Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: INFjs (and INTjs) and 'ethical' behaviour

  1. #1
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default INFjs (and INTjs) and 'ethical' behaviour

    I want to know how INFjs and INTjs relate to some parts of a description .

    My analysis of some excerpts from the Stratievskaya INFj profile:

    It is very important for Dostoyevsky so that the ethical motivation of his behavior would be correctly understood and correspondingly evaluated. For it any gift, any service present enormous value as the form of the expression of good intentions. The real cost of this service for it means much less while. (its dual are also given to the gifts purely symbolic value, at least that, which it gives.)
    People I hardly know often wonder why I would go out of my way to do some small task for them (like make them a cup of tea etc.) - I find it quite rewarding to help someone out of the blue - I figure that the flap of a butterfly can cause a hurricane - i.e. such a simple act, seemingly done out of pure selfishlessness, can 'change' people for the better.

    Dostoyevsky knows how to store strange secrets. Therefore to him it is possible to be entrusted without any fear, and of course without the reservation, that "this must remain between us", since in this case Dostoyevsky will insult assumption itself that it is capable to someone to stir strange secret. Itself it also assumes that the secret "its confession" will be piously observed. Therefore any fact of the divulging of its own secrets for it is the heaviest disappointment.
    Its very important to me that I keep someone's deepest secrets safe - I feel obliged to keep loyal to somebody through thick and thin. Its also very important that people keep my secrets to, because I don't tend to 'release' something unless its important - someone revealing my embarrasments etc. makes me feel very exposed.

    Not capable itself to the treason and the treachery with respect to the neighbor Dostoyevsky condemns these qualities in others. Dostoyevsky never pardons abuse of its confidence, although and it is not rancorous by nature of its.
    ^ If someone is particularly malicious to me, or does something out of pure spite - that would be pretty unforgivable, because it is a deliberate calculated attack - they have done something out of selfishness, to harm other people.

    Being that implicated in some intrigue or falling into relation system, which contradicts its ethical installations, Dostoyevsky feels himself completely lost and disoriented, but in each individual case he tries to behave so that its behavior would not contradict its ethical principles.
    I certainly fear doing something if it concerns other people - I try to abide by my principles if possible, or try and avoid the situation all together if it is too difficult to resolve.

    Itself greatly fears to offend someone by distrust. Considers distrust insulting for all, including for itself. Good intentions are considered the standard of human interrelations; therefore originally he tries not to assume in the people of bad designs.
    I think I do try to assume that people have good intentions - but parodoxically, in my own thoughts, I often expect the worst - the important thing is that people think I was expecting good from them - but if people don't fulfil their promises to me, I try to brush it off and say 'it wasn't important, anyway' . If I genuinely think someone has bad intentions, I try to avoid them rather than risking allowing them to 'sin'.

    Original suspiciousness receives as something unethical and negumannoye. For its the same reason it is sometimes it cannot be convinced of whose- or the fault (even if it is proven and obvious surrounding).
    I think this is saying 'judge not lest ye be judged' - I find it difficult to accuse someone of doing something wrong, because I risk being rebuked in a fierce manner - also, if I have doubt about who did it, my words don't have the same edge - I prefer to say 'I don't know who did this, but it was wrong etc.', rather than 'I know you did this...' - I hope that people will take on board the message and that the person who is responsible will feel in their conscience they have done something wrong, and thus do something about it. If I accuse the person in a fierce manner, they might resent me, and so not change at all.

    Behavior of Dostoyevsky in the big enough measure are determined by his personal sympathies and antipathies. I.e., if it sympathizes with to man, then he tries to ignore the fact of its fault.

    Dostoyevsky is capable of the self-sacrifice in the name of love and friendship, for example, it can take upon himself strange fault, protecting friends from the possible troubles, and because of this itself to suffer.
    I like to ignore someone's faults because it somehow redeems me of mine :wink: by doing so - I feel quite powerful being able to do so. Self-sacrifice is appealing to me, because it helps the other person, but also strengthens the bond, so its sort of reciprocal.

