Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Fi relation to personal ethics and strict ethical behavior

  1. #1
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Fi relation to personal ethics and strict ethical behavior

    is often explained within the confines of a loosely-termed 'ethical' context. I take this to mean situational or personal ethics in an informal sense, not the sort of moral/philosophical framework often credited to the word. Is this correct? Secondly, are types - especially those of Delta - more likely to adhere to strict, ethical behaviour, or is that more likely the result of poor wording on the part of Socionics?

    (Perhaps this is more 'General'...)
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    is often explained within the confines of a loosely-termed 'ethical' context. I take this to mean situational or personal ethics in an informal sense, not the sort of moral/philosophical framework often credited to the word. Is this correct?
    Yes. I think that it is very important not to confuse the meanings of the words "ethics" and "logic" in a socionic context with their special meaning in a philosophical context. People tend to do that sometimes though. The word "logic" in Socionics is not the same thing as "logic" in a philosophical sense, and it is not the same thing as "conceptual logic" or logical reasoning in general, even though there are some points of contact. And the word "ethics" in Socionics is not the same thing as "ethics" in a philosophical framework.

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    is often explained within the confines of a loosely-termed 'ethical' context. I take this to mean situational or personal ethics in an informal sense, not the sort of moral/philosophical framework often credited to the word. Is this correct?
    I think so, I think is about having a clear idea of what consists ethical behavior, or if you prefer, of being "good" or "evil". So they also know precisely which other individuals behave and even think in ways they regard as "good". What attracts them in people is less "he makes me happy" than "he's a good person", although to them it's "he makes me happy because he's a good person". Of course, he's a "good person" according to totally personal criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    Secondly, are types - especially those of Delta - more likely to adhere to strict, ethical behaviour, or is that more likely the result of poor wording on the part of Socionics?
    Delta types will be likely to adhere to strict ethical behavior, but according to their own criteria, so they may not appear "strict" to outsiders at all. Also, irrational types may have "variable strict" criteria. For instance an ISFj may think that an ENFp's ethical criteria are not strict at all, and call them situational, while an ENFp might reply that that's precisely the point.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Delta types will be likely to adhere to strict ethical behavior, but according to their own criteria, so they may not appear "strict" to outsiders at all. Also, irrational types may have "variable strict" criteria. For instance an ISFj may think that an ENFp's ethical criteria are not strict at all, and call them situational, while an ENFp might reply that that's precisely the point.
    Yeah i see ethics as a flexible thing. It sometimes annoys me that i can justify unethical behavior. If a person cheat on their spouse i wonder what their parents were like, what the partner was like, if they have any personality disorders, if perhaps they found true love. If a person robs a store, i wonder if perhaps they were beaten as a child. Perhaps their parents told them they were a useless piece of trash. I dont see anyone as born bad or born good. I just see people as the product of their life experiences, genetics, upbringing etc.

    ISFj is more likely to say stealing is wrong and thats it. The benefit of that though is they would be less likely to break the law i think. I can probablly bend my ethics around the law if it was really necessary . An ISTp guy i know is making money selling ounces of dope at the moment and i just conveniently ignore it.

    I still see the act as wrong, but i cannot ignore the factors involved.
    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  5. #5
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the replies, guys. I guess by extension my next question is how relevent ethics itself is in identifying an ethical type. By the sounds of it, 'not very' (if at all), though my initial suspicion was that there must be at least some connection.

    To use the framework of Socionics on a very high level, where might deduce the most logically-sound system, those valuing would be less likely to adhere to its conclusions than a type.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  6. #6
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    To use the framework of Socionics on a very high level, where might deduce the most logically-sound system, those valuing would be less likely to adhere to its conclusions than a type.
    No, I disagree with that. A typical case of a logical system in human affairs is the modern army. If you fail to disobey orders from your superior, the army's first "instinct" is that you are breaking the system and must be punished, and only after much reluctance, as in a formal court martial, it is decided whether your personal situation and position and beliefs should be taken into consideration. So within the frame of the system, those valuing are more likely to adhere to its conclusions.

