frequently throughout history. As a result of our fear, we elected temple robbers, fools, tax collectors (in the Biblical sense), and Pharaohs. Despite what is said in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, we have indeed bestowed royalty upon our governmental officials. Just look over the list I put at the end of the blog. In our bustle to throw our freedoms away, we have given so much power to Washington. Our fears have transformed the American people from a monument of courage and hope to ignorant sheep for shearing and greedy pigs for slaughter.
On the topic of fear, I think Franklin said it the best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Even though governments of the past have rarely been little more than black holes of arrogance and venal ambitions, we keep pushing to make them stronger. As a Christian, it especially pains me to see others of my faith shoveling their freedom into the pockets of others. 1 John 4:18 despises fear but pursues love, saying, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." God doesn't want us to fear**. As Christians, are we not then commanded to be brave? Even simply as Americans we have not only the right, but the constitutional responsibility to cast this oppressive leadership away. Thomas Jefferson (and several others) covered this basic right by announcing, “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” I find it very upsetting that we have used the excuse of fear to slip farther and farther into the control of others. In this fight, we cannot be fearful. We must restore our Constitution.
If we cannot be fearful, then the only option left is to be free. Fear creates chains, but the opposite of fear creates freedom. Perhaps a second revolution is at hand, before we are completely swallowed by history. We have teetered on the edge of oppression for too long. Remember the first Democratic president's words: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Where has the Democratic party put its honor? And what have the Republicans done to their logic? They direct us to increase their power, rather than to serve their nation. In this they undermine, devalue, and liquidate the principles our country was created to uphold. Personally, I am ashamed for not being outraged sooner. I am ashamed to have waited until today to write this. The America that was founded on July 4th, 1776 does not exist anymore, but I think it can again if we are willing to be brave and fight for it.
______________________________________________________
“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but
the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression.
Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa,
have long expelled her.?Europe regards her like a stranger, and England
hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in
time an asylum for mankind.”
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
― Thomas Paine, excerpts from Common Sense
______________________________________________________
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority .... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”
― Alexander Hamilton
"A government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master."
― George Washington
"A government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master."
― George Washington
______________________________________________________
*Some of the tools that are being used to control us ("some" being the key word):
- Your freedom of religion and freedom of speech are being oppressed: http://christiannews.net/2013/10/07/missouri-police-descend-upon-arrest-evangelists-preaching-gospel-in-public-square/
- The current administration has vindictively closed memorials and many national parks that require nothing to maintain. Here are two examples:
- Your WWII memorial: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/23579527/congress-members-make-sure-veterans-are-able-to-visit-memorials-closed-by-shutdown
- The Grand Canyon isn't "allowed" to reopen even though citizens have requested to run it privately, in order to maintain their small businesses: http://twitchy.com/2013/10/08/closed-for-king-obama-grand-canyon-business-owners-protest-shutdown/
- Moreover, the Grand Canyon that you technically own through the taxes that you are still paying, is so off-limits, that they'll cite you for visiting: http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/grand-canyon-cites-people-for-entering-closed-park/
- Obama calls himself your boss: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/08/obama_s_shutdown_analogies_a_complete_list_of_the_analogies_president_obama.html
- Meanwhile, the larger portion of the media continues to portray Obama as God, despite his extraordinarily low approval rating. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all See how they worship him? And see how he fails? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/09/shutdown-fallout-obama-approval-rating-slides-to-37-percent-n1720138
- GOP attacks Ted Cruz http://www.salon.com/2013/10/03/gop_senators_attack_ted_cruz/
- You know, there is another line on your ballots in which to write the name of any candidate you choose, even if they are not from a specific party. Elections were never meant to be like searching through the dumpster for a good piece of trash.
