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:
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 hurricaneIt 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.)- i.e. such a simple act, seemingly done out of pure selfishlessness, can 'change' people for the better.
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.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.
^ 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.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.
I certainly fear doing something if it concerns other peopleBeing 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 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'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 this is saying 'judge not lest ye be judged'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 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.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.
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 cafeDostoyevsky 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.). 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 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 guiltyDostoyevsky 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 find ingratitude upsetting rather than give it severe criticism - I tend to scorn instead those who take advantage of other people without consideration.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 only be sympathetic to those who aren't crying crocodile tearsKindness 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.
Do INTjs relate to this kind of behaviour, or are they more 'logical' :wink: ? How does such behaviour hold true for INFjs here?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Logos
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 
.
Love ya, INFjs!