    A good example is the Catholic Church, where a priest who heard a confession from a terrorist is not allowed to do or say anything to prevent him/her from carrying out another attack, no matter if the priest himself considers the attack to be an evil thing and many of his close ones could be killed. That is overruling , in my view.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  7. #7
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    Thanks for the replies, guys. I guess by extension my next question is how relevent ethics itself is in identifying an ethical type. By the sounds of it, 'not very' (if at all), though my initial suspicion was that there must be at least some connection.
    Yeah i don't think that is particularly useful in determining type. Any type can adhere to ethical standards depending on how strongly they believe in something etc. If you understood the motivation behind the ethics it could give you a hint though. I tend to not like cruelty to others, bullying, things like that. Ive heard of ISFj's being real bullies though lol. Ive done a couple of unethical things in my time

    Sorry my posts are shitty tonight. Im very sleepy
    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  8. #8
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    To use the framework of Socionics on a very high level, where might deduce the most logically-sound system, those valuing would be less likely to adhere to its conclusions than a type.
    No, I disagree with that. A typical case of a logical system in human affairs is the modern army. If you fail to disobey orders from your superior, the army's first "instinct" is that you are breaking the system and must be punished, and only after much reluctance, as in a formal court martial, it is decided whether your personal situation and position and beliefs should be taken into consideration. So within the frame of the system, those valuing are more likely to adhere to its conclusions.
    I guess I am approaching this from the position irrespective of outside force. Indeed, where the army structure 'external' may enforce a rule on principle, the personal choice that was originally made hypothetically falls along a, "this is a cohesive system, but I'm going to break its rules" train of thought. I'm trying to determine in an abstract sense who is more likely to break that rule - as I'm framing it, someone bound by logic but not any particular socion-ethical impetus ( ) or someone who is ( ): "will it be wrong to break this rule, regardless of whether or not I understand it to be logically sound". Where the military is concerned, I could see our hypothetical ethical type offering the justification, "well, it's the army" on why rules should be followed, whereas a logical might say, "that's the best structure for the army to achieve its ends".

    Or is that, in fact, not the case?
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  9. #9
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another factor is how much the or person's internal system is in accordance with the external or "system". Also, the / axis is more potentially for the sacrifice of the self in the pursue of a greater reason than the / axis is, since the former is more concerned by the long term consequences of a or system while the latter is more concerned by it's immediate range.

  10. #10
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    It looks to me the army might be a + system. being a superior's judgement and being a strict chain of command to carry it thru.
    I disagree, because I see as a connection between specific individuals. The guy who totally trusts his friend and therefore will rely on his advice, or, say, the knight who has a sense of total devotion to his princess and therefore obeys her - not because of her position, but because of who she is - that is .

    If you just obey your superior because he has an extra stripe or star, regardless of your any personal bond - but you still think you should do it, because he's your superior - that is in my view.

    Now, a sense of personal loyalty to your superior officer, then that is coinciding with .


    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    The Catholic Church example also seems to be overruling or even because the priest's vows to the church is more important, his bond to God is more important to his bond to his fellow man and close ones.
    That example is more ambiguous and deeper. If he feels a personal bond to God and that overrules his bond to others, then that will be just . If, however, he feels that he must do that because "that's how it is in God's rules, I can't allow my personal bonds to interfere" then that is more .

    A problem is that I think that people become priests for different reasons. Some of them do it for a sense of personal sense to God. Others do it because the feel the need to have an underlying sense of order in their lives and the universe, and God provides that. At least that's what I get from talking to people and listening to debates on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    I just don't see any of this being . would be more or less self-interest. How does this help me, how does this achieve my end.
    Then we have very deep disagreements as to what is, since I don't see that as intrinsically related to .
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    Indeed, where the army structure 'external' may enforce a rule on principle, the personal choice that was originally made hypothetically falls along a, "this is a cohesive system, but I'm going to break its rules" train of thought. I'm trying to determine in an abstract sense who is more likely to break that rule - as I'm framing it, someone bound by logic but not any particular socion-ethical impetus ( ) or someone who is ( ): "will it be wrong to break this rule, regardless of whether or not I understand it to be logically sound". Where the military is concerned, I could see our hypothetical ethical type offering the justification, "well, it's the army" on why rules should be followed, whereas a logical might say, "that's the best structure for the army to achieve its ends".
    I think that both will be equally likely to break rules, but they will do it for different motivations.

