Intelligence associated with Negativity?

I think it's healthy to talk about issues you have. It shouldn't be seen as negative unless you keep going on about them without taking action or looking for solutions. Is Pink Floyd's The Wall album negative? No, it's an important work of art.
 
Enso said:
The best stuff of growth, creativity and intelligence seems to come from negativity, so are smarter people inherently more negative.

Introspection (hard, slow and not always fun)
abstraction (hard)
philosophizing (hard)

As a general characteristic of interacting with intelligent people do they come across as slightly more negative, whilst people who don't really care for deeper topics come across as more happy? The very nature of deeper thinking/critical thinking is negative; it's much easier to find faults in the world when thinking about it on a deep level.
Click to expand...
Do you see these traits as negative? or as things that bring forth a negative outlook?
I'm not sure if anybody asked you prior so I thought to.
 
Winterflowers said:
Do you see these traits as negative? or as things that bring forth a negative outlook?
I'm not sure if anybody asked you prior so I thought to.
Click to expand...

No, I do not see these traits as negative. It may bring forth a negative outlook.

I used to work around an ENTP that had an interesting personality, I know he was ENTP because we literally did an MBTI for work. When we were on lunch breaks he would bring up random topics like, "if god exists he's a self-righteous dick", and at the time I didn't' think much of it but his topics were kinda interesting. Anyway, he was a bit of a dick and he generally just had this negative vibe to him at times, but he was clearly intelligent. I've noticed personally that whenever I go deep into anything with anyone I get a weird vibe from them, it's almost like being intelligent is kind of negative unless you spell everything out for people but even then their not interested. There's also like a subjectivity thing with intelligence, like, typically intelligent sensors aren't particularly negative but anyone that I see as intelligent (biased INFJ opinion) seems to have some negativity to them, even if it's just because they are pointing out how shit life is. There's also a difference here too, people will actually listen to an intelligent sensor for more than 30 seconds. It kinda seems like the more cognitive effort you put into a conversation the more subjective it becomes (even if it's based on real facts) and it comes across as more negative or narcisstic or perhaps for an intuitive they know they are not going to get more than 30 seconds of attention out of people so they cut to the chase. I find it very hard to talk about anything even remotely deep without coming across as negative, but at the same time I know I won't get more than 15 seconds to get them interested and another 15 to state my case.

Sorry if that's a bit disjointed, I can't really think of any other way to describe the phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Intelligence allows you to take an idea far, but it doesn't proof you against starting an idea from a terrible place. When you have a terrible interpretation and take it far, the only possible consequence is a terrible worldview. Your culture provides you with many interpretations that are taken for granted before you develop any autonomous heuristic (at which point they're already baked into it and require many years to effectively challenge), and some of these interpretations will inevitably suppress your own existential needs. In an indirect way, this quote shows how the collective psychology of an era clashes with a type of cognitive orientation that needs to be followed to be fulfilled.

It is obvious that a scientist, in the modern sense of the word, even if he does not profess materialism, will be influenced by it to the extent that all his special training is oriented in that direction; and even if, as sometimes happens, this scientist believes himself to be not without the 'religious spirit', he will find the means to separate his religion from his scientific activity so completely that his work will in no way be distinguishable from that of the most overt materialist, and so he will play just as important a part as the latter in the 'progressive' building up of a science as exclusively quantitative and as grossly materialistic as it is possible to imagine. In this sort of way does anti-traditional action succeed in using to its own profit even those who ought to be its adversaries, and who might be so if the deviation of the modern mentality had not so shaped beings that they are full of contradictions yet incapable even of becoming aware of the fact.

In very general terms, the history of mankind can be divided into two main categories: the sacred and the profane. In equally general terms, there's some correlation of intuition with the former and sensing with the latter; the reality is much more complicated because we're dealing with fundamental human experience, but the dichotomy is useful here. The shift towards the profane era has peaked sometime around 18-19th century, starting with the Industrial Revolution which set the precedent for "mechanization" of society (as well as the correlation of secular technological advancement with improvement of society as a whole), followed by the boom of scientific materialists and logical positivists who sought to eradicate all metaphysical and intuitive thinking in the name of efficiency and factual clarity. You can add the economic revolution of the Marxists, and certainly the modern capitalists, who successfully disseminated the belief that happiness is deeply bound to material assets.

It seems obvious to me then that people of a particular temperament will tend to sense that there's something wrong with the state of affairs and adopt all manner of cynical and nihilistic positions. Their existential needs are overshadowed by contemporary maxims which they are fed every day. They are not allowed to be vulnerable and useful in the way they need and will blame anyone including the entire universe until they find a way to separate from the group attachment. Only when they take full individual responsibility and strive for something constructive can they realize that beauty and meaning can be attained without relying on some massive geopolitical change.
 
Enso said:
No, I do not see these traits as negative. It may bring forth a negative outlook.

