The dark side of mbti types

The dark side traits that truly despise is any from of manipulation coupled with some form of aggression the other is social clones that basically don't have a personality. Another thing I really do have a deep loathing for back biters and people who gossip about everybody often causing much drama where people are hating each other while the gossip is getting a social high off it all.
 
In all seriousness, when I hear "dark side", I think "a repressed aspect of a person that tends to affect others negatively". Self-awareness of ones weaknesses and growth opportunities would hopefully lessen the expression of this "dark side".

When it comes to "evil" (perhaps the ultimate form of "the dark side"), I don't think of people as "evil" as much as "abnormal"; someone without empathy (considered a mental health issue) that chooses to harm others earns this label, but the idea of evil being some sort of irredeemable "bad" just ignores the fact that they have issues like everyone else.

I agree with your sentiment here. I think the trick might be to displace notions of good/evil from people and attach them to actions and behaviours. I don't think anyone is 'essentially good' nor that anyone else is 'essentially evil'. It's better to look at what one has done, does, and is capable of doing in the future.

There is no better expression of this view, to my knowledge, than the novel In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust. Because the novel unfolds across 40 years you really get to see how the same people, across time, can both behave in ways that are morally reprehensible and morally good or even heroic. I'm especially thinking of a character in the story called Morel. He's a 20-something year old of modest middle-class background with unrelenting ambition to get to the top of society. When the reader meets him he's vain, manipulative, and cowardly. He never returns the help that people bring him. He becomes the lover of an old nobleman to climb the societal ladder and gets rid of him as soon as he has achieved his purpose. Eventually, when WWI becomes a reality, he does everything he can to avoid conscription—uses his connections, declares himself sick and unfit to fight, etc. In the end he gets beaten up in the street and is forcibly sent to the war front.

We stop hearing about him for 200 odd pages, then Proust brings him back into the story and we learn indirectly that as a soldier he showed extraordinary courage and determination, getting numerous decorations for his heroism on the battlefield. Is Morel a realistic human being? Of course he is. In a way, we are all like Morel, capable of both the best and the worst. There is no 'essence' of the good or evil in people. There are only circumstances and choices.
 
I agree with your sentiment here. I think the trick might be to displace notions of good/evil from people and attach them to actions and behaviours. I don't think anyone is 'essentially good' nor that anyone else is 'essentially evil'. It's better to look at what one has done, does, and is capable of doing in the future.

There is no better expression of this view, to my knowledge, than the novel In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust. Because the novel unfolds across 40 years you really get to see how the same people, across time, can both behave in ways that are morally reprehensible and morally good or even heroic. I'm especially thinking of a character in the story called Morel. He's a 20-something year old of modest middle-class background with unrelenting ambition to get to the top of society. When the reader meets him he's vain, manipulative, and cowardly. He never returns the help that people bring him. He becomes the lover of an old nobleman to climb the societal ladder and gets rid of him as soon as he has achieved his purpose. Eventually, when WWI becomes a reality, he does everything he can to avoid conscription—uses his connections, declares himself sick and unfit to fight, etc. In the end he gets beaten up in the street and is forcibly sent to the war front.

We stop hearing about him for 200 odd pages, then Proust brings him back into the story and we learn indirectly that as a soldier he showed extraordinary courage and determination, getting numerous decorations for his heroism on the battlefield. Is Morel a realistic human being? Of course he is. In a way, we are all like Morel, capable of both the best and the worst. There is no 'essence' of the good or evil in people. There are only circumstances and choices.
Whoa thanks for this post. This is a novel I must read.

For the bolded: Yes!

I remember awhile ago reading about Hitler and his childhood and seeing him in a humanized way. The things he did were evil, no doubt. But it was difficult to see him as evil personified, then.

There's something about humanity that wants to draw a line between good and evil people. It's hard to look at a sadistic murderer and think of them as anything but pure evil. Maybe evil isn't an adjective that can adequately describe a person. But it can describe actions. I would define evil is willfully inflicting suffering on others either for enjoyment or gain. But what impact do your choices and actions have on our character? Or maybe no one is born evil but it's a choice. But you can always change or make different choices, like the character that you mentioned.
 
Hmm. We're all human and flawed. Instead of point to what function combination makes the best super villain, I prefer to look at what I can learn from the strengths of types drastically different than me. Largely to understand how to use them in my nefarious schemes and dastardly endeavors. If it's worth doing, do it well and in the shadows. Plausible deniability. Am I right?

Edit: Forgot the Orange.
 