    That's again another example of how socionics is best understood by explaining why people do things than just reporting what they do.

    "this is a cohesive system, but I'm going to break its rules" - the queston is, why?

    In this case:

    ( ): "will it be wrong to break this rule, regardless of whether or not I understand it to be logically sound".

    But I don't think a type would phrase it that way, in terms of "breaking the rules". They would break a rule for a specific reason. If they gave their word in a way that makes them feel like they are violating a personal ethic, or a bond to people or an institution, they would hesitate to break it. But I don't think or types are necessarily concerned with rules as such. If they think that the system is silly and they feel not sense of committment to it, they will break what they see as silly rules to help individuals they have a personal bond to, for instance.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    I think the ambiguity of a religious decision to be true, but I wouldn't consider as the primary motive for religious decision. and might be.
    If you mention , I agree, because I think that one way to best understand is to realize that it needs and vice-versa.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  13. #13
    PotatoSpirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bologna, Italy
    Posts
    637
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    I have this idea that Fi morality means "good willed" or "good natured", while Ti morality means "just"... yes, no, maybe so?

    Quote Originally Posted by meatburger
    An ISTp guy i know is making money selling ounces of dope at the moment and i just conveniently ignore it.
    I still see the act as wrong, but i cannot ignore the factors involved.
    That's against the law but it's only wrong if he's selling it to people who can't think for themselves (kids, mentally ill).
    LSI

  14. #14
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
    I have this idea that Fi morality means "good willed" or "good natured", while Ti morality means "just"... yes, no, maybe so?
    Not "good natured" in the sense of being "nice".

    I think that Fi morality is based on ethical principles that start from individual bonds and from there are extended to benefit the group.

    Ti morality is based on logical principles that, by creating a consistent structure that benefits the group, theoretically the largest number of individuals will benefit.

    I think it could be put like this:

    An ISFj has said: "it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than risk that one single innocent person be punished"

    An ISTj might retort that a few individuals will always be unfairly punished, but if you risk letting guilt go unpunished the whole system will collapse and therefore harm everybody in the end.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  15. #15
    PotatoSpirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bologna, Italy
    Posts
    637
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Not "good natured" in the sense of being "nice".

    I think that Fi morality is based on ethical principles that start from individual bonds and from there are extended to benefit the group.

    Ti morality is based on logical principles that, by creating a consistent structure that benefits the group, theoretically the largest number of individuals will be benefit.
    Seems right (c:
    LSI

  16. #16
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
    I have this idea that Fi morality means "good willed" or "good natured", while Ti morality means "just"... yes, no, maybe so?
    Not "good natured" in the sense of being "nice".

    I think that Fi morality is based on ethical principles that start from individual bonds and from there are extended to benefit the group.

    Ti morality is based on logical principles that, by creating a consistent structure that benefits the group, theoretically the largest number of individuals will benefit.

    I think it could be put like this:

    An ISFj has said: "it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than risk that one single innocent person be punished"

    An ISTj might retort that a few individuals will always be unfairly punished, but if you risk letting guilt go unpunished the whole system will collapse and therefore harm everybody in the end.
    I don't think this is just right but I have to think about it a bit. At least either it isn't right or my brother is ISTj and not ISFj, and I'm quite sure he's ISFj. But he's said that a whole system has to be built around ethics rather than reacting to each case individually, which he says I do (and I probably do), because he says if the whole system is set up properly, than fewer people will suffer than if you look at every case on it's own.

    So I figured his opinion is Fi + Se = ethics but as an overall system with some level of authority over how people behave, whereas my opinion is Fi + Ne = ethics and looking at every possibility, every possible scenario, every individual circumstance no matter how the individuals behave.

