silverchris9

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about Fi, and how it's so often associated with morality, despite the fact that at the most basic level, it's just about the bonds between people.

What I realized is that Fi does have to do with morality, in a certain sense. This is because, since Fi focuses on the bonds between people, it also focuses on what will help and what will harm those bonds on a far deeper level than any of the other functions. This is the connection to morality. Specifically, I think a connection can be drawn between Fi and . Deontological ethics focuses on what should and should not be done to another person, i.e., bonds of obligation. This is precisely what Fi focuses on. Fi is not so much about making moral judgments about other people, and when paired with Ne, it actively avoids assuming that a person will always behave in a certain way because "that's the kind of person they are." Rather, Fi is concerned with the bonds of obligations of certain types of relationships. Fi is the voice that cries, "you can't do that to another human being," focusing on the obligation one member of the human race has to another. To do harm to another human being is to harm the implicit bond that exists between human beings. It is the voice that says "a husband should behave in a certain way towards a wife," and this assumption has its ultimate roots in an apprehension of what will help the bond and what will hurt the bond.

This clears up a quandry I was in about determining whether a given judgment is Fi or Ti related. Both Fi and Ti are inclined to make generalized prescriptions about what should or should not be done in general. Both Fi and Ti make "rules". But Ti rules are rooted in avoiding logical contradictions between givens: given that a king is greater than a subject, and given that a subject correcting a king implies the reverse, subjects should not correct kings. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. Fi rules, as I have said, are rooted in information about what will help or harm a bond between a group or pair of individuals: since making jokes about weight will hurt the feelings of an overweight friend, one should not make jokes about weight, especially around that overweight friend.

Hurting someone's feelings is something that Fi types try to avoid, for two reasons: first, because the attention to the bonds between people gives Fi types great capacity for empathy, and secondly because feelings in the sense of subjective sentiments from one person about another are a type of bond, or emotional relationship, between two individuals, something of which Fi types are extremely aware.

Also, note that an Fi type can use their understanding of relationships to hurt as well as to help. An Fi-ego can deliberately take actions that they know will hurt or sever the bond between herself and another person. But they usually feel bad afterwords, especially deltas (ESIs can be a little more ruthless, as can SEEs).

So, those are my thoughts. Opinions, questions, disagreements?

__________________
Not a rule, just a trend.

IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

thePirate

Bonds of obligation is exactly how I would phrase it. This is how Fe manipulation differs from Fi manipulation, when Fi types want to get you to do something I feel they mainly use your relationship with them as leverage in getting you to do said action.

The moral judgements come as a result of focusing on everything you have talked about. What one is obligated to do for another is based upon somewhat of a strict criteria, as Ti deals with a set of logical rules, Fi deals with a set of ethical rules which when broken or upheld lead to said judgements about the person. Fe and Fi types both have sets of morality that differ from each other in part due to this focus. Fe types can have some very strict obligatory criteria as well, however their focus is not on it. Fi in your ego gives much more to managing that aspect, hence more sensitivity towards those aspects, more easily upset at the 'rules' being broken, more rules in general. Fi has a smaller focus in general, one that goes from person to person whereas with Fe types it concerns the broader emotional atmosphere. Hence, to Fe types, Fi egos can seem unneccessarily anal about things. To Fi types, Fe types can be insensitive and less caring about individual persons.

I find it funny that Fi obligations are not fully encompassing. Meaning, for Fe types an obligation is that we want to be free from obligations; this is one important criteria that is not upheld by Fi types and as such I have at times interpreted them as selfish for it. Disregard of Fe for THEIR OWN Fi criteria which takes precedent. Granted, we can also be dicks to them for disregarding Fi for our own Fe criteria. However, if we do this, to us its on a miniscule level where true, deep values dont come into play. Fi types may take such an act as a giant offense against them while Fi obligations burden us.

Some more thoughts: When I read the ENFp - ISTp dualities, and read peoples comments, I got a picture of a dual relationship free from obligation, the two being together out of free will and love for each other. The more I got to see the differences the more I got to see this wasn't the case. It was in an outward, surface sense. However, there is definitely an underlying sense of restriction wherever Fi is concerned. Duty, a sense of having to do things that go against what you would prefer to do in some cases. This can degenerate into trying to force people to pay them back what they 'owe' so to speak. Dealing with Fi types in relationships can feel like being in perpetual debt. It kinda sucks. No offense.

