i disagree that introverted feeling = stronger ethics

[uninspired]

My "crime"? Good grief, it was a mistake, let it go already.

Considering intentions in crime is unfair. The best way to create a fair system is to make all murder sentences extreme. That way the murder of a poor baby is the same as a murder of a drug dealer. Murder is murder.

When did this become about murder?! Well, if you want to go there I'll go there. When I mention intentions in crime, I mean something to this effect: if someone hits someone with their car because of a lapse of attention, it's called vehicular manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter, or in some cases "not guilty." The reason it's not first degree murder is because people acknowledge that 1) it was an accident, 2) it wasn't premeditated, and 3) it didn't involve malice. Done. I'm not discussing this with you anymore.

I welcome any responses regarding the topic of and ethics (not about my teenage quarrel, sheesh).

[uninspired]

how is it objective? did she state that her intent was to hurt you?

How can one consciously hurl insults, expletives, and diatribes IN SOMEONE'S FACE without intending to hurt them?

[olduser]

how is it objective? did she state that her intent was to hurt you?

How can one consciously hurl insults, expletives, and diatribes IN SOMEONE'S FACE without intending to hurt them?

How can a person call someone and prank them without intending to hurt them?

[uninspired]

For the umpteenth time, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO HARM HER. There's a difference between intending to put someone in so much distress that they break down and cry and a prank intended to be a joke, without the intent of harm. I'm finished with this conversation, I agree to disagree with you, and you are now on my ignore list, Heath.

[anndelise]

how is it objective? did she state that her intent was to hurt you?

How can one consciously hurl insults, expletives, and diatribes IN SOMEONE'S FACE without intending to hurt them?

uh, by being an EFP???
try to remember that with an emotional EFP....it's the need to express....there need be no intent other than to express the frustrations and/or thoughts that the EFP doesn't even know is there!!!

this has probably been one of the most baffling things my brother (INFP) has with me....he can't understand how i can do something or say something out of the blue...and not have some kind of intent behind it. And I constantly have to tell him....I don't know what's there....i just feel a pressure to open my mouth and let it out...and i'm usually hearing it for the first time along with you.


when i get into an argument with someone, he is one of the first people i turn to....i let it all out, bitch about what's going on, say all the things i'm feeling compelled to say...and once i get that out of my system, then i'm able to sit down and work out a real response...one that has some kind of intent in it, and one that tries to avert potential negative consequences...unless i'm intending to piss the person off ....which isn't a normal thing at all!!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[uninspired]

Knowing why you did something doesn't make you less of an ass in my opinion.

Keep your opinions to yourself. I made a mistake and admitted it, yet you still feel the need to condemn me. No need to put salt in the wound.

You got upset and ended a friendship with her because of what she said.... consider the friendship you mentioned, why you two were friends, try to see things from the other person's viewpoint, and consider if you might want to repair the breach or not.

This incident happened 5 years ago, so there's no need to go back. It was merely the icing on the cake. There were a ton of things wrong in our friendship, which I won't go into here.

And I'm not trying to decide which group is "more ethical," and if I said that earlier I retract it. I'm just questioning why SOCIONICS says one group is more ethical.

[ScarlettLux]

Well, I didn't have the patience to read through this all, but have a general idea of the argument and I have no wish to contribute anything productive to it

What I do have to say in terms of Fi vs Fe.. all that I have noted regarding being "ethical" is this: Both can have the exact same morals, etc... as in realizing what is "right" and "wrong" .. ex: Both can have the ability understand that using a person for sex is morally "wrong" ... (hopefully everyone thinks this! LOL) but Fi would probably hold in their minds a vendetta against a person who has seemingly done such a thing and find it VERY, VERY hard to forgive them or think of them as a "good" person. Whereareas the Fe valuing type will be more likely to see the person's ethics in a different perspective.. um, what am I trying to say here? Basically that Fe is more flexible and Fi is more rigid.. Fi is harder to persuade once you have made an impression. Fe's perception of a person morally can be changed more easily.. is this better? I don't know. But me valueing Fe, I am biased and personally think that Fe is more adaptable to the fact that people have many different facets to them and aren't just "bad" because of one thing they might've done in the past.