    The specific scenario we talked about was welfare - I said that you can't let people starve even if they're drug addicts so welfare should have fewer strings attached or people might fall through the cracks, and he said you have to set up the welfare system properly so that people who need it are helped by it, and so that it encourages people to behave in an ethical manner.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  17. #17
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I don't think this is just right but I have to think about it a bit. At least either it isn't right or my brother is ISTj and not ISFj, and I'm quite sure he's ISFj. But he's said that a whole system has to be built around ethics rather than reacting to each case individually, which he says I do (and I probably do), because he says if the whole system is set up properly, than fewer people will suffer than if you look at every case on it's own.
    Ok, then I have to re-think my own definitions, too.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  18. #18
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    The specific scenario we talked about was welfare - I said that you can't let people starve even if they're drug addicts so welfare should have fewer strings attached or people might fall through the cracks, and he said you have to set up the welfare system properly so that people who need it are helped by it, and so that it encourages people to behave in an ethical manner.
    But that sounds different to me than a Ti system. That sounds to me like a typical Gamma/Delta disagreement in such things. I see that as more a Ni-Se vs Ne-Si difference than Fi vs Ti. He's also thinking of the individuals in the end, but in a "tougher" manner than you.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  19. #19
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    The specific scenario we talked about was welfare - I said that you can't let people starve even if they're drug addicts so welfare should have fewer strings attached or people might fall through the cracks, and he said you have to set up the welfare system properly so that people who need it are helped by it, and so that it encourages people to behave in an ethical manner.
    But that sounds different to me than a Ti system. That sounds to me like a typical Gamma/Delta disagreement in such things. I see that as more a Ni-Se vs Ne-Si difference than Fi vs Ti. He's also thinking of the individuals in the end, but in a "tougher" manner than you.
    Ok, I put the scenario because I thought it might not be precisely what you were talking about, but I still don't think the "system" vs. "individual" thing is a good way to look at this difference.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  20. #20
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    Ok, I put the scenario because I thought it might not be precisely what you were talking about, but I still don't think the "system" vs. "individual" thing is a good way to look at this difference.
    Yes, I have to think more about it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  21. #21
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Delta types will be likely to adhere to strict ethical behavior, but according to their own criteria, so they may not appear "strict" to outsiders at all. Also, irrational types may have "variable strict" criteria.
    I agree that it is about criteria that is often subjective to the individual in question, but at the same time adhering to the same universal Fi principles which logic can very often overrule and overpower leaving deltas unsatisfied and always willing to fight for Fi's "rightness" and it's obedience by people. Strict - yes. "Variable strict" - I don't think so, maybe under some Gamma's point of view, but not when it comes to the way Deltas deal with it. Ignoring Fi may pass, but working against it's course may give deltas a lot of work, goals, and many reasons to take action. Anyhow, my 2 cents, if I make sense to anyone.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  22. #22
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    To use the framework of Socionics on a very high level, where might deduce the most logically-sound system, those valuing would be less likely to adhere to its conclusions than a type.
    No, I disagree with that. A typical case of a logical system in human affairs is the modern army. If you fail to disobey orders from your superior, the army's first "instinct" is that you are breaking the system and must be punished, and only after much reluctance, as in a formal court martial, it is decided whether your personal situation and position and beliefs should be taken into consideration. So within the frame of the system, those valuing are more likely to adhere to its conclusions.

    A good example is the Catholic Church, where a priest who heard a confession from a terrorist is not allowed to do or say anything to prevent him/her from carrying out another attack, no matter if the priest himself considers the attack to be an evil thing and many of his close ones could be killed. That is overruling , in my view.
    kinda like the american legal system, as well. Ti always trumps Fi....at least in the courtroom. at the negotiating table, Fi takes precedence.

    ILE

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

  23. #23
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bullshit. Both Fi and Ti are logical systems. If you simply re-labeled them you would clear the confusion:

    Ti: Logic of simplicity.
    Fi: Logic of complexity.

    They work more or less this way:

    Imagine that reality is like a tree. There is a common trunk and there are branches, and sub-branches and so on.

    Ti works best when information is isolated from everything else. The ideal statement for Ti is one where two homogeneous bits are evaluated, like "Are 747 planes? Yes", "Are women men? No". For this reason Ti tries to go up the tree, because each hierachy level isolates it from others bits of information.

    Fi does the opposite: it feels at home when it comes to balance several bits of information at once. So it tries to go down the tree and find the common root for all branches involved. That's why ethics, diplomacy, etc are the most widely known -but certainly not the only ones- manifestations of it.

    Let's put a practical example:

    It's war time and Joe, Marie and Anna are fighting for a piece of bread. What's one going to do?

