i disagree that introverted feeling = stronger ethics

[uninspired]

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?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I, for one, didn't say = stronger ethics, I said INFjs are more likely to have concern for global issues - i.e. they are more depersonalized in this regard than INFps. in INFps is more interpersonal than in INFjs, which is more intrapersonal. INFjs don't like to criticize one particular individual - they are more likely to question the motives of a group of people IMO. Both and can be intense about issues, but they work in different spheres.

If INFps are already in a group of their own choosing, they express how they feel about things - but it tends to be on a person-to-person basis - INFjs on the otherhand, tend not to say how they feel directly - you deduce from their global perspectives about what they think about one specific case of 'moral injustice', as you can deduce from a INFps response to 'local' issues what their global perspective is.

[uninspired]

Oh no, I know you weren't. I wasn't directing this at you personally, I was just expressing my feelings that Socionics in general seems to think that = strong ethics whereas = weaker ethics. It says on the16types.info section on "functions" under Introverted Feeling that it's associated with "subjective judgments and morals".

Extraverted Feeling in INFps is more interpersonal than Introverted Feeling in INFjs, which is more intrapersonal.

I agree with this.

[olduser]

Her ethics are Fi. Your's are Fe. You are upset that she would destroy the atmosphere like that and make people feel bad. She was upset that you put her personal relationships on the line like that. This is a very good example of Fe-Fi. I personally think she is correct, but not based on an ethical issue. You put her into a feverish emotional state for your pleasure and to maintain to the fun atmosphere with your friends. There was no reason to do this. Putting people through emotional stress is fucked up, and you should get some new hobbies. It is an easy reaction to see-- You play with people's emotions for no reason, they get pissed off, and retalliate. Your mother ought to take away your cell phone.

[anndelise]

there is a difference between ability and focus preference
even T types have ethics
but most of them prefer not to focus so much on the ethics of a situation instead preferring to focus on the logic
and even their ethics they try (not necessarily successfully) to justify them by use of logic

at the time you made the prank call to the girl....were you focused on whether or not she would like the prank?, on whether or not it was a "right" thing to do? ......or were you focusing on her state of arousal, her fear, her worrying, etc?

[uninspired]

You are upset that she would destroy the atmosphere like that and make people feel bad.

Make people feel bad? What, like pouty-face bad? BS!!!!! Saying horrible things like that to your friends for the purpose of destroying them emotionally, and doing so CONSCIOUSLY, is infinitely worse than a HARMLESS JOKE, which we DID NOT KNOW WOULD HURT SOMEONE!

You put her into a feverish emotional state for your pleasure and to maintain to the fun atmosphere with your friends. There was no reason to do this.

See above. We didn't INTEND to hurt anyone, much less induce a "feverish emotional state". We thought she'd come to think it was funny after the whole situation was over. We didn't rip into people's character with the INTENTION OF HURTING THEM like she did.

[Mea]

Merry vs Serious?
I personally thought that "prank" was silly.

[anndelise]

See above. We didn't intend to hurt ANYONE, much less induce a "feverish emotional state". We thought she'd come to think it was funny after the whole situation was over. We didn't rip into people's character with the INTENTION OF HURTING THEM like she did.

1. do you deny intending to induce negative emotions in her...isn't that what the whole prank involved??? inducing fear, worry, a sudden state of fight vs flight (all on your behalfs, mind)? sometimes upon relief of the stress (being told it was just a joke) can induce a different chemical to make amends for the previous chemical induced....but some people it takes a little longer for that good chemical to kick in

2. you're forgetting that as an enfp, she's not saying/doing these things with any other intent than expressing herself, expressing her anger at what was done to her, expressing her fear/worry and that chemical that obviously remained in her system long enough to feed her anger which....as an exfp...she needs to vent out before she can release it from within


one of the common difficulties between enfp and infp is when
1. an infp interprets the actions of an enfp as if the enfp were an infp
2. an enfp interprets the actions of an infp as if the infp were an enfp

[olduser]

if you can't see that her getting upset was a potential consequence of your prank then you are a moron, and once again, your mother should take away your cell phone. People's hearts are not things to take chances on. Her reaction is not just, but you were the instigator and none of this would have happened if you hadn't started it in the first place.