*Waits for the Fi types to come and rant*

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

for what it's worth, i don't believe Fi is stronger ethics than Fe....different approaches or whatever ethics yes

but then, i don't like using the term ethics when referring to either of them
it's just different focuses to me....and the focuses have to do with the ever undefinable unmeasurable interpretations of "feelings"

nor do i think F types as having a monopoly on "feelings"
so *shrug*

I know I wasn't answering your question regarding Fi and Fe.
But I think that the conversation we had showed a distinction between an Fe interpretation of Fi....and an Fi interpretation of Fe....as well as how easy it is for us to assume that others respond to things the way we would...and/or do/say things with the same intent as we would have were we to say/do the same things.

and, there really IS a reason why INFp and ENFp are contrary pairs....and it makes a lot of sense to me the issues that INFp and ENFp commonly have. It's like, in so many ways we are very similar to each other but the subtle distinctions can really throw a wrench in the relationship (it doesn't have to...it just usually tends to). And I guess that that is what i was trying to do...to show comparisons between an infp's approach/focus/interpretations and an enfp's approach/focus/interpretation. (and trying to offer aid in understanding why she was likely responding the way she was....etc...which, i know now, you weren't looking for. sorry)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Mea]

Fi would probably hold in their minds a vendetta against a person who has seemingly done such a thing and find it VERY, VERY hard to forgive them or think of them as a "good" person.

Being an Fi type != having problems forgiving someone.

Whereareas the Fe valuing type will be more likely to see the person's ethics in a different perspective.. um, what am I trying to say here? Basically that Fe is more flexible and Fi is more rigid..

... Untrue. I believe seeing things from different perspectives has to do with intuition? Dunno.

Fi is harder to persuade once you have made an impression.

no.

Well, now you sound like you're saying "Fe=better ethics".

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

just because a person has "ethics" says nothing about what those ethics are...nor how they are used

"strong ethics" can mean anything from having a strong sense of "good" vs "bad"...or a strong sense of "there's too many shades of grey to determine if something is 'good' or 'bad'"

i would think that "strong ethics" means that "I feel strongly about x"
"weak ethics" would be along the lines of "i'm not really sure how I feel about x"
or it could mean anything else altogether

i mean, really, ****** had pretty strong "ethics"...just because those ethics benefited a select group and harmed a select group says nothing about the strength or weakness of his "ethics". But the fact that he was willing to push those ethics onto others and stand firm by them...speaks of possibly "strong ethics".

But then, didn't Gandi (misspelled) have strong ethics too?

[uninspired]

With respect, I can't say I agree with you, ScarlettLux. Rigidity has nothing to do with the differences in either orientation's ethical systems - both can be stubborn as oxes.

And Diana, my anger toward you calling me an "ass" was not due to you saying something "unkind," but due to the fact that you made a sweeping judgment about my character. You know next to nothing about me apart from the few sentences I've written in this forum; you don't know what I've done in my life, how I act on a daily basis, or where I come from, yet you feel justified in insulting me and several others because you don't share their views. That's what I have a problem with, not that it wasn't "nice and kind."

"strong ethics" can mean anything from having a strong sense of "good" vs "bad"...or a strong sense of "there's too many shades of grey to determine if something is 'good' or 'bad'".

Amen.

[olduser]

With respect, I can't say I agree with you, ScarlettLux. Rigidity has nothing to do with the differences in either orientation's ethical systems - both can be stubborn as oxes.

And Diana, my anger toward you calling me an "ass" was not due to you saying something "unkind," but due to the fact that you made a sweeping judgment about my character. You know next to nothing about me apart from the few sentences I've written in this forum; you don't know what I've done in my life, how I act on a daily basis, or where I come from, yet you feel justified in insulting me and several others because you don't share their views. That's what I have a problem with, not that it wasn't "nice and kind."