    Ti answer: 1/3 = 0.333(...) for each one. (ONE FACTOR INVOLVED)
    Fi answer: The piece of bread will be cut into pieces. The size of each piece will be determned by looking at the level of undernourishment of each one. (TWO FACTORS INVOLVED)
    Joe, Marie and Anna are persons which possess many individual characteristics. For example, they have an age, gender, body constitution, family background, etc. Ti cannot process so much information efficiently, so it tries to reduce the problem to its simplest form. Fi, on the contrary, processes large amounts of information efficiently and thus tries get as many details as possible.

    This takes us to the socionics pairings of functions:

    Fe pairs with Ti because Fe is an information reducing function: it's selective. This is most obvious on Fe dominants because they care deeply about their tastes and rarely care about anything that is outside them. This is comfortable for Ti types because the excess of information is removed, leaving place for simplified analysis.

    Te pairs with Fi because it's an information increasing function. Te dominants have an ever increasing repository of information and that's comfortable for Fi types because they need details in order to make system-wide fine-tuned decisions.

    In evolutionary terms, it seems to me that Ti is a shortcut to Fi. Its view and understanding of the world is artificial and unrealistic, but it is highly efficient when it comes to solve problems, so it's been rewarded by nature over time. However, an optimal solution made for a two factor problem is not automatically the optimal solution for a problem which has hundreds, thoushands or even more factors involved. And that's where the "shortcut" nature of Ti becomes evident: over time one realizes that short term solutions are at expense of long term ones.

    Want examples? Well, remember the Y2K "issue". Some random programmer decided that it was ok to cut the date's year to two digits, in order to save memory. Perfectly valid logical statement, as the only factors involved were the need for memory and the observation that the first two digits for the date didn't change often. But what happened when other factors came in?
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  24. #24
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    Bullshit. Both Fi and Ti are logical systems. If you simply re-labeled them you would clear the confusion:

    Ti: Logic of simplicity.
    Fi: Logic of complexity.

    They work more or less this way:

    Imagine that reality is like a tree. There is a common trunk and there are branches, and sub-branches and so on.

    Ti works best when information is isolated from everything else. The ideal statement for Ti is one where two homogeneous bits are evaluated, like "Are 747 planes? Yes", "Are women men? No". For this reason Ti tries to go up the tree, because each hierachy level isolates it from others bits of information.

    Fi does the opposite: it feels at home when it comes to balance several bits of information at once. So it tries to go down the tree and find the common root for all branches involved. That's why ethics, diplomacy, etc are the most widely known -but certainly not the only ones- manifestations of it.

    Let's put a practical example:

    It's war time and Joe, Marie and Anna are fighting for a piece of bread. What's one going to do?

    Ti answer: 1/3 = 0.333(...) for each one. (ONE FACTOR INVOLVED)
    Fi answer: The piece of bread will be cut into pieces. The size of each piece will be determned by looking at the level of undernourishment of each one. (TWO FACTORS INVOLVED)
    Joe, Marie and Anna are persons which possess many individual characteristics. For example, they have an age, gender, body constitution, family background, etc. Ti cannot process so much information efficiently, so it tries to reduce the problem to its simplest form. Fi, on the contrary, processes large amounts of information efficiently and thus tries get as many details as possible.

    This takes us to the socionics pairings of functions:

    Fe pairs with Ti because Fe is an information reducing function: it's selective. This is most obvious on Fe dominants because they care deeply about their tastes and rarely care about anything that is outside them. This is comfortable for Ti types because the excess of information is removed, leaving place for simplified analysis.

    Te pairs with Fi because it's an information increasing function. Te dominants have an ever increasing repository of information and that's comfortable for Fi types because they need details in order to make system-wide fine-tuned decisions.

    In evolutionary terms, it seems to me that Ti is a shortcut to Fi. Its view and understanding of the world is artificial and unrealistic, but it is highly efficient when it comes to solve problems, so it's been rewarded by nature over time. However, an optimal solution made for a two factor problem is not automatically the optimal solution for a problem which has hundreds, thoushands or even more factors involved. And that's where the "shortcut" nature of Ti becomes evident: over time one realizes that short term solutions are at expense of long term ones.