Hmm. We're all human and flawed. Instead of point to what function combination makes the best super villain, I prefer to look at what I can learn from the strengths of types drastically different than me. Largely to understand how to use them in my nefarious schemes and dastardly endeavors. If it's worth doing, do it well and in the shadows. Plausible deniability. Am I right?
So you're a lights off kinda guy. Got it.
 
Hmm. We're all human and flawed. Instead of point to what function combination makes the best super villain, I prefer to look at what I can learn from the strengths of types drastically different than me. Largely to understand how to use them in my nefarious schemes and dastardly endeavors. If it's worth doing, do it well and in the shadows. Plausible deniability. Am I right?

Edit: Forgot the Orange.
There's a bit of truth in all jokes :wink:
INFJs do like to work behind the scenes don't they?
 
Good thread.

INFP: One dark side is the tendency to become critical and cold under extreme stress. Not a difficult "dark side" to deal with for me, imo. The other dark side is when you're on the wrong side of their beliefs. Being thought of as a monster in an INFP's eyes is not fun.

Storytime?


I'm not sure what types these are associated with so I'll just post these as different groups and you can discuss (though they can overlap):

Group A: Zero patience with other people, either you do things how they do them or you're worthless. Persecution complex sometimes.
Group B: Similar to A but instead of yelling at you they act like smug assholes instead. View explaining things as pointless.
Group C: Passive-aggressive, sometimes going into outright aggression while pretending they aren't. Want others to suffer how they've suffered. Can't stand the idea of someone doing something better than them and thus denigrate people that do things confidently.
 
In all seriousness, when I hear "dark side", I think "a repressed aspect of a person that tends to affect others negatively". Self-awareness of ones weaknesses and growth opportunities would hopefully lessen the expression of this "dark side".

When it comes to "evil" (perhaps the ultimate form of "the dark side"), I don't think of people as "evil" as much as "abnormal"; someone without empathy (considered a mental health issue) that chooses to harm others earns this label, but the idea of evil being some sort of irredeemable "bad" just ignores the fact that they have issues like everyone else.

Agree. Evil goes beyond type into serious mental illnesses like Sociopathy, Psychopathy, and NPD. It's a pretty interesting task to try to frame what different types are like when suffering from these illnesses, though.

It also depends on the framing of what evil is, as @acd stated earlier.

I find the 'dark side' discussion interesting. We all balance pieces of this regularly. It's rare for fictional characters to display both sides in a genuine light and show how a person can have weak or unhealthy behaviors and still be "good".

Reflecting on being in the grip is supposed to make us self-aware, and help us improve, because after we've come out of it we are self-critical and adjust accordingly, causing equilibrium. While we are inside it, of course, we're pretty unbearable, even if we are not Kylo Ren.

I'd also like to go through and document famous people representing a type and list both how they were a positive representation and how their darks sides manifested. I don't have time to do this thoroughly right now. (My first take out in seven months is on the way. YAY!)

Using famous "good" people (all of whom are frequently framed as INFJs):

Gandhi believed in upholding the caste system.
Martin Luther King Junior cheated on his wife.
Mother Teresa's medical care was purportedly "haphazard" and she used a spiritual approach to pain management instead of using painkillers.
Nelson Mandela had a history of violence.

By stating all of this, I'm not saying they weren't great or worthy of the praise they are famous for. Some of my favorite people are on that list. I'm only pointing out how their dark sides manifested.
 
Dark side does not necessarily mean evil.. Also I bet most of the people who are considered as evil don’t perceive themselves as evil. There is always some reasoning behind every individual’s actions to justify them.

I have spent a lot of time to explore and observe my own dark side. It manifests itself in various manners but with years of observation I have managed to take a few steps back and just let it roll on its own. Some things can ignite some really detailed dark and vicious thoughts in us. That dark side has its power. Tremendous in fact. It is very hard to suppress it since it will manifest itself in some form. Therefore I prefer to channel it into music or writing.

I can only talk about INFJs since I am one. We can be one of the coldest and most hurtful people. It took me to a point where I knew that I had to give an oath to not hurt others in order to prevent myself from hurting others. This oath was given to my Lama when I became a buddhist.

Regardless of being a buddhist I still have my dark moments of pure wrath and desire to revenge. Now I am not talking about just hitting someone back after they punch you but about destroying everything that they ever hold dear to themselves kind of wrath. This wrath is not a bad thing. It is pure energy if you look beyond the thoughts. It can be used in many different ways that are not destructive to others. It can help you to see clearly through your own bullshit. But if not handled with awareness it can surely turn some loving INFJ into a cold cunt who has justified his or her actions regardless how hurtful they might be to others.