- How do you feel about the extraordinary breach of conduct by the media and the government to use children's deaths as tool to remove your second amendment right to defense against not only every day dangers, but also tyranny? http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
- The Patriot Act is an easy way for the government to have you arrested if they think you are a threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
- Are you aware of how many taxes have been added to fund failing government programs (remember the postal service and your last visit to the DMV)? How many more taxes can be imposed before your wallet starts to starve? http://m.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/washington%E2%80%99s-proposed-income-tax-will-stifle-econo
- In fact, the entire Devision of Motor Vehicles is a great way to control transportation of the population. Think about it: why do you need to register your car in order to use it? And why are you forced to purchase insurance? These are easy ways for the government to know what you are doing. No, they probably don't care about what you're doing with your life today, but what happens when you disagree with someone who has the power to stalk your everyday movements?
- Even seat belts are a sign of control. "Having liberty means that you have the right to take risks. You should be able to sky-dive, smoke a cigarette, drive without a seat belt, or drink a 20-oz soda (despite his excellency King Bloomberg’s wishes) if you so desire." - Gary Nolan
- How about our educational system? http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-liberals-think-being-educated-means-being-liberal/
- Obamacare is more of a punishment for being a citizen than a help to those in need. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/index.html
____________________________________________________
**for those of you thinking, "But the Bible says to fear God", the term used for a fear of God might be better translated as "awe" or "reverence". Fear of God does not denote dread or anxiety.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Hypocrisy: Pro-Choice and Gun Control
Hypocrisy is rampant in all politics these days. Sometimes people simply don't understand each other (see http://lookslikeiwin.blogspot.com/2013/02/guns-and-christianity.html) and sometimes it truly is mortifying to see how little people think. Two topics that I feel passionately about are abortion and gun control. These topics are mostly unrelated, except for one fundamental aspect: both deal with the subject of murder. It would frustrate me if liberals believed in abortion only, or gun control only, but the fact that they put both of them together seems very hypocritical. If I legally reserve the right to protect my way of life by killing an innocent fetus, I most definitely reserve the right to protect my body and my children by killing any government or individual attackers.
Whether you want to argue one way or the other is up to you, but you cannot argue both pro-gun control and pro-choice. I will not take you seriously. Regarding abortion, please first think this topic through. (1) It is undeniable that a fetus left alone to be born eventually becomes an individual with a right to life according to the government and the majority of humankind. (2) A fetus is indesputably a living organism. (3) It is undeniable that it is against the law and the majority of humankind to kill individuals outside of self-defense; this stands even if (a) they are unable to feel pain, (b) they are unconscious but will likely gain consciousness, (c) are underdeveloped in some way, or (d) cannot survive separately from another human. Regarding point (a), there are people who have nervous disorders and are unable to feel pain. These people are not considered inhuman. Regarding point (b), when someone is asleep, or knocked out they are unconscious. If someone suffers a brain injury they may be unconscious. If the individual is likely to awaken again, they are not killed, and they are always considered human. Regarding point (c), many children are born underdeveloped, and some people go through their whole lives with underdeveloped bodies due to medical problems. They are still considered to be human. Regarding point (d), a two year old is still too dependent to survive on its own, just like an unborn baby. Many individuals with medical problems are also too dependent to survive alone. These people are still considered to be human.
In the argument of abortion, the primary question is this: When does a fetus become a separate person from its mother? The government states that after 24 weeks, the fetus is considered its own child. This is because if the baby was removed from the mother, it could very possibly survive. Moreover, the neurological system is mostly intact now, and all that is left to do are some finishing touches. However, it cannot be argued that a complete neurological system is what makes a human. Clearly, there are many disorders that prevent a complete neurological system to develop. Babies start developing their brains on the fourth week of pregnancy, and it never stops developing until the child is over 20 years old. If the brain does not constitute individuality, then the only other options are consciousness, and being physically connected to the mother. Simply because someone is unconscious, does mean they are not an individual, so this argument is obviously irrelevant. The child will wake up some time. If I fell asleep and someone killed me in my sleep, they would not be able to justify it by saying, "What? She was just an unconscious, organized cluster of cells," despite the fact that the statement was true. Moreover, no one can prove when a fetus becomes a human child. As far as being connected to the mother, people seem to forget that before the baby could possibly start to develop, half of it had to come from a man's sperm. Seeing that it makes no sense to say that half of a baby belongs to the mother and half of it belongs to the father, it would only best conclude that the child belongs to itself and it has the right to live. This is the pro-life argument against pro-choice.
