Fi: Proper Behaviour

[Ezra]

I've heard more than dee talk about Fi in relation to this concern. Is it true that Fi egos (and perhaps Fi valuers without Fi in their ego) have a concern for "proper behaviour"? Or is this something similar to "All Se egos are concerned with beating people up"?

[tereg]

For me, I'd say a bit of it is in the context of appearing like I've got things in order and under control. I don't really feel great about standing out as a result of misbehaving if there's some sort of standard in place of how to act or how to appear. I'd rather just blend in when I can sense that there is a defined structure for how to act.

On the other hand, if the environment is more lax, more laid back, and I sense that doing things out of the norm that might be outside of "behaving properly" would be more well-received... ok, I don't feel as bad about doing those types of things.

So, the end result is, yes, I do have concerns about behaving properly when I feel that the structure dictates it as such to where messing up something or misstepping would cause unwanted attention towards myself. Edit: at least from my perspective -- whether or not it actually is as strict as I make it is a different question. So, it's a matter of how I perceive the structure.

[Jonathan]

I've heard more than dee talk about Fi in relation to this concern. Is it true that Fi egos (and perhaps Fi valuers without Fi in their ego) have a concern for "proper behaviour"? Or is this something similar to "All Se egos are concerned with beating people up"?

I think this is a very good question, because I believe there is some understandable confusion around what is meant by "proper behavior."

In my experience, ESIs and IEEs are concerned that people are considerate and moral. However, a great number of other things may be meant by "proper behavior," such as a concern for established systems of etiquette, or a preference for acting according to social biases over what makes sense. I have not known those to be related to Fi; however, some may disagree.

Here are some examples of what might consititute "proper behavior" that I don't personally think have to do with Fi:
* Extreme concern that people use utensils a certan way and are familiar with some of the less-well-known rules of etiquette
* Concern for learning various rules of protocol
* Reluctance to adapt to the needs of the situation when it's counter to following the "norm" (e.g., not putting on a hat when one is cold because it may look out of place, even though one will be cold without it)
* Rating people based on whether how they dress fits some sort of unwritten social guideline
* Awareness and concern for social class; adopting the mannerisms of the upper class people and looking down on people who act "lower class"
* A tendency towards being very formal...wearing suits and ties...and addressing people in overly formalized language

All of these things might come under the heading of acting "proper"....but I don't think they have to do with Fi necessarily.

[Joy]

I've heard more than dee talk about Fi in relation to this concern. Is it true that Fi egos (and perhaps Fi valuers without Fi in their ego) have a concern for "proper behaviour"? Or is this something similar to "All Se egos are concerned with beating people up"?

Yes and no to both questions.

It's not about what's "socially proper". It's about what's appropriate (given the relationship at hand).

[anndelise]

I've heard more than dee talk about Fi in relation to this concern. Is it true that Fi egos (and perhaps Fi valuers without Fi in their ego) have a concern for "proper behaviour"? Or is this something similar to "All Se egos are concerned with beating people up"?

"proper behavior" for me would be along the lines of not intruding upon other people's enjoyment of something.

For example, in a restaurant, my daughter's birthday lunch with her friends, they were at a different table than me, richard, and my brother. They were having fun, that's good. Then they'd get loud, and that interferred with those people sitting next to them and their enjoyment of their lunch. So I'm stuck, both parties should be allowed to enjoy their lunch. But the girls can still enjoy their lunch and each other's company while being a bit quieter than they were (still leaving a lot of room, lol). So once in a while, I would ask them to keep it a bit quieter so that their neighbors could enjoy their meal and hear themselves speak.

I have a neighbor (not next door, thank god), that has two "rat dogs". I call them rat dogs cuz i hate them and they look like oversized rats. (ok, min-pins are cute, but not when they keep nipping at your heels as you have to walk past their house (on the other side of the street), yapping at you all the way to the end of the block, getting in front of cars, and shitting in your yard (and no, it's not just me they do this to).) I think it's very rude of the owners to allow their dogs that kind of "freedom" as it intrudes upon other people in the neighborhood's freedom to enjoy their own yards, to walk freely down the road, and to be free from those f-ing annoying dogs.

I may have some other ideals about "proper behavior", such as not attempting to force my views onto others (nor have them force their views onto me), allowing people to BE themselves without harrassment (yes I'm aware that allowing people to be themselves can often conflict with my belief that they shouldn't intrude upon other people's enjoyments or being their own selves, etc). etc etc along those lines.