    Dostoyevsky constructs his interrelations with the people on the close distance, which sometimes especially locates to it those surrounding, but sometimes it can seem by obtrusive. (any hint to obtrusiveness he is received by Dostoyevsky extremely painfully, since it least of all intends to tire someone by its society.) In the case of the unfavorable development of relations - it increases distance.

    Dostoyevsky in any situation tries to be maximally polite and restrained, whatever efforts it this cost. It does entire possible (and impossible) in order no one not to offend so that you do not give the god! not to gain to itself enemies. He tries not to allow any frank hostility. (erected by it "psychological barrier" considers not as hostility, but as its right "to hold distance" with the the nesimpatichnym to it by man.)
    In my relationships, I always seem to be doing the equivalent of 'whispering' - I tend to talk to people one-on-one in a rather intense way, as though I am talking to a mirror - I don't want people to overhear what I'm saying, because it seems deeply personal - I also fear I might be ridiculed for talking about everyday things like shopping etc. - people don't tend to have deep conversations at a supermarket cafe . Quite often, if someone starts talking too loudly (sometimes they do it deliberately to embarrass me, if I have said something deep and half-serious :wink I have to get up quickly and distance myself, before someone hears. I tend to ask someone's views on every concievable topic - ones they usually have never consider, in order there is no possibility of any 'frank hostility' - i.e. if we were discussing someone's relative in great detail, I would have to ask them if it was appropiate to talk about someone who wasn't there - would they like it if I talked about them? I would then point out that if I was talking about them in their absence, they would have nothing to fear, because we are one and the same - if we know each other's views on practically everything, we are exceptionally good friends - i.e. I would never talk about my friend in a way that I wouldn't talk about myself.

    Dostoyevsky is not rancorous (to be rancorous, in his understanding, immorally), but by the first to restore the damaged relations will not decide, until not it is confident, that its offender realized its fault. In order to obtain Dostoyevsky's "forgiveness", it suffices to demonstrate its arrangement to it, moreover apologies to bring not necessarily. The peace of its feelings is so fine and rich that it does not need the verbal expressions of emotions and experiences in order to understand its surrounding interrelations.
    I tend to know that someone is truly sorry simply because they remain in my presence - if they seem distressed that I might be upset, I tend to feel guilty - but that's how I know they are genuine. I'm not sure how much I desire verbal expressions of emotions from other people - I tend to like the compamy of a true friend, if nothing else.

    Dostoyevsky never forgets the good, which to him they sometimes made, but ingratitude is considered the quality, which deserves most severe criticism.
    I tend to find ingratitude upsetting rather than give it severe criticism - I tend to scorn instead those who take advantage of other people without consideration.

    Kindness and the sympathy- stable values of Dostoyevsky's ethics and it knows how to appear them as no one another. Representatives of this type are inclined to the deep ethical introspection.
    I tend to only be sympathetic to those who aren't crying crocodile tears .



    Do INTjs relate to this kind of behaviour, or are they more 'logical' :wink: ? How does such behaviour hold true for INFjs here?

  2. #2
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you're obviously ESFp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  3. #3
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    I think you're obviously ESFp.
    2nd

  4. #4
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In all honesty, I relate very closely to this description. It makes me often wonder whether or not I am an INFj myself; not to say that it is the case that I'm INFj---I'm not---, I just relate really well to their strong sense of ethics.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  5. #5
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    In all honesty, I relate very closely to this description. It makes me often wonder whether or not I am an INFj myself; not to say that it is the case that I'm INFj---I'm not---, I just relate really well to their strong sense of ethics.
    It may have something to do with an role function. Also, other LIIs have been concerned with ethics and morality like Kant, Jefferson, and Descartes, except that for LIIs, morality and ethics should be something which stems and is justified by .
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  6. #6
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LIIs can be ethical. I don't know why though.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well i for one think that nearly all of this is typically EII behavior. i suppose that certain pieces of it also betray an LIIs viewpoint, but the whole thing put together is very variable but keeps coming back to the basic principles of understanding, interpersonal relations, intentional kindness, evaluating how others are feeling, etc.