[Mea]

if you can't see that her getting upset was a potential consequence of your prank then you are a moron, and once again, your mother should take away your cell phone. People's hearts are not things to take chances on. Her reaction is not just, but you were the instigator and none of this would have happened if you hadn't started it in the first place.

[anndelise]

one of the interesting things is that instead of saying "you know what, you're probably right, we probably shouldn't have played that prank on you. We didn't know it would upset you. We'll avoid pranks of this nature in the future."
instead of accepting some responsibility for your actions....

you bitch about her reactions and how she's exaggerating the whole thing, and how she's intending to hurt you all (instead of being an enfp who needs to express her hurt and anger), and you continue to justify your own actions while villifying hers

you're in the right, she's in the wrong!!!...according to you at least

[uninspired]

I am not a moron, and you can take your ad-hominem attacks and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

And yes, we did think the prank was "silly", but not malicious. We thought she'd be slightly pissed, but would recover quickly and laugh about it with us later. We didn't think she'd be so upset as to react the way that she did, however.
Oh, and now that I recall, the person on the phone telling her that we were in jail was ANOTHER ENFP.
I retract my original statement about this being a conflict between / ethics. This was a conflict between people who had no sense of humor and people who did.

[quote] People's hearts are not things to take chances on. [/quotes]

People's neuroses, more like. I acknowledge that it was foolish of us to play a prank on a basketcase.

[uninspired]

One of the interesting things is that instead of saying "you know what, you're probably right, we probably shouldn't have played that prank on you. We didn't know it would upset you. We'll avoid pranks of this nature in the future."

I DID!!! But instead of accepting my apology, she continued to put salt in the wound and go on about how traumatizing it was, which I interpreted as total BS. That's when I launched into how cruel it was for her to say such horrible things to us.

you bitch about her reactions and how she's exaggerating the whole thing, and how she's intending to hurt you all (instead of being an enfp who needs to express her hurt and anger), and you continue to justify your own actions while villifying hers.

I DID admit I was wrong, but I'll never admit to deserving something as mean-spirited as what she gave out. And I never will.

[olduser]

good. you've understood half of what I said. "we thought that she would..." You have acknowledged your guilt. She did react that way and regardless of whether or not you consider her reaction just-- you started the conflict and deserve the punishment. Tough luck kid. Talk to your mom about taking away your cellphone to protect yourself against further personal indiscretions in the future.

btw, the punishment was her choice because you were wrong. When you fuck up with other people you don't get to decide your own punishment. Fact of life.

[Mea]

[quote="uninspired"]I am not a moron, and you can take your ad-hominem attacks and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

And yes, we did think the prank was "silly", but not malicious. We thought she'd be slightly pissed, but would recover quickly and laugh about it with us later. We didn't think she'd be so upset as to react the way that she did, however.
Oh, and now that I recall, the person on the phone telling her that we were in jail was ANOTHER ENFP.
I retract my original statement about this being a conflict between / ethics. This was a conflict between people who had no sense of humor and people who did.

People's hearts are not things to take chances on. [/quotes]

People's neuroses, more like. I acknowledge that it was foolish of us to play a prank on a basketcase.

Rubbish. It has nothing to do with her having no sense of humor. Rather, it's your DIFFERENT sense of humors.

I have gotten into similar situations. And it irritates me just as much that people play pranks like that for no reason (just for fun or whatever). Though I wouldn't keep bringing the past up over and over.

[uninspired]

I understood all of what you said, I just don't accept it.

And unlike you, I don't have to talk to my mom about my cellphone. One, it wasn't my cellphone, and two, I pay my own bills, thank you very much.

whether or not you consider her reaction just-- you started the conflict and deserve the punishment.