I never found it odd that people like Hitler were typed as INFJs. In fact Hitler is a perfect example of what an INFJ can do. Most of us just imagine but some of us end up manifesting our imagination..
 
I've always attributed Milgram's results to too much Si instead. (Authority, hierarchy, rules.)
The learner clearly vocalized their pain and even begged the test subject to stop. Wouldn't that affect a person with proper Fe development?

Agreed.

In contrast, I believe Asch's experiments shows what happens when Fe is out of whack.

I don't know about that.
(My 6th grade teacher actually did some kind of amateur version of this experiment on us, and I remember insisting on what I thought was correct. She asked for a volunteer to go out of class - I was chosen, and a few minutes after I returned she drew two lines on the board and went around the classroom asking which one was shorter. Everyone gave the wrong answer, but I am proud to say - I was not swayed, lol. Maybe I intuitively realized it was what she had sent me out for, and that it was only a test.)

Going based on personal experience, I am pretty sure I am INFJ with strong Fe. However, I am usually not one to simply go along with the crowd. I used to be more vocal about where and why I diverged from the surrounding popular opinion; now I just do what I think is right and keep my mouth shut for the most part.
Even when I disagree though, or take a stand for something, I always like emphasizing commonalities before going on to differences of opinion.

Bottom line is, I don't think our functions point to our values.
For example, if a strong value is authenticity, then someone with Fe will use it in service of authenticity. (For example, getting people on board with generating positive change.)
If a strong value is empathy, then someone with Fi will use Fi in service of empathy... and so on.

(It's funny, after I wrote about my personal experiences, I realized I wrote in past tense (and then edited it). The truth is, I really don't take a stand for much anymore. I'm much more skeptical about actually generating change...if change won't happen anyway, then I may as well get along with everyone. I think that proves my point about functions, but I'm not sure how.
 
Last edited:
Which leads into: Does evil really exist? What is evil and what makes someone evil?
And the rabbit hole is open.

Two wolves in the woods. Which one do we feed?


critical and cold under extreme stress
Critical and cold from people I love will kill me. People I don't care about, meh.

INTP: One minute, they'll imply that you're unintelligent, and the next, they'll throw a hissy fit
They're whiny and annoying with a mile of excuses I never like to hear. Or they just disappear.
There is no 'essence' of the good or evil in people. There are only circumstances and choices.
Hear, hear.

But of course when they're in the way of INFJs turned INTJs, they'll be hurt for it.

Gandhi believed in upholding the caste system.
Martin Luther King Junior cheated on his wife.
Mother Teresa's medical care was purportedly "haphazard" and she used a spiritual approach to pain management instead of using painkillers.
Nelson Mandela had a history of violence.

In all of this, I'm thinking about Malala Yousafzai and that her version of the dark side must still be forming right now given her age.

most of the people who are considered as evil don’t perceive themselves as evil. There is always some reasoning behind every individual’s actions to justify them.
Yes, it's circumstantial. I always think that everybody in this world has their own agenda and that's never wrong because at one point or another, they're doing it for some version of good that they think is justifiable. Laws and societal standards get into play because of the human need for order which we try to impose via commonality but even those are questioned time and again because while circunstances can get similar, they're never really the same. A case of history repeating itself has to be some sort of proof that human infallibility is always subject to specific conditions.

However, the circumstance of one is hardly ever contained within that person. There's a ripple and an inevitable string that somehow binds all of our circumstances together. I think that the choice that sends the biggest ripples enough to cause the greater cumulative pain and harm to all those bound by the string (and I include cats and dogs in this string) is what's evil. These strings are far too complex for us to unravel so, defeating evil is a matter of keeping fingers crossed when making choices --- that it's going to be "for the greater good". Of course, it's easy to see this as meaningless and so people make choices to put themselves first above all for survival but I do think that when people start to think this way, they will eventually harm themselves. I think that an outward manifestation of goodness is better for the self because it always comes back to the self eventually. For sure, outward manifestations of evil could also be for the greater good so really, it's always that we'll never know whether or not our existence mattered for the good or otherwise. Hence, meaningless.

But, there's also the self and conscience and innate human goodness. When we do something, some degree of consequence is visible to us and these are the things we live with. We may not know what to do with the rest of the world but it is difficult for us to neglect that which we immediately experience, hence we make the choices that instantaneously benefit us whatever our values may be. Human nature.

For example, a man may choose to steal to feed his children--- is this evil? Judas betrayed Christ. Was that evil? There's no way to tell, really. But then Judas and even the man who fed his children could easily be swept by guilt, for when they see that the consequence of their actions could negatively impact other lives.

Whenever I think about it this way, I just think we're all miserable. But if we flip it, say, we hug the man who stole and we forgive Judas, a counteraction filled with love also sends ripples of goodness.

So in this sense, I think this is when we assess our darknesses and lightnesses and that we are both. Always.

There will never really be a supervillain, just some really funky know it all dudes and dudettes who think they know the best path to existence. This is also why I think democracy sounds more good on a facetious level because it distributes the choice rather than collectively and willingly offering it to one leader. But then again, it is all so clearly very complex.

Ultimately, I don't know. I'm rambling so let's just sleep.
 
Last edited:
I can't really speak for the darkness of other types, but I know there's something in me that naturally believes I am right! Like an innate knowledge of what is right or wrong and who is good and bad. Maybe in a similar way INFJs have visions of the future or what is happening but can't quite tell you why-- you guys just know.

Maybe INFPs have this but it's about people and what is morally correct or just. It's so strong you are just sure that you possess a discernment that others do not. Sometimes I catch myself doing this and have to say-- Whoa! Slow down. Let's check that. I'm usually not wrong about these things but I think that this is something that unchecked or unbalanced could lead to fanaticism. The "evil" infp will think they are right and everyone else is wrong. They will think they are doing good when really they are not. They can't see themselves as evil. Maybe they can really only do evil if they think it is good. Thankfully, we have Ne to play devil's advocate in our mind against these ideas. I think Ne and Te push us to question ourselves. Or an "evil" infp will have to push themselves to break their own code out of spite for themselves and the world. This is the tortured villain.

Not sure how Si fits in. But I could also see an INFP villain stuck in a Fi+Si loop and hell bent on vengeance, or righting a wrong done to them or someone they love-- something unjust would have happened that should not have happened and they must right the wrong. They are a vengeful vigilante.


I'm not sure what mbti type The Punisher or Frank Castle is, but I can see him in that grip. But I don't think he's an infp. Maybe he's an istj?
 
Last edited:
I can't really speak for the darkness of other types, but I know there's something in me that naturally believes I am right! Like an innate knowledge of what is right or wrong and who is good and bad. Maybe in a similar way INFJs have visions of the future or what is happening but can't quite tell you why-- you guys just know.
Maybe INFPs have this but it's about people and what is morally correct. Or what actions will lead to immoral or unjust results. It's so strong you are just sure that you possess a discernment that others do not. Sometimes I catch myself doing this and have to say-- Whoa! Slow down. Let's check that. I'm usually not wrong about these things but I think that this is something that unchecked or unbalanced could lead to fanaticism. The "evil" infp will think they are right and everyone else is wrong. They will think they are doing good when really they are not. They can't see themselves as evil. Maybe they can really only do evil if they think it is good. Thankfully, we have Ne to play devil's advocate in our mind against these ideas. I think Ne and Te push us to question ourselves. Not sure how Si fits in. But I could also see an INFP villain would be stuck in a Fi+Si loop and hell bent on vengeance, or righting a wrong fine to them or someone they love-- something unjust would have happened that should not have happened and they must right the wrong. I'm not sure what mbti type The Punisher or Frank Castle is, but I can see him in that grip.
This is relatable. I think that the incapability to process what the other is going through is what leads to things like war and divorce. I always check myself even though after some good thought, I always find that it's the differences in internal value systems that cause the rift. I think that "I'm right!" voice is very INTJ. I think that the INFJ is more: "Am I right?" But I do think that both types spend a ridiculous amount of time assessing and forming their value systems which lead them to be headstrong in their value systems. So when they're "disappointed" with the world, it's because "why are you mother fuckers not putting as much effort?" or "how can you not see this so clearly you people of poor make!". Of the two types though, I think the INFJ is more likely to re assess and reconsider, thus empathizes more outwardly. Yet I think INTJs are the more accepting types. Hard. In the end, both types will find their value systems to be righter than most. I think. Ha.
 
Storytime?


I'm not sure what types these are associated with so I'll just post these as different groups and you can discuss (though they can overlap):

Group A: Zero patience with other people, either you do things how they do them or you're worthless. Persecution complex sometimes.
Group B: Similar to A but instead of yelling at you they act like smug assholes instead. View explaining things as pointless.
Group C: Passive-aggressive, sometimes going into outright aggression while pretending they aren't. Want others to suffer how they've suffered. Can't stand the idea of someone doing something better than them and thus denigrate people that do things confidently.


Group A ... INTP
Group B .. hmmm .. INTP
Group C .. ermm .. again .. INTP

:laughing::laughing::laughing:
 
Back
Top