  8. #8
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    well i for one think that nearly all of this is typically EII behavior. i suppose that certain pieces of it also betray an LIIs viewpoint, but the whole thing put together is very variable but keeps coming back to the basic principles of understanding, interpersonal relations, intentional kindness, evaluating how others are feeling, etc.
    yeah, which is something i don't believe LIIs often do, heh.
    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  9. #9
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see more similarities in myself with (alleged ) INTjs like Carla, thehotelambush and Logos, then I do with (alleged) INFjs like Minde, eunice, rockclimber etc. - I feel like if I was in the Delta Quadra, they wouldn't be too amused :wink:.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    I see more similarities in myself with (alleged ) INTjs like Carla, thehotelambush and Logos, then I do with (alleged) INFjs like Minde, eunice, rockclimber etc. - I feel like if I was in the Delta Quadra, they wouldn't be too amused :wink:.
    in what ways?

  11. #11
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    I see more similarities in myself with (alleged ) INTjs like Carla, thehotelambush and Logos, then I do with (alleged) INFjs like Minde, eunice, rockclimber etc. - I feel like if I was in the Delta Quadra, they wouldn't be too amused :wink:.
    in what ways?
    I can relate to what I perceive as the 'ascetic calm' of rockclimber, I suppose...but INFjs here seem 'too' moral and too martyr-like - you can usually tell when they have taken something personally, whereas I tend to shrug of such things by being a bit 'silly' - I fake outrage, or whatever.

  12. #12
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla
    Off the top of my head, "freedom" and "justice" would be two kinds of moral ideals that I'd hold in extremely high regard. But I'm very clumsy when it comes to showing kindness and sympathy.
    I find it difficult to give sympathy to absolute strangers, because I fear being murdered. But with people I know, its not as if I burst into tears - I would consider it inappropriate to wallow in someone else feelings - it might make them worse - I try to listen and to 'reason' with them instead - that's how I show kindness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla
    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    I can relate to what I perceive as the 'ascetic calm' of rockclimber, I suppose...but INFjs here seem 'too' moral and too martyr-like - you can usually tell when they have taken something personally, whereas I tend to shrug of such things by being a bit 'silly' - I fake outrage, or whatever.
    Yeah, INFjs are a bit 'soft' and too serious . I suppose they think we goof off too much and 'don't know how to have deep and meaningful conversations'. Love ya, INFjs!
    Internally, I am deeply serious...it's my whole life...but when I consider scenarios, I think about the absolutely worst thing that could happen, and how that would be 'totally inappropriate' - so my humour comes from the fact we all do inappropriate things, which deeply tragic...but it could be a lot worse. I.e. internally, I think extremely negatively about past mistakes and what I could do wrong...but externally, I see people failing at things, and so make light-hearted comments like 'it could be worse' etc.

    I am quite like this man in terms of sheer paranoia:
    [spoil:c29028c679][youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=kkiBNal5qHQ[/youtube][/spoil:c29028c679]

    So, I can be sympathetic to those who worry about such things .

  13. #13
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sub, don't make the mistake of using others to type yourself. Firstly, said others may have typed themselves incorrectly, and secondly, you're different to them. Some qualities or traits that you might attribute to certain functions may actually simply be part of their character.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  14. #14
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Sub, don't make the mistake of using others to type yourself. Firstly, said others may have typed themselves incorrectly, and secondly, you're different to them. Some qualities or traits that you might attribute to certain functions may actually simply be part of their character.
    Hmm...yes I think you're right! I think I must be ESFp after all.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

Posting Permissions

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