An earlier post regarding the differences between INFj and INFp got me seriously thinking about this topic, and I wanted to see what all of you thought as well.
Socionics asserts that INFjs have as their dominant function, which is defined according to the16types.info as "ethical norms, morals, qualitative properties, subjective judgments, etc." INFps supposedly have as their dominant function, which the16types.info defines as "emotional arousal and arousability of object, emotional life, moods, subjective emotional content." The description is incomplete, however.
My questions to all of you are, (1) what is the true distinction between and , and (2) why would one say that INFjs/ENFps have stronger ethics than INFps/ENFjs?
INFps supposedly have weak , which is in the 6th position of their unconscious block, and is INFjs' dominant function. But what is , anyway? My impression is that it is a firm set of morals and inalienable principles that one strives to uphold in their lives. But don't we all have those? As an INFp, I balk at the suggestion that my morals are weak. I have a very strong set of morals that I strive to preserve in my life - these morals just might be different from another person's morals. I care deeply about social justice, about treating others with respect, and about loving others. If I see someone violate any of these principles, I fly off the handle, and that might be where my comes in. But still, how does one really define whether a certain type is more inherently moral than another?
Here's a real-life example of an / conflict.
During spring break, myself and a group of my Beta and Alpha friends played a prank on my former best friend, an ENFp. We basically called her and told her that we were in jail and needed to be bailed out. She freaked out and started panicking. We honestly didn't think she'd take it so seriously. Before the phone call was over, we told her that it was all a joke and that we were fine (hasn't anyone here seen the show "Punk'd"?). Well, she proceeded to drive 10 miles to our hotel, despite not visiting us at all during the entire trip, to tell us what "f*cking **holes we were, that we should all **ck off and die," that she hated all of us, and that we should never **cking jeopardize a friendship like that, and countless other expletives.
Then I lost it, lol. A week or so later, I confronted her about the issue online, and told her that she should NEVER, EVER say such things about people she's supposed to love. She said that was "bulls***," and that I shouldn't try to blame her for the drama that ensued. Then she went on and on about how terrible the experience was for her, while I'm thinking, "how is a prank, which WASN'T INTENDED to harm someone, more harmful and mean-spirited than vicious categorical judgments about one's friends?" I ended the friendship right there because I was so disgusted.
Another ENFp I know talks about women like they're objects (not in a joking manner, either). I'm not trying to denigrate all ENFps by saying this (many are really cool) - I'm merely trying to point out that the concept of does not always equal ethics.
So, my point is, how can one say that ENFps/INFjs have strong and INFps/ENFjs have weak ? Why couldn't one say that we simply have different ethical systems that we adhere to? I could accept the notion that ENFj's and INFp's ethics are based more on interpersonal relations and ENFp's and INFj's ethics are based more on certain types of behavior, but still, why is one system considered more valid than the other?