I used to work around an ENTP that had an interesting personality, I know he was ENTP because we literally did an MBTI for work. When we were on lunch breaks he would bring up random topics like, "if god exists he's a self-righteous dick", and at the time I didn't' think much of it but his topics were kinda interesting. Anyway, he was a bit of a dick and he generally just had this negative vibe to him at times, but he was clearly intelligent. I've noticed personally that whenever I go deep into anything with anyone I get a weird vibe from them, it's almost like being intelligent is kind of negative unless you spell everything out for people but even then their not interested. There's also like a subjectivity thing with intelligence, like, typically intelligent sensors aren't particularly negative but anyone that I see as intelligent (biased INFJ opinion) seems to have some negativity to them, even if it's just because they are pointing out how shit life is. There's also a difference here too, people will actually listen to an intelligent sensor for more than 30 seconds. It kinda seems like the more cognitive effort you put into a conversation the more subjective it becomes (even if it's based on real facts) and it comes across as more negative or narcisstic or perhaps for an intuitive they know they are not going to get more than 30 seconds of attention out of people so they cut to the chase. I find it very hard to talk about anything even remotely deep without coming across as negative, but at the same time I know I won't get more than 15 seconds to get them interested and another 15 to state my case.

Sorry if that's a bit disjointed, I can't really think of any other way to describe the phenomenon.
Click to expand...
If it's any consolation, it took me longer than 30 seconds to read this <3

So. What it sounds like to me is that (from your perspective), sensors tend to describe the world 'as it is', whereas intuitives tend to describe the implications of it being that way.
(I'm not entirely sure this is what you mean but it was my take-away)
As to why it could come across more negative or (yikes) narcissistic, that could be for so many reasons. It may not even be true, and only your subjective interpretation (which I think you mentioned before?)
My guess would be that we tend to have unrealistic expectations about things - good and bad alike. People (not all, but many I've met) don't tend to consult other perspectives terribly often. This isn't inherently a bad thing! though, it does have the effect that we tend to speak through our own lense and color our logic with who we are. If there's a narcissistic aftertaste in this, it could (possibly?) be from that.

What do you think?
And, why did you ask this question?
Like what prompted it I mean. Unless it was just a random thought. Those are nice.

@Sidis Coruscatis hihi it's been a moment. I read all of your post because I found it eloquently constructed and information-dense despite the occasional excess. Thank you for sharing it <3 it was very enjoyable and I loved your generalization about the sacred and the profane.
 
Winterflowers said:
If it's any consolation, it took me longer than 30 seconds to read this <3

So. What it sounds like to me is that (from your perspective), sensors tend to describe the world 'as it is', whereas intuitives tend to describe the implications of it being that way.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the conversation. I agree with what you said there.I asked the question because I noticed a phenomenon that I couldn't put my finger on.

I mean realistically it can probably just be reduced to.... STUPID SENSORS. I think N's just get a negative wrap because their so abstract, and then it's mirrored back and we become negative. I used the term narcissistic as an extreme, but if your just talking to yourself people assume your trying to one up them, but all the N assumptions and conclusions all come across as subjective and hence why they seem that way. Like, I was talking to someone doing a PHD once and made a joke about how just put "x" word in your research, peer review journals love that word, and I think he didn't feel like he was part of the conversation, and like I was trying to one-up him (me, a guy that had not even completed a bachelor at the time) it was literally just a passing joke. People just aren't open minded and then it just creates negative people when no one listens to anyone's perspective, but its a phenomenon I don't really see in intelligence sensors, because people tend to listen to them and their subjective view is just seen as objective. I guess they hold attention and they can justify their assumptions before making an argument, but us N's don't even want the argument we can all skip ahead and see where the conversation is heading. I think it's just the build-up of society and N's not really being taken seriously.

Edit: I just thought about this a bit more, and I guess my argument is that when slowly thought out deep arguments are told to people who want everything spelled out, the very subjective nature of the conversation/argument is apparent and it just seems like a projection rather than a conversation, because the receiver cannot interpret the message without all the assumptions layed out. As an N, i think it's much easier too see where the argument/conversation is coming from and thus I do not see the ENTP guy I mentioned as negative.... well not in the traditional sense. That conversation "maybe god's a dick" is a very useful conversation imo.

So, I think this is what causes N's to have a chip off their shoulder. But in the name of listening to other's perspectives I should probably re-read the responses to this thread, because I haven't read them in a long time.
 
Last edited:
Winterflowers said:
If it's any consolation, it took me longer than 30 seconds to read this <3

So. What it sounds like to me is that (from your perspective), sensors tend to describe the world 'as it is', whereas intuitives tend to describe the implications of it being that way.
(I'm not entirely sure this is what you mean but it was my take-away)
As to why it could come across more negative or (yikes) narcissistic, that could be for so many reasons. It may not even be true, and only your subjective interpretation (which I think you mentioned before?)
My guess would be that we tend to have unrealistic expectations about things - good and bad alike. People (not all, but many I've met) don't tend to consult other perspectives terribly often. This isn't inherently a bad thing! though, it does have the effect that we tend to speak through our own lense and color our logic with who we are. If there's a narcissistic aftertaste in this, it could (possibly?) be from that.

What do you think?
And, why did you ask this question?
Like what prompted it I mean. Unless it was just a random thought. Those are nice.