Krig the Viking

Dude. This is seriously one of the best, most insightful analyses of Fi I've read to date. It echoes and expands upon my own thoughts on the subject.

I'm more familiar with the Ti side of the equation -- Ti creates logical systems of morality, basing "what ought to be done" on carefully considered premises and deductions. Ti considers morality to be "objective" (in the common sense) and impartial, in other words not taking Fi relationships into account. Breaking "the rules" for the sake of someone you have a close relationship with is abhorrent to Ti morality, but almost a requirement of Fi morality, in which relationships trump impartial rules.

__________________
Quaero Veritas.

xixi

Agree.

But I think the notion of Fi as 'attention to relationship bonds between ppl' could be extended to...'attention to individual's relationship to themselves - how people's thoughts will influence their actions, and how those actions will in turn impact on others as well as back on themselves, i.e. by affecting psychological state, future prospects, etc'. Fi'ers seem particularly sensitive to how 'well balanced' ppl are. Also, there appears to be a distinctively 'implicit' as opposed to 'explicit' nature to Fi understanding of these things.

jxrtes

Dude, ballin' description.

I only have one minor disagreement though. I do think Fi types judge people based on their behavior, because an awareness of anything inside yourself, e.g. something like this:

implies IMO an awareness of it in others. So someone acting maliciously would be judged as a bad person, with bad values -- in the sense that a Ti type would reject a wrong logical system. An ESI with Ne PoLR would be unlikely to ever forgive a transgression, whereas an EII would judge but still try to sympathize and find the root of the person's bad behavior in order to guide him to better principles.

There are also Fi types who don't have as much overall concern for humanity. Richard Nixon (ESI) comes to mind. At least some (or a big %) of the corrupt business elite in the USA is surely Fi valuing. To be able to apply humanitarian judgments to others, you have to have the same values yourself. And that involves a lot of personal knowledge and introspection, which isn't something everyone is capable of doing.

ETA: Bonds of obligation is a nice way to put it. Fi types, especially Te egos don't usually feel obligated to most people. As such they don't mind harshly criticizing them if the situation calls for it (Angela from The Office), and wouldn't be seriously affected by insults from them. But they'd feel obligated to someone who has a close bond and/or expect the latter to have certain obligations to them, and would weigh insults from them very seriously.

It's also entirely up to the individual Fi ego whether or not to extend those obligations to the total sphere of human interests, like Jeremy Irons does above. (ETA 2: I'm aware that Ne vs Se valuing polarizes things somewhat as well.)

__________________

aixelsyd

Maybe though I simply see Fi as how someone feels about a particular person, deed, thing, place, etc. hence "I love so and so," "I hate it when people do this or don't do this," which leads to feelings of love and hate, a feeling of the right thing and the wrong thing, feelings about things which brings someone to act according to certain principles. And so on.

__________________
5w4 sx/sp

Norge (w)hore

Creepy-Cyclops

I agree that Fi doesn't necessarily equal morals. When you consider that for instance being selfish is typically regarded as being immoral, i've known some ENFp's who are pretty selfish - with their time, and putting themself out for others. Although it's not something I particularly like, I have to admit i'm kinda selfish myself.

I think morals in the more conventional sense (what's regarded as being moral) is more an Fe thing, as it is external so places more importance on externally accepted ways of behaving.

I haven't had time to read all of your post just now, but what I have read makes sense I think.

I also agree with ISFj, some of them can be pretty manipulative, maybe even nasty in how they manipulate people.

When Fi is good though, when it cares in a positive sense, it's pretty awesome.

Blaze

hello? totally. thank you.

absolutely....i see this all the time.

yes this is exactly how Ti types see Fi types. kind of like yeah they think they're being logical but there is actually very weak logic in how they look at things and what they say. Fi has to be subjective. Fi types often will not admit to this though.

__________________

ILE

those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

Lobo

Something being logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true... Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum). Too much focus on Ti will make you lose objectivity in order to satisfy a logical requirement.

stanprollyright

This is really good.

__________________

hkkmr

Actually Fi types are the ones most likely to make these sort of mistakes, and either they will do something such as assuming two contradictory positions because they cannot let go of one or the other.