Let's apply this logic to other contexts. Someone randomly insults another person on the street, calling them something as innocent as "a loser." The other person then goes ballistic and kills the person who insulted him or her. Foolish as this may sound, this has been known to happen, especially in crime-stricken areas. Would a court of law really consider the offender justified in going so far as to KILL the other person for merely insulting him or her? Would you seriously say that the insulter deserved to die? Well, no court of law in this country or any sane country in the world would, because they understand that there are DIFFERENT DEGREES of harm that one can cause another person, and killing someone is not proportional to insulting someone.

And while I will admit that I FUCKED UP, her response was not justified. She was crueler to us, and INTENDED to be crueler to us, than we in any way intended to be to her.

When you fuck with other people you don't get to decide your own punishment. Fact of life.

True, but it doesn't make the punishment that others give out RIGHT.

[uninspired]

It has nothing to do with her having no sense of humor. Rather, it's your DIFFERENT sense of humors.

Point conceded, my bad. I'm actually glad you brought this up, because what I've been trying to say all along is that and are DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF ETHICS, and that one is not necessarily better or stronger than the other.

[Mea]

It has nothing to do with her having no sense of humor. Rather, it's your DIFFERENT sense of humors.

Point conceded, my bad. I'm actually glad you brought this up, because what I've been trying to say all along is that and are DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF ETHICS, and that one is not necessarily better or stronger than the other.

k. Point taken.

[olduser]

In this situation there is no right and wrong punishment. Your example of someone killing someone over calling them a loser is different. Physical harm or harm of material interests is the only harm that is unacceptable, or should be considered so in a court of law. Your emotions are meaningless. If she were to hit you, then yes, her punishment would be unjust. But considering this is emotional strife then your punishment can be anything outside of physical harm or harm of material interests. Courts can't repay tears. She has a right to free speech.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The abuse caused by emotions is abstract, and can't be measured in the same way as physical abuse by a court of law - that doesn't mean emotions are meaningless or that people shouldn't be offended by them.

[olduser]

Abstractions shouldn't be held in a court of law.

[uninspired]

Physical harm or harm of material interests is the only harm that is unacceptable, or should be considered so in a court of law. Your emotions are meaningless. Courts can't repay tears.

Yes, they can. People have gotten money in countless civil settlements for emotional/psychological distress. Intentionally inflicting psychological harm upon someone is considered a very serious matter, which the courts DO take account of. I'm not saying my case could be taken to court, because it couldn't, but you can't say that people's emotions play no part in our justice system.

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.

[uninspired]

Thank you, Subterranean!

[anndelise]

who/what determines what degree of harm something is?
an outsider who didn't feel the harm?
or an insider who did?
(note: i'm obviously not referring to legal/court stuff)

[Not A Communist Shill]

Abstractions are frequently used in a court of law - e.g. guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, or 'do you think, in all likelihood, that the defendant is guilty' etc.

But just because emotions are abstract and so can't be measured in a court of law, doesn't mean you can say or do whatever you like - all humans have an emotional intelligience of sorts - you can tailor your actions according to how you perceive people acting - just because emotions are subjective doesn't mean you should treat others however you like, without thought for other people - I suppose, basically, you should treat people as you expect to be treated - people might accuse of acting improperly, but you are on safe ground, because you consider you acted properly at the time .

[olduser]

Yes, they can. People have gotten money in countless civil settlements for emotional/psychological distress. Intentionally inflicting psychological harm upon someone is considered a very serious matter, which the courts DO take account of. I'm not saying my case could be taken to court, because it couldn't, but you can't say that people's emotions play no part in our justice system.

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.

You can take emotions to court, and it's fucking bullshit. You make my argument in your second paragraph. Suffering a small degree and inflicting a large degree. These are both relative to the individual in emotional cases and it's absolutely impossible to have an objective measure. That argument doesn't follow your situation. it introduces the aspect of physical harm and physical harm is dichotomous to emotional harm.

To subterranean:
Your argument falls apart right here: "Just because emotions have no measure doesn't mean you can say or do anything you want,." There is a difference between saying and doing. When you say something to someone they have the choice of whether or not to deal with it. When you do something to someone they don't have a choice. Say being emotional harm, and do being physical harm generally.

The more needless protection and sanction we give ourselves, the less free we become! Freedom means that you will have to put up with other people's emotions and possibly them abusing them with you. At the same time they will have to put up with yours. Let's not stifle any emotions in favor of protection! Let people say what they think and feel and do what they want if it causes no physical/material harm to others!

[anndelise]

Basically, we have
Person A who deliberately induced an emotional state in Person B.
Person A may or may not be aware of what the exact emotions were brought up, nor the extent/degree of said emotions.
Person A did not feel the emotions Person B did.

Person B responds by expressing some of the results of said emotions, along with judgments on the actions of inducing said emotions.
Person B may or may not be aware of what emotions these expressions may be inducing in Person A, what the exact emotions are being brought up, nor the extent/degree of said emotions.
Person B is not feeling the emotions Person A is.

Person A is expressing some of the results of the first expressions, along with judgments on the actions of expressing the results of A's first actions.

and so on and so on..

It seems to me that
* both parties are projecting intent/motivation upon the other party,
* both parties are justifying their actions/reactions,
* both parties seem to be seeking "justice" of some kind,
* neither party is empathizing with the other, and
* neither seem to be seeking a resolution to the problem.

and so the "drama" will continue...
or one of the parties will call a cease fire (though unexpressed ill thoughts will remain)...
and/or the friendship will end


(a link to a post I once did regarding drama: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=200967#200967 )

***
and *sigh* ....now i'll quit avoiding what i've been avoiding...
thanks for the breather , uninspired

[astralsilky]

"i disagree that introverted feeling = stronger ethics"

true

Fi != stronger ethics

in the sense of real virtue, anyway.

[Kristiina]

Enough with the traumatizing pressure!

This is exactly why I don't post much in this forum lately. There is a general attitude here, "Oh that sound like Fe, Must crush, must destroy!". Pleasant neutral beginning to a thread until there was a 2-sided Fe-Fi topic. Immediately people started picking at the Fe side and forgot about the point of the thread. "Oh, I see, you just wanted to have fun at her expense! and you got mad when she ruined your MOOD!" I see enough of the Fi "goodness" in real life. I'm almost getting a rash just thinking about it. Yuck! Oh so ethical.

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.

[Not A Communist Shill]

To subterranean:
Your argument falls apart right here: "Just because emotions have no measure doesn't mean you can say or do anything you want,." There is a difference between saying and doing. When you say something to someone they have the choice of whether or not to deal with it. When you do something to someone they don't have a choice. Say being emotional harm, and do being physical harm generally.

There may be a difference between saying and doing, but you said emotions don't count for anything - they do count, because if someone says they've done something, it can be the same as if they actually did it. Some people are unable to choose how to deal with other people's emotions as surely as some people are unable to choose how to deal with their actions.

You can take both actions and emotions at face value, or you can attempt to read the reasons beyond them - the meaning behind actions can be abstract and unclear, as much as with emotions.

[anndelise]

ok, still avoiding and couldn't resist this

but why say things like that after having time to cool down.

because she's not a rational type nor an introvert?
because as an irrational EF, if it's in her head, it'll likely come out her mouth before she realizes she's said anything

saying a person shouldn't feel something...doesn't make the feelings go away (not for her, and not for him..i'm assuming uninspired is a him, if i'm wrong, i apologize...but please let me know so i don't make the mistake again)
she's likely struggling to find a way to resolve the issue, but doesn't know how
and of course to attempt to resolve the issue requires bringing the issue up
and if in the process of bringing it up to resolve the issue, another party goes on an attack (which, btw, many infps are fairly well known to do in such situations), then both go into a mixed mode of attack/defense....and the problem boils upwards instead of dissolving.

also, there is a good chance that she may be seeking Te information to help resolve this (for herself at least)....
which of course an infp won't provide....instead giving her Ti information...
which isn't at all what she is looking for..
etc etc.
etc

[olduser]

]

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.