@Sidis Coruscatis hihi it's been a moment. I read all of your post because I found it eloquently constructed and information-dense despite the occasional excess. Thank you for sharing it <3 it was very enjoyable and I loved your generalization about the sacred and the profane.
Click to expand...

Yea this has been a big issue for me when interacting with the normal types never mind the fringes where the vast majority of people tend to subscribe to fixed beliefs and ideological systems that don't allow for much outside exploration of ideas and beliefs especially if they are of a unconventional or contrary nature to their fixed systems. A great example of this in popular culture is the "Bible thump" though that applies to such in general. People really should explore more than what is typical or what is normal to their culture or social class etc.
 
Enso said:
So, I think this is what causes N's to have a chip off their shoulder. But in the name of listening to other's perspectives I should probably re-read the responses to this thread, because I haven't read them in a long time.
Click to expand...
Do Ns have a chip off their shoulder?
I might be a lil ignorant about this.

In any case! let me know what you think after rereading the comments and all that ^_^ things do tend to take a different light to them after some time passes.
 
Wyote said:
I'm hypotenuseing, let's be friends :looninati:
Click to expand...

You’re being acutely oblique here. :p

And regarding the whole thread, I think it is possible for intelligence to be paired with cynicism or jadedness, but neither of those are the same as negativity. Also, in this toxic positivity culture, being an open-eyed realist gets you labeled as a Debbie Downer when you fail to ignore the uglier aspects of what it is to be human, and in turn, *fail to* censor yourself.

Cheers,
Ian

edit: because tired can’t post coherently FML
 
Last edited:
aeon said:
You’re being acutely oblique here. :p
Click to expand...

Maybe I should be more straight forward and ask for a horizontal maneuver. I'm not sure what angle to use here.

aeon said:
Also, in this toxic positivity culture, being an open-eyed realist gets you labeled as a Debbie Downer when you fail to ignore the uglier aspects of what it is to be human, and in turn, censor yourself.
Click to expand...

What
 
Wyote said:
Maybe I should be more straight forward and ask for a horizontal maneuver. I'm not sure what angle to use here.



What
Click to expand...

fixed.

Dang,
Ian
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
Intelligence allows you to take an idea far, but it doesn't proof you against starting an idea from a terrible place. When you have a terrible interpretation and take it far, the only possible consequence is a terrible worldview. Your culture provides you with many interpretations that are taken for granted before you develop any autonomous heuristic (at which point they're already baked into it and require many years to effectively challenge), and some of these interpretations will inevitably suppress your own existential needs. In an indirect way, this quote shows how the collective psychology of an era clashes with a type of cognitive orientation that needs to be followed to be fulfilled.

It is obvious that a scientist, in the modern sense of the word, even if he does not profess materialism, will be influenced by it to the extent that all his special training is oriented in that direction; and even if, as sometimes happens, this scientist believes himself to be not without the 'religious spirit', he will find the means to separate his religion from his scientific activity so completely that his work will in no way be distinguishable from that of the most overt materialist, and so he will play just as important a part as the latter in the 'progressive' building up of a science as exclusively quantitative and as grossly materialistic as it is possible to imagine. In this sort of way does anti-traditional action succeed in using to its own profit even those who ought to be its adversaries, and who might be so if the deviation of the modern mentality had not so shaped beings that they are full of contradictions yet incapable even of becoming aware of the fact.

In very general terms, the history of mankind can be divided into two main categories: the sacred and the profane. In equally general terms, there's some correlation of intuition with the former and sensing with the latter; the reality is much more complicated because we're dealing with fundamental human experience, but the dichotomy is useful here. The shift towards the profane era has peaked sometime around 18-19th century, starting with the Industrial Revolution which set the precedent for "mechanization" of society (as well as the correlation of secular technological advancement with improvement of society as a whole), followed by the boom of scientific materialists and logical positivists who sought to eradicate all metaphysical and intuitive thinking in the name of efficiency and factual clarity. You can add the economic revolution of the Marxists, and certainly the modern capitalists, who successfully disseminated the belief that happiness is deeply bound to material assets.

It seems obvious to me then that people of a particular temperament will tend to sense that there's something wrong with the state of affairs and adopt all manner of cynical and nihilistic positions. Their existential needs are overshadowed by contemporary maxims which they are fed every day. They are not allowed to be vulnerable and useful in the way they need and will blame anyone including the entire universe until they find a way to separate from the group attachment. Only when they take full individual responsibility and strive for something constructive can they realize that beauty and meaning can be attained without relying on some massive geopolitical change.
Click to expand...

I'm on my phone, but still wanted to reply shortly...

I think if an alien from the future was to judge us humans, we would perhaps get a B+ in mathematics, physics, engineering. We are pretty good at those.

Politics, economics, philosophy... Here is at best a wash. Probably a D+. Some good ideas, some terrible ones. Ideas from 2000 years ago are probably still the best, so we didn't make much progress.

World of ideas and opinions is a minefield. You can easily adopt a bad worldview which ruins your entire life. So it's better to keep it simple, in my opinion. Something that helps you move forward in life.

I realised that all this philosophy stuff... Not for me lol. It really does make a person confused and probably negative. Better study physics or something, it's gonna at least inspire awe and amazement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top