    Want examples? Well, remember the Y2K "issue". Some random programmer decided that it was ok to cut the date's year to two digits, in order to save memory. Perfectly valid logical statement, as the only factors involved were the need for memory and the observation that the first two digits for the date didn't change often. But what happened when other factors came in?
    I like that explanation... I'm sure if I fully agree with it, but it's very easy to grasp and makes sense.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wouldn't have explained it that way, although I think that Fi is also a logical system.

    Mikemex seems to say that Fi would be paying attention to more information in reality, the same reality as a Ti person, but in my opinion i believe they are paying attnetion to different pieces of information. Isn't that also the view of socionics?

    I would say that Fe is an "information increasing" function, though Ti would work to "select" information from that input. Fi/Te is explained fine.

    Finally he says that Ti is rewarded by nature but that it's not an optimal solution over time, which I think is contradictory. When i read that post, I see it as valuing Te kinds of information over Ti ones.

    Btw, I noticed that I had to go over that post a few times because it was inconsistent in my eyes.. an indicator of type i guess?

  26. #26
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    I wouldn't have explained it that way, although I think that Fi is also a logical system.

    Mikemex seems to say that Fi would be paying attention to more information in reality, the same reality as a Ti person, but in my opinion i believe they are paying attnetion to different pieces of information. Isn't that also the view of socionics?

    I would say that Fe is an "information increasing" function, though Ti would work to "select" information from that input. Fi/Te is explained fine.

    Finally he says that Ti is rewarded by nature but that it's not an optimal solution over time, which I think is contradictory. When i read that post, I see it as valuing Te kinds of information over Ti ones.

    Btw, I noticed that I had to go over that post a few times because it was inconsistent in my eyes.. an indicator of type i guess?
    honestly I only skimmed it like I usually do with posts that length

  27. #27
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    Want examples? Well, remember the Y2K "issue". Some random programmer decided that it was ok to cut the date's year to two digits, in order to save memory. Perfectly valid logical statement, as the only factors involved were the need for memory and the observation that the first two digits for the date didn't change often. But what happened when other factors came in?
    This also seems like a lack of Ni to me. Strict reductionism. Which generally explains my healthy skepticism of any "absolute" statements. I can't seem to think in absolutes. Too many variables.
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  28. #28
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    This also seems like a lack of Ni to me. Strict reductionism. Which generally explains my healthy skepticism of any "absolute" statements. I can't seem to think in absolutes. Too many variables.
    The 2 digit year decision was made when you were dealing with 1024 bits and bytes as large numbers, they thought they had 40 years to change this decision.
    Then how come it snuck up on them? Recall the panic of 1999?? People freaking out about all the lights going out, planes crashing, banks collapsing, etc. It was like all the programmers were sitting around in the lunch room one day in mid-1999, "Hmm, guess next year's gonna be 2000 -- can you believe it? Freaking 21st century already! Wait, isn't there some issue with the buffer we were supposed to resolve by now...???" Blank looks all around...

    "CRAP!!!!"

    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  29. #29
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    I miss my C64... it still amazes me how much 'life' was wrung out of that machine

  30. #30
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    Finally he says that Ti is rewarded by nature but that it's not an optimal solution over time, which I think is contradictory. When i read that post, I see it as valuing Te kinds of information over Ti ones.

    Btw, I noticed that I had to go over that post a few times because it was inconsistent in my eyes.. an indicator of type i guess?
    A simple statement can't be ambiguous ("apples are red"), so the presence of ambiguity reveals complexity ("apples are big compared to ants, but small compared to planets" so the answer for "are apples big?" is "both and neither").

    Also, remember that nature doesn't reward intellectuality per se. As long as it keeps you warm, feed and safe, it doesn't matter what kind of thinking is it. But that doesn't mean that such pragmatic approach is the most appropiate for giving the universe a correct explanation.

    Put it this way. Is it really true that NT types are, on average, more adept at intellectual pursuits than the rest of the people? Like, for example, science? I don't think so.

    Electrons for example. If you've observed one electron, theorically speaking, you've observed all of them. For science all electrons, here where I live or where you do, are exactly the same. So Ti is well suited to explain them.