"strong ethics" can mean anything from having a strong sense of "good" vs "bad"...or a strong sense of "there's too many shades of grey to determine if something is 'good' or 'bad'".

Amen.

She hasn't had opportunity to collect lots of datas. If you really are a complex person, and i trust you are, then all she has really said is that the version of you that you have presented in this thread is an ass. ahahha gtb

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Knowing why you did something doesn't make you less of an ass in my opinion, or someone else more tolerable, or another person more rational, or someone else less driven by emotion, or whatever it might be that bugs you about someone.

I kind of disagree - motivations can sometimes be very important in order to understand a behaviour which otherwise doesn't make sense if confronted with words and feelings expressed.

[FDG]

And the emotional aspect was not my main point. My point with the example of the heckler and the killer was that there are DIFFERENT DEGREES of harm you can inflict on a person, and that suffering a small degree of harm does not justify inflicting a larger degree of harm upon someone.

Degrees of harm are personal. An insult that evokes a powerful memory of something bad can have a devastating effect on a person, and a meaningless one on another, provided that life experiences are different. Priorities matter too - some people get crazy if you criticize their intellect, some others get crazy if you criticize their relationships; socionics actually provided insight into this matter by telling us that criticism in the weakest points is the one which is felt the most, and this way it's obvious that there are differences. Since there is also no way to quantify them, every possible reaction is to be expected and issues of "appropriatness" are not to be taken into consideration.

[FDG]

Failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other people's feelings after having time to think about it.

There's really no difference; I think that motivation comes into play only in serious matters - i.e. if you want to understand why somebody has trouble committing and she says that there are issues of trust, then you can solve it by giving trust; however if a joke becomes hurtful, it's not a joke any more, since its objective is to cheer up the atmosphere. On the contrary sometimes somebody deliberately trying to hurt feelings can actually be entertaining, when his/her intentions are obvious.

[uninspired]

I'm not saying this because we disagree, Fabio, but you are ENTj. You're all .

[FDG]

I'm not saying this because we disagree, Fabio, but you are ENTj. You're all .

It's definitely possible, but what do you mean by all Te in this case?

[Expat]

In my opinion the most relevant posts are these:

Failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other people's feelings after having time to think about it. I could have understood if she had said all those things in the rush of anger right after the practical joke, but why say things like that after having time to cool down.

How do you know she was intentionally trying to hurt other people's feelings? What does "having time to cool down" mean? You are not really understanding Fi>Fe.

how is it objective? did she state that her intent was to hurt you?
how is her assumption that you had intended to hurt you any different from your assumption that she intended to hurt you? (other than that it is YOU that is making the assumption this time )

how is it objective? did she state that her intent was to hurt you?

How can one consciously hurl insults, expletives, and diatribes IN SOMEONE'S FACE without intending to hurt them?

How can a person call someone and prank them without intending to hurt them?

For the umpteenth time, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO HARM HER. There's a difference between intending to put someone in so much distress that they break down and cry and a prank intended to be a joke, without the intent of harm. I'm finished with this conversation, I agree to disagree with you, and you are now on my ignore list, Heath.

uninspired, you so totally missed the point of heath's rhetorical question.

What you and Kristiina fail to see is that your assumption of her intentions wasn't warranted. You keep droning on, "we didn't intend to hurt her, she intended to hurt us".

Have you stopped to think that, to her, it was so obvious that your intention was to hurt her as it is obvious to you that her intention was to hurt you? And perhaps both were wrong? And her "hurling insults on your face" was the expression of her own deeply hurt feelings, a feeling of betrayal, that no, doesn't go away after "a time to cool down"?

On the Fe vs Fi ethics, in this context "ethics" is not a good word. And the difference is about static vs dynamic.

[meatburger]

Very well broken down Expat

This conversation has the ability to get very heated lol. Its obvious to me why

From my experience INFj's and ENFp's are far more sensitive with their emotions than INFp's etc. When our ethics are questioned and compromised we can snap a lot easier. I think thats perhaps why they are considered stronger (because we react more deeply?). Doesn't mean that our actions are any more pure than an INFp's etc.