[Slacker]

It depends on what you mean by "proper behavior". Different people probably have different ideas of that based on their own valued functions. It could be Fe, Fi, Se, probably other things as well.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Should people do what they think is right, or should they act how people want them to act?

If you follow the latter, you will please those who think they are right, but offend those who think you should do what you personally think is right.

If you do what you think is right, you will please the latter group of people, but offend those who don't like what you are doing.

If you do what you think is right without impeding on other people, then they might do something you do not like.

In which case, you should impede on other people if you wish to prevent them doing something you do not like. Unless you consider it more wrong to impede on other people than to stop them doing something you do not like. Comprende?

(I think I basically agree with Ann ).

[Minde]

There was a thread on this awhile ago. I don't remember what it was called. I do remember Diana making some good points in it.

[Joy]

If I'm thinking of the right thread, it was actually about something else and then regressed into a debate between sunshine lively and some Te/Fi people about whether Fi is about social rules or not.

Basically, from a Fe/Ti perspective, the boundaries of what Fi considers appropriate vs. inappropriate behavior (given the relationship) looks like social rules.

From a Te/Fi perspective, this assumption can be somewhat insulting because their reasoning and motives have nothing to do with social rules. It's about purely relationships.

[Logos]

Yes and no to both questions.

It's not about what's "socially proper". It's about what's appropriate (given the relationship at hand).

I agree, though I would probably say that it is about behavior that is appropriate, based upon the subjective personal connection, to the given situation ().

If I'm thinking of the right thread, it was actually about something else and then regressed into a debate between sunshine lively and some Te/Fi people about whether Fi is about social rules or not.

Basically, from a Fe/Ti perspective, the boundaries of what Fi considers appropriate vs. inappropriate behavior (given the relationship) looks like social rules.

From a Te/Fi perspective, this assumption can be somewhat insulting because their reasoning and motives have nothing to do with social rules. It's about purely relationships.

Understandable. This is much like the assumptions made about how Ti is about strictly adhering to codified rules, laws, and traditions is insulting to a Ti/Fe perspective. Since the "appropriate behavior in regards to relationships" is rather situational, personal, and subjective, it represents a puzzle to Ti/Fe who want Fi to be objectively apparent as Ti (external such that everyone can know and be held to that known standard), which can of course be reversed about Ti being a certain puzzle to Fi/Te.

[Joy]

makes sense

[Ezra]

"proper behavior" for me would be along the lines of not intruding upon other people's enjoyment of something.

For example, in a restaurant, my daughter's birthday lunch with her friends, they were at a different table than me, richard, and my brother. They were having fun, that's good. Then they'd get loud, and that interferred with those people sitting next to them and their enjoyment of their lunch. So I'm stuck, both parties should be allowed to enjoy their lunch. But the girls can still enjoy their lunch and each other's company while being a bit quieter than they were (still leaving a lot of room, lol). So once in a while, I would ask them to keep it a bit quieter so that their neighbors could enjoy their meal and hear themselves speak.

I have a neighbor (not next door, thank god), that has two "rat dogs". I call them rat dogs cuz i hate them and they look like oversized rats. (ok, min-pins are cute, but not when they keep nipping at your heels as you have to walk past their house (on the other side of the street), yapping at you all the way to the end of the block, getting in front of cars, and shitting in your yard (and no, it's not just me they do this to).) I think it's very rude of the owners to allow their dogs that kind of "freedom" as it intrudes upon other people in the neighborhood's freedom to enjoy their own yards, to walk freely down the road, and to be free from those f-ing annoying dogs.

I may have some other ideals about "proper behavior", such as not attempting to force my views onto others (nor have them force their views onto me), allowing people to BE themselves without harrassment (yes I'm aware that allowing people to be themselves can often conflict with my belief that they shouldn't intrude upon other people's enjoyments or being their own selves, etc). etc etc along those lines.

So individuals should be allowed to enjoy themselves and freely act so long as their enjoyment and freedom doesn't stop others from having their enjoyment and freedom?

[liveandletlive]

idk when i hear being associated with "proper behavior," i don't really agree- "proper behavior" seems more in line with . maybe it's because is my creative function, but it manifests in expecting other people to be considerate of others' feelings and sensitivity... that's pretty much it. i mean think of it this way, could you picture my dual valuing "proper behavior"?

[Logos]

idk when i hear being associated with "proper behavior," i don't really agree- "proper behavior" seems more in line with . maybe it's because is my creative function, but it manifests in expecting other people to be considerate of others' feelings and sensitivity... that's pretty much it