The problem of logic is that everyone uses it regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Take your propositions here...

Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum).

Because x, then y and this sort of thinking is inescapable for anyone. But by devaluing and not understanding logic one will constantly use logic in ignorance and blindness and result in inconsistent and contradictory positions.

The wierd thing about Fi types is that they are often use logic or at least the mechanics of formal logic without knowing it but to apply it to absurd notions of morality and traditions such as "Eating pork is dirty", "Homosexuality is a sin" and the like. Because these absurd preferences which they develop and apply formal logic to, they come up with multiple contradictory positions for whatever they happen to be attached to.

Let's not forget that Fi, Fe, Ti, Te are all rational functions. Ti just happens to deal with the nature of logic and methods of logical analysis.

__________________
The mind a killing weapon
The heart an open wound

jughead

I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

EXTp's that I know quickly pick this up and hate any such attempts by EXI or XEE.
This would sorta be be a EXtp's reaction to such things.

Maritsa33

[QUOTE=jughead;623944]I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

[QUOTE]

What?
I forgive and forget.

I am a very happy and content person; I don't hold on to grudges and wallow in misery. I try to find humor.

__________________

Enneagram 2w1

jughead

Everyone forgets but the relation takes up the same quality again.

thePirate

[quote=Maritsa33;623945][QUOTE=jughead;623944]I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.


you have already shown an apalling lack of awareness of your own internal proccessess and acted in a way that correlates with what people are saying here.

basically, your word means shit.

Maritsa33

[quote=thePirate;623982][quote=Maritsa33;623945]You are ISTp

__________________

Enneagram 2w1

Blaze

you can have relability without validity for sure. and yes overdose on Ti can make you lose the bigger picture of the "facts" of how people will be people.

i'm saying that logic is not the purview of ethicals....kinda like ethics is not the purview of logicals.

__________________

ILE

those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

Minde

I think you have some good thoughts there, silverchris. On a side note, I tend to really like it when INFps verbally philosophize about socionics. They strive for good logic, but they also include a sense of understanding and general non-judgemental-ness. The OP reminds me of things that Starfall and Glamourama have written, which I also like a lot.


With regard to using logic to support my convictions - it seems to me that often I *know* things, but for people to also know I feel I have to "build a bridge" of logic so they can follow me. To me it's like knowing that the earth rotates, causing the sun to rise and set each day. It doesn't need explanation for me to know it's true and for me to even go so far as to use that fact in my daily life. But sometimes it's as if there are people who simply won't believe me when I say the sun rises and sets each day, and so I have to explain to them how it works before they'll believe me. If they can't see that the sun does that, I can understand them needing an extra explanation, and I usually don't begrudge them it.

But, still, I often feel that I'm not always the best "bridge builder" or that the need to do so is somewhat undesirable. The thing is, that "bridge" isn't what's real to me - it's just a means to an end. So if I have to redo part of it to make it stronger I'm ok with that, except that the people who do value bridges (or who rely on them to get where I'm going) get suspicious of me when I have to do that and sometimes decide not to follow me, thinking I'm wrong or stupid or lying or some such thing. Also, sometimes I tend to under- or over-estimate how much effort and materials need to go into that bridge. So sometimes my logic is weak or incomplete, and sometimes it's way more than what's needed and I end up looking over-analytical or too preoccupied with details.

__________________
INFj / EII / FiNe
()

Lobo

Yes, this applies to me as well. That's what I mean by focusing too much on Ti that you can lose objectivity. It has happened to me that I'm trying to get at something, but instead of trying to understand what I'm getting at, the other person gets nit-picky at how I phrased something and then doesn't trust what I'm saying. There's this professor I have who is like this, and when you make a mistake in something you phrased, in that it can be interpreted differently, you spend a good 5 minutes rephrasing until it's "perfect," which undoubtedly affects the flow of conversation and building something to a climax.


Yes, I know what you are talking about, but I don't agree in saying that it's often the case with Fi types. It frustrates me when I read broad generalizations in the forum about types, because it doesn't take into account that people can overcome their difficulties in dealing with certain functions, and it doesn't do them justice... Yes, this is a belief I have.


To me this is an Fi rant, so I find it ironic that the post is against Fi people.

Ryu

silverchris' post is nicely met with hkkmrs post, i enjoyed both of them.