Whether you agree with any of the pro-life information I have presented or not, you must at least be open to the possibility that the child is alive, and is an individual separate from its mother. Personally, I think that if there is a mere possibility, then it should be considered as alive, but you do not need to agree with me. The issue I am currently addressing is the fact that many liberals (not all) believe in both abortion as well as gun control. Oftentimes, they believe in the removal of guns entirely. To those of us who believe that a fetus is an individual, it does not make sense to kill babies but not the one attacking our family, freedom or home. This is equivalent to saying that it is okay to make yourself comfortable, but don't defend yourself. It is like saying that any child is subject to anything its mother decides for it, no matter how terrible, and that we are subject to anything that any criminal or tyrannical government decides for us, no matter how terrible. I understand this logic if the goal is to destroy innocent people or to become a world power all by yourself, but that is not the goal of the people. (If it is the goal of anyone at all, I hope you are sterile and cannot obtain a weapon of any kind).
As a woman, I would like to carry a gun with me for defense. I am very far from having a fascination with guns (I find them to be boring weapons), and I certainly have no desire to murder anyone. Still, I would like to carry a gun for my own defense as well as my family's. There is nothing wrong with fighting back if I am attacked, and I want the best chance possible. I do not trust the world, and definitely not trust the government to protect me, as neither have proved to be effective throughout history. So whether you want to go the route that its okay to potentially kill someone for your own sake, or if you want to go the route where it is not okay to potentially kill anything on purpose, you must make a decision. You cannot argue that it is not okay for me to protect my life against an attacker, and then turn around and tell me that it is okay for us, who are supposed to protect our own kind, to kill a fetus that has any possibility of being considered a child.
**For those in favor of abortion, also think about adoption. Unless the mother's life is in danger, adoption is a fantastic option.**
Whether you want to argue one way or the other is up to you, but you cannot argue both pro-gun control and pro-choice. I will not take you seriously. Regarding abortion, please first think this topic through. (1) It is undeniable that a fetus left alone to be born eventually becomes an individual with a right to life according to the government and the majority of humankind. (2) A fetus is indesputably a living organism. (3) It is undeniable that it is against the law and the majority of humankind to kill individuals outside of self-defense; this stands even if (a) they are unable to feel pain, (b) they are unconscious but will likely gain consciousness, (c) are underdeveloped in some way, or (d) cannot survive separately from another human. Regarding point (a), there are people who have nervous disorders and are unable to feel pain. These people are not considered inhuman. Regarding point (b), when someone is asleep, or knocked out they are unconscious. If someone suffers a brain injury they may be unconscious. If the individual is likely to awaken again, they are not killed, and they are always considered human. Regarding point (c), many children are born underdeveloped, and some people go through their whole lives with underdeveloped bodies due to medical problems. They are still considered to be human. Regarding point (d), a two year old is still too dependent to survive on its own, just like an unborn baby. Many individuals with medical problems are also too dependent to survive alone. These people are still considered to be human.
In the argument of abortion, the primary question is this: When does a fetus become a separate person from its mother? The government states that after 24 weeks, the fetus is considered its own child. This is because if the baby was removed from the mother, it could very possibly survive. Moreover, the neurological system is mostly intact now, and all that is left to do are some finishing touches. However, it cannot be argued that a complete neurological system is what makes a human. Clearly, there are many disorders that prevent a complete neurological system to develop. Babies start developing their brains on the fourth week of pregnancy, and it never stops developing until the child is over 20 years old. If the brain does not constitute individuality, then the only other options are consciousness, and being physically connected to the mother. Simply because someone is unconscious, does mean they are not an individual, so this argument is obviously irrelevant. The child will wake up some time. If I fell asleep and someone killed me in my sleep, they would not be able to justify it by saying, "What? She was just an unconscious, organized cluster of cells," despite the fact that the statement was true. Moreover, no one can prove when a fetus becomes a human child. As far as being connected to the mother, people seem to forget that before the baby could possibly start to develop, half of it had to come from a man's sperm. Seeing that it makes no sense to say that half of a baby belongs to the mother and half of it belongs to the father, it would only best conclude that the child belongs to itself and it has the right to live. This is the pro-life argument against pro-choice.