    However, what would happen if electrons weren't all the same? Then observing one electron would tell us a little, perhaps even nothing, about the rest of them. In such a case we would need to know about which specific electron that we are talking about. And this is, after all, a Fi problem. (Specific <-> Generic)

    It's commonly accepted today that electroncs are all the same, but new information starts to suggest the opposite. The universe is not deterministic and particles do not follow predictable paths, even under "controlled conditions". So there is a big chance that fields such as science, which are dominated by Tx types, are heavly influenced by the way of thinking of the people involved. But that nature makes sense to them in that way it doesn't mean that it is the way it is.

    And talking about Democrite, I recently read a small article about the beauty of the philosphical system of Epicurus. It said something like this:

    Epicurus inherited the view of Democrite that the universe was composed by atoms. However, unlike Democrite, Epicurus didn't think that they follow fixed, linear paths. For Epicurus, atoms drive away randomly as they move, so he was the first philosopher to introduce the concept of freedom as a fundamental aspect of the universe.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  31. #31
    yeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    Si 6 spsx
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand View Post
    Secondly, are types - especially those of Delta - more likely to adhere to strict, ethical behaviour, or is that more likely the result of poor wording on the part of Socionics?
    Poor wording by Socionics. When I looked up biographies of some Fi famous people posted on this forum to learn how to identify them, I saw everything in their personal history: divorce and infidelity, drug use, party life, alcohol, poor parenting, court trials and bar time. In some way all of this felt ethical and very human than reading Socionics type description. It is dehumanizing to describe Fi types and Delta NFs as being obligated by their socionics type to live like shut-outs. We are all human, we all have a choice on who we want to be and how we want to live our lives. Deltas rebelling against themselves have a choice to live on the wild side.

  32. #32
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imvho Fi is not so much about "ethics" as it is about affinity between people and knowing what you like almost as "a part of you", what makes up your distinct identity as an individual. However once a Fi person holds very strong and strict beliefs about a cause (stuff like human rights, changing the world for the better, purging the environment of mofos etc.), they are going to be very stubborn about that (but so are IJs and other rationals in general, aren't they?) and they are hardly going to do things that contradict their system of values. Fi in itself is a neutral function and it doesn't imply high ethics or purity of "soul" and motives. Not even sympathy or deep understanding of others when that butts heads with the individual likes and dislikes and the personal interests of a Fi user. Fi as "moral superiority" is mostly a myth, probably a result of the fact that many Fi users have actually become known for having higher values and fighting for them. Any person can be a jerk or immoral, Fi in itself doesn't guarantee any quarantine or something.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The general thread I have noted is that we must first note how the rational IE differ from irrational IE: why do we need reason? It is ultimately to distill understanding in a form which does not require the images transmitted to us initially, so as to have a sense that the images were "made sense of" according to some norm.

    Who needs these norms, though - what need to make sense of things is there? There are two possible answers, having to do with two features of experience (for reasoning at least in almost any useful context is fully stripped of experience). One is that an experience happens to an individual, so the individual cannot help but wonder, in making sense of it, whether the crucial point in doing so is to ask "what does it mean for me as a human being" and here, he tries to relate subjectively to it, albeit in as universal a way as possible so as to constitute real knowledge. Thus, he comes up with various ethical statements about it. Often this sort of reasoning happens when other people are involved, but perhaps it could merely involve a single person's sphere of experience as well (Fe - the ethics of emotions, and Fi - the ethics of relations both can technically operate here).
    This approach says well, it happened to me, the only way to make universal rational sense of it is to note what every human being can somehow relate to ethically in this.

    The second approach says that the experience happened to me, thus it is too subjective to constitute real knowledge, thus I must mark the factors which really explain what this is, and must create laws which can be expressed through impersonal logic, thus distilling not the experience but the underlying factor arranged in accordance with the demands of reason.

    I do not think, to vaguely address OP, that Fi need to be restricted to personal ethics, and also think that "philosophical ethics" can probably take on knowledge from both these realms. This refers to academic philosophy.
    When it comes to a general use of the term "philosophical ethics," I'd say look at Dostoevsky, typed Fi-Ne often in socionics, and he's probably a good example of a kind of philosophical ethics (but again, not necessarily the same thing as what ethical philosophers or philosopers interested in ethical philosophy think about all day).

    Perhaps someone can comment what Immanuel Kant's ethics fit under. Interestingly he's often typed INTj, which has that Ti-base, Fi-role/superego combination.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •