God-Naysayer or Encourager

when it comes to what God likes, or in other belief systems, we often get the conservative impression that what's good is about what not to do (that is also what people say about ethics in business, btw). But on the other side of "what not to do" is the "what to do that is better than current status", assuming we are not satisfied with what currently is. Although both are important, I'm more attracted to the second that the first, and I believe they are the two sides of the same coin. You will get to know the first better by pursuing the second. Maybe the other direction works as well but my intuition is more leaning towards that way.

So, to the question that's the center of my career, there are three type of perspectives: (1) current status is good enough, things are developing towards its better form automatically by current arrangement; (2) current status is not good because we need more restrictions (clearer boundaries); (3) current status is not good because we lack of exploration on some possibilities

ENTP

this type of personality tends to think in complexed concepts, looking external world for information, and would be reluctant to stop searching for more possibilities

weakness of being an EP is that though they are good at observing others, other would often fail to observe themselves, especially in the parts that incurred unpleasant emotions.

weakness of being an high N is that they tend to think in abstract concepts and find connections but often ignore the concrete raw experiences. They tend to fit their interpretations of the experiences to the concepts they like. They also can ignore good things as they are and always looking for the perfect, not appreciating what they already have. But if they cannot imagine a better possibility, they will be clinging and fear to change. Instead of suppressing their intuitivity, they need to even unleash it more to more complexed and rich things, where they will naturally take practicality and realistic experience into the picture and allow them to be challenged.

NT means they view right or wrong in terms of their usefulness. They are naturally pragmatists: things are good must also be useful; if they are not useful, that means they are not good enough. The problem is, is this thinking really all about good and evil? if not, what is it that we are overlooking? the good but not useful?

cognitive process: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si(weakness because least focus) observing world and people; thinking about the usefulness of data; applying the conclusion with universal principles to the world; forming actions and opinions, deciding the best option

to overcome the weakness is not to neglect Ne, the natural strength, but the opposite: using Ne when it is to making decision. The rest of the steps will grow stronger with Ne.