Whether you agree with any of the pro-life information I have presented or not, you must at least be open to the possibility that the child is alive, and is an individual separate from its mother. Personally, I think that if there is a mere possibility, then it should be considered as alive, but you do not need to agree with me. The issue I am currently addressing is the fact that many liberals (not all) believe in both abortion as well as gun control. Oftentimes, they believe in the removal of guns entirely. To those of us who believe that a fetus is an individual, it does not make sense to kill babies but not the one attacking our family, freedom or home. This is equivalent to saying that it is okay to make yourself comfortable, but don't defend yourself. It is like saying that any child is subject to anything its mother decides for it, no matter how terrible, and that we are subject to anything that any criminal or tyrannical government decides for us, no matter how terrible. I understand this logic if the goal is to destroy innocent people or to become a world power all by yourself, but that is not the goal of the people. (If it is the goal of anyone at all, I hope you are sterile and cannot obtain a weapon of any kind).
As a woman, I would like to carry a gun with me for defense. I am very far from having a fascination with guns (I find them to be boring weapons), and I certainly have no desire to murder anyone. Still, I would like to carry a gun for my own defense as well as my family's. There is nothing wrong with fighting back if I am attacked, and I want the best chance possible. I do not trust the world, and definitely not trust the government to protect me, as neither have proved to be effective throughout history. So whether you want to go the route that its okay to potentially kill someone for your own sake, or if you want to go the route where it is not okay to potentially kill anything on purpose, you must make a decision. You cannot argue that it is not okay for me to protect my life against an attacker, and then turn around and tell me that it is okay for us, who are supposed to protect our own kind, to kill a fetus that has any possibility of being considered a child.
**For those in favor of abortion, also think about adoption. Unless the mother's life is in danger, adoption is a fantastic option.**
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Guns and Christianity
I'm sure you have noticed the frenzy regarding gun control since the shooting in Connecticut. It isn't any surprise that controversy over this topic is huge - after all, the fight is something that affects just about everyone, and people's lives are at stake from any perspective.
How Guns Relate to God's Words
"The Strength of Sin is in the Law"
There are many arguments that are pro-gun and many that are anti-gun. I'll go ahead and let you know now that I am pro-gun, if you haven't guessed already. I have many political reasons for this: I believe that the 2nd Amendment states we have the right to individually own guns and form militias to protect ourselves from harmful criminals and governments. I believe that people deserve the right to defend themselves on an equal playing field if they are attacked by wayward police, soldiers, or criminals with illegal weapons. I believe that criminals will obtain guns with or without laws, and moreover, obtain other kinds of weapons if they are unable to reach a gun (eliminating the purpose of the law). I believe that history has revealed that many governments are more of a threat to their people than to other nations, and most of those governments did not begin that way. I also believe that history repeats itself, and in the event of America's fall, any citizen should have the means to defend themselves.
James Madison was the primary author of the Constitution, and he wrote: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." At the time, he believed that large government military coverage would easily destroy the country they were attempting to found. I think that it is still true today, though the government has a lot more work to do. However, it is still very possible if we continue to grant power to officials in high places.
How Guns Relate to God's Words
Now that you are familiar with my opinion on a political level, I am compelled to explain my views from the perspective of a Christian. Many people find themselves conflicted on the topic of guns because of course, guns are objects created specifically to harm others. This existence would generally be objected by many people who have read parts of the Bible and know the phrases "Thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek". Yet still, we read all sorts of things in the Bible about people who fight and kill other people, even under God's orders; this would appear to make a contradiction, and confuses many Christians as well as non-Christians who study the Bible. You may also question the harm of adding yet another law, as long as it is intended to bring more peace.
Contrary to common knowledge, modern Bibles typically phrase the sixth commandment "You shall not murder," rather than, "You shall not kill." The Hebrew word inserted in Exodus 20:13 is more accurately translated as "murder" - the original Hebrew text describes the word as malicious and unlawful killing. This would indicate that killing is accepted when it has proper cause. Exodus 22:2 states, "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." In this context, it is obvious that self defense is an acceptable situation in which to kill, though it also elaborates that if the thief is only discovered later, then there are other punishments later. It is okay, however, to defend one's house, and I would assume also do defend one's person and other people. This explanation certainly allows a Christian or Jew to possess a weapon of any kind, as long as it is only used in a defensive scenario.
I cannot deny, that it is a very big thing to allow yourself to be killed by another man, simply in order to avoid killing the criminal. I may concede this to be unintelligent in most cases, but martyrdom is not an evil thing either, unless there are other duties that a person is meant to complete (such as raising children). Even by this option, however, it is still exactly that - an option. It is unfair to remove people's possessions of defense simply because there are some who think that killing even in defense is evil. For instance, I do not support gay marriage, but I do not think that marriage should be anything regulated by law anyway, and therefore makes the argument regarding such a union irrelevant. I believe that marriage is between two people and God, not between the government.
"The Strength of Sin is in the Law"
To delve further into the topic of God, guns and the law, I would like to explain 1 Corinthians 15:56. "The sting of death is sin," it says, and continues, "and the strength of sin is in the law." Non-Christians may find this to be a particularly odd statement. Did that verse just say the law is evil? Yes, it kind of did, but probably not the way you are interpreting it. To fully understand what is being said, let me explain the first half of the verse before the second. "The sting of death" obviously refers to the thing that makes death so terrible. The reason that this thing is sin, rather than pain or just the vague loss of life is explainable through the story of Adam and Eve. Before Adam and Eve sinned, it is said that there was no death. There weren't any rules, either, except not to eat of the fruit on one tree. Other than that, everyone lived happily together with nature. The moment they committed the first sin, however, they introduced death into the world, and were cursed to have the earth distrust us (as it should, since we sin and destroy things).
I understand that this is getting fairly philosophical, and it will become even more so. In order to perceive the meaning of the second portion of that verse, please note what sin is, exactly: sin is the breaking of the law. If sin is only the breaking of the law, then that would mean that if there was no law, then there would be no sin. This is entirely true. However, there has been law from Genesis through Revelation. Before there was government to make law, God laid it out. When the people did not know God, there was a government to write and enforce the law. Breaking the law is considered a sin, even government laws (as long as they do not conflict with God's law). By this truth, one can surmise that if guns are in fact banned, it will be a sin to keep them, unless we are otherwise inspired by God. This particular fact enforces to me that we must fight to keep our rights in politics, before they become a moral problem as well.
Conclusion
On that note, we may presume that it is not evil to own a gun so long as it is only used in defensive situations. We may even assume that because of these Biblical truths, there is no political reason to remove guns from law-abiding citizens. As further proof that we must protect our rights as Christians, we must also acknowledge that the creation of a political law could become a sin, therefore strengthening sin's power and reaches over more and more Christians and others as well. Thankfully, Jesus did come to redeem us from sin, but while we are on this Earth in this flesh, we can still succumb to sin and feel the repercussions of it. If the strength of sin is in the law, then why do we create more laws than what God has laid down, when all we are doing is strengthening sin itself?
Conclusion
On that note, we may presume that it is not evil to own a gun so long as it is only used in defensive situations. We may even assume that because of these Biblical truths, there is no political reason to remove guns from law-abiding citizens. As further proof that we must protect our rights as Christians, we must also acknowledge that the creation of a political law could become a sin, therefore strengthening sin's power and reaches over more and more Christians and others as well. Thankfully, Jesus did come to redeem us from sin, but while we are on this Earth in this flesh, we can still succumb to sin and feel the repercussions of it. If the strength of sin is in the law, then why do we create more laws than what God has laid down, when all we are doing is strengthening sin itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)