Fi bases who are “unethical” or lack discernment

[Averroes]

For example, when it comes to dating, I’m not someone who’s ever given much thought about a person’s “values”/character and just go off looks, chemistry and how the person makes me feel. On the flip side, you have people who may not have much experience but know exactly the kind of person they want to be with, what foundational values they need to have, and what behaviors they consider unacceptable or off putting




My own moral compass is more rooted in guilt and empathy than hard line principles that I can spell out. Am I mistyped?

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

i have an ESI friend. idk if hes autistic i thought he isnt because he seemed to get along and be more street smart/smart in a neurotypical way and he'd make fun of me for being inept in those ways. but he also made comments about how women are easier when you get them drunk and suggested but didnt seem to explicitly say unless im just not remembering he has no problem taking advantage of them. simultaneosuly he has also removed drunk men from women who were afraid t o assert borders at clubs, without himself taking the woman he just protected her. Se egos have always been weird to me tho. he also doesnt seem to have found his peson and i dont presonally think he knows exactly waht he wants. i feel like that about Fi egos too really. they seem to act like they know what they want yet get dissapointed when it didnt turn out the way they expected it. mb it has to do with unvalued or being bad at Ti to properly define exactly what it is in a workable way for them. it can be seen and sometimes maybe really be childish and lazy, but i'd hesitate to fully call it that way since im aware they may not have control over it, but it may also be that they aren't trying to gain control as i felt more Fi before but had so much pressure on me i had to break it and figure out a way to rebuild my "self" so to say. i als othink that is somewhat if not incredibly normal tho and Fi egos may be clinging to their identity with something that they should move on from or redefine but they dont want the discomfort and pain that comes with it, and it can actually destabilize u and u can end up huting urself and or others, if not permanently but i have to believe in Jesus to make things right.

also maybe bc ur autistic + u are a man ppl and pressure may have forced u out of connection with ur Fi
id acutally say maybe ExIs are more accepting of ppl and their flaws or whatever bc of their Fi so long as it doesnt persnally grate on them in a way thats obvious to them. its also possible you have no self respect/awareness or high pain tolerance or masochism and ur willing to put urself through a lot, it could also be lack of foresight, maybe u need to directly experience ur borders tested and to what limits and see how u feel or react then. then there's also if ur autistic, non autistics can seem petty/nonsensical/unrelatable with hteir tastes. also u can be depressed and disconnected from urself

[Sol]

To be ethical in Jung types mainly means to follow emotional evaluations. Such actions does not obligately fit interests of other people. Including their good emotional state.
F types have better skills to take into account and directly influence on emotions of other people, to do those be better. This not always will lead to good emotions. Just those should be better (when they want) compared to skills of T types.

Other problem related to types is IR. Different valued sides of functions, leading to acting more or lesser pleasantly in subjective perception.

On the level of concrete experience common problems are, when you expect one and get other: 1) mistakes in types, which are often, 2) non-types factors, concrete human and situations have different influences.

Am I mistyped?

To get an answer, you may make a typing theme with needed materials.

[Expansion]

Being moral is following a consistent pattern of good vs bad, ideas you have learned by society. Stealing, lying, cheating, etc.

You can be immoral, but follow a code, because it is adopted as a norm. Like infanticide in ancient Roman culture, was a practice there.

Fe is judging in using people as a 'mean' to determine your choices, in what they value, you make decisions looking at thru that vantage point. Fe is keying in on external value, and adopting it as your own.

It's analogous to a ship going in the harbor, being guided by the lighthouse. You look to others for a mean for guidance in what is accepted ethically.

Fi is how you feel about it, by your own calculations. You are the lighthouse and guide life toward you, or repell away.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

Anna Pavlova and Pol Pot maybe (some may dispute whether their actions were amoral or merely unwise).

[theum nathair]

For example, when it comes to dating, I’m not someone who’s ever given much thought about a person’s “values”/character and just go off looks and how they treat me/make me feel most of the time. On the flip side, you have people who may not have much experience but know exactly the kind of person they want to be with and what behaviors they consider unacceptable or off putting


My own moral compass is more rooted in guilt and empathy than hard line principles that I can spell out.

Bolded could suggest Fi base. By contrast, a fair bit of moral philosophy is NT, and takes the approach of doubting, dissecting, or even eliminating gestalt evaluations and testing schemata for ethical behaviour, which can be adhered to in the absence of any instinctual component (e.g., a perfect sociopath, if such a creature exists, needn't ever do evil). This sort of works to undergird rule systems because it's impossible to know what's going on in someone else's head; therefore circumspect rules regulate behaviour, not thought. Yet without empathy, such systems have unstable beginnings and grope hopelessly in the dark. To wit, outside of socionics, ethics considers logistics of interaction which are fundamentally distinct from what people call 'conscience', which notably comes from the latin verb 'scire', meaning 'to know'.

Many logical types' consciences are externally acquired. Being conscience-retarded doesn't preclude making good decisions as an adult, but the body of knowledge must be learnt and refined in a more detached way rather than known instinctively.

As for the rest, Se types really do seem to feel their way through things. If I tried to do that without withdrawing and considering, I would be in trouble, but it seems to work for them. Different strokes &c

Gulenko thinks that dating and romance anchors mainly in the irrational ego function, although presumably the rational functions would make an appearance when it came to tolerating one another over time.

Discernment arises from maturity and experience, factors unrelated to sociotype.

Am I mistyped?

Here's a test: do you treat people very consistently?

Fi bases inevitably won't. Guilt is a higher-order social function, but it's retrospective. You can act poorly, feel guilty, and maybe act differently the next time. Or you could be ruled by a gut instinct which could turn out to be correct.

Ti types are more inclined to treat everyone the same regardless of the relationship.

It's possible you are mistyped, but you've got to ask yourself whether descriptions are giving certain sociotypes supernatural powers. For example, I've probably Ni lead, and my approximations tend to prove accurate in the end whilst others need to work through two or three extra phases before realising what I'd initially said was right. Still, I can't see the future. My guesses are guesses, and can be entirely wrong, too.

Similarly, Fi leads can't be endlessly principled and perfect, nor can they see through a person's skull into their inner thoughts and desires, nor do they necessarily know what's objectively more ethical (primarily because objectivity doesn't really exist in ethics, but also because, as discussed above, ethics hasn't got too much to do with Fi). Then again, most people can't argue with decisions grounded in empathy, and no sane person expects perfection.

[Kurt Gabin]

Of course not. If we talk about dating and courtship, then they are built on joint experiences, that is, Fe. Fi is responsible for drawing ethical boundaries, and therefore is poorly applicable in romantic matters where boundaries merge.

Generally speaking, there is no point in trying to be polite to everyone - leave it to ILI & SLI with their self-esteem Fi. The tone in which you speak with cashiers and taxi drivers is determined by the general norms of behavior in society, that is, Ti, and is not so important to care about it too much.