Her motives aren't explicit therefore they cannot be considered known and speculation upon them will not be treated truthfully. I don't see this thread as Fi vs. Fe. I see this situation as an example of a typical fi vs. fe conflict, but my personal stake in it is not to make an ethical judgement, but to show that people should be held responsible for their actions. Also, "failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other's feelings" is not an objective statement and we cannot make assumptions about what is more or less serious with other individuals. There is no measure as there would be if this were a monetary issue or an issue of physical harm.

[anndelise]

I don't see this thread as Fi vs. Fe. I see this situation as an example of a typical fi vs. fe conflict

agreed

[uninspired]

Also, "failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other's feelings" is not an objective statement and we cannot make assumptions about what is more or less serious with other individuals.

Yes, it is an objective statement. Intentionally harming is worse than unintentionally harming.

Enough with the traumatizing pressure!

But this is my point, Kristina. Who says that what they're talking about is Introverted "Ethics" and not what we're talking about? Who can say that one ethical system takes precedence over another? No one on this forum, that's for sure.

and so the "drama" will continue...
or one of the parties will call a cease fire (though unexpressed ill thoughts will remain)...
and/or the friendship will end

It already ended. She was one of the most emotionally destructive people I've ever met in my life, and not just because of this encounter.

[olduser]

Also, "failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other's feelings" is not an objective statement and we cannot make assumptions about what is more or less serious with other individuals.

Yes, it is an objective statement. Intentionally harming is worse than unintentionally harming.

Intentions don't count-- actions and their consequences are what matter. You keep wavering on your personal guilt in the matter.

[uninspired]

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.

And no, I'm not wavering on my personal guilt. It was a mistake on my part. I didn't know she'd react that way, I didn't want to hurt her feelings, and I would never do it again.

Case closed.

Back to my original argument. What I'm trying to say is, INFps and other types do in fact have very developed ethical systems.
Here's an example involving my so-called dual. I once had an ESTp roommate whom I mistyped as ENTj, because there was so much trouble between us that I felt our relationship couldn't possibly be a dual one. She smoked marijuana regularly, drove drunk, snorted adderall in our room, beat up people she didn't like, and screamed at me when I made messes (she wasn't ESTj, I swear to you). She was nice to me at times, and we had fun together, but overall I thought she was a horrible degenerate who had no respect for others, and she scared the crap out of me.
Another time we had a problem was when I had a failed relationship with an ENTp. After I expressed to her my dislike of him, she proceeded to vandalize his door and write "worthless" on it. I was so shocked and horrified that she did this that I called him up, explained the entire situation, and apologized profusely. Awful, awful thing to do, in my opinion.
And I know yet another ESTp who is currently with a girl just for sex. That disgusts me as well. So, herein lays the issue. How is 's ethics supposedly weak, then? According to what criteria?

[anndelise]

Fi != stronger ethics

in the sense of real virtue, anyway.

"Real virtue," eh? Why don't you stop being such an insulting, asinine coward and actually back up what you say instead of making nonsensical, unjustifiable statements like that?

um, perhaps you are not aware that the sign != means "not"

so what astralsilky had in essence said was
Fi does not equate to stronger ethics

[uninspired]

Thanks so much, Ann!

Astralsilky, if you read my previous post, I'm incredibly sorry. I didn't know that "!" meant "not," and I thought you were insulting me and trying to ruffle my feathers. Thanks for your support, and once again I'm sorry .

[anndelise]

Also, "failed joke is less serious than someone deliberately trying to hurt other's feelings" is not an objective statement and we cannot make assumptions about what is more or less serious with other individuals.

Yes, it is an objective statement. Intentionally harming is worse than unintentionally harming.

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 )

[olduser]

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.