I talk to an INFp girl on msn basically every day for hours. When we meet each other she constantly ignores me etc. She just leaves constantly without saying goodbye. Now she certianlly isn't a bad person which i understand but sadly she doesn't feed me with the Fi contact that i desire. It seems to constantly build up and make my blood boil so i tend to lash out on the poor girl. Well actually i withhold the lashings with every inch of my willpower but ive recently realised that we cannot be friends. You see she doesn't give a shit that we aren't close but i unfortunately do. So its me always getting annoyed.

The same thing happened with you Uninspired. ENFp's feel things really deeply. Im not sure the exact emotion she was having but she could have perceived it as a group attack on her character. I agree that a mature person should just take it on the chin, and trust me ive put up with a lot of shit only to come happily back to my friends. What happened is she knew your relationship was already on the rocks and this tipped her over the edge. In her upset state she knew you shouldn't be friends and realised that to be cruel and mean was the best way to break up a friendship. She did you a favour. I could never break up a friendship with someone by saying calmly "I have decided that we cannot be friends anymore, sorry goodbye". It doesn't seem to work

I would much rather end a friendship with a massive heated argument than to slowly drift apart. Theres something really really painful about that happening.

[uninspired]

To all of you:
We agree to disagree; it's over and done with.

As for "heath's question," I'm not going to address or discuss anything with someone who says such vicious, unjustifiable things to and about me - it's not acceptable. If you want to have a discussion, treat people with respect, don't call them "morons," "horrible people," or accuse them of getting pleasure from others' pain when you disagree with them. That bordered on flaming.

EDIT: Yes, I considered the possibility that her calling us such horrible names was just an expression of her pain and not an attempt to hurt us. But she had time to take back what she said. I took back what I did and expressed regret and remorse, but she did nothing of the sort. You can say whatever the hell you want to about that; I said what I needed to say.

And FDG, I cannot believe that anyone who matches the ESTp description would spend the amount of time that you do on the internet discussing abstract personality theory with strangers thousands of miles away. They're people of action, not people of reflection.

[FDG]

And FDG, I cannot believe that anyone who matches the ESTp description would spend the amount of time that you do on the internet discussing abstract personality theory with strangers thousands of miles away. They're people of action, not people of reflection.

Actually it's just a after-hobbie, usually I'm at the pc to wank at porns, which is all I do with my life as a complete failure!

Seriously, this attempt at "get a life" is ridiculous

[Exodus]

Abstractions are frequently used in a court of law - e.g. guilty beyond all reasonable doubt,

That is exactly what I was going to say!

Intentions don't count-- actions and their consequences are what matter.

Wow, you revealed a lot about your ethical beliefs there. I guess you disagree with this country's entire justice system, which is predicated upon the notion that intentions DO MATTER, among other things.

You are forgetting that in each crime intention's importance is relative. In your crime, intention was not that important. Considering intentions in crime is unfair. The best way to create a fair system is to make all murder sentences extreme. That way the murder of a poor baby is the same as a murder of a drug dealer. Murder is murder.

Ignoring the facts of this case (I don't really want to continue that debate), intention is an important factor to consider in law & punishment because the purpose of punishment is to prevent crime. If it didn't have any such effect, then its only purpose would be revenge (as for whether revenge is justifiable: ).

Punishment can prevent crime either as a threat or by actually restricting the freedom of past or potential perpetrators to commit crime (but only if they are predisposed). Neither of these applies in the punishment of someone who commits a crime without intent.

on Fi vs Fe

well, think of it as Ti vs Te - the dichotomy (if i may call it so...

Ti and Fi are introverted judging functions, which is why both of'em appear to be more rigid than Fe and Te.

if you have a good idea of how Ti works, then you'll most likely have a good grasp on Fi too.

Good point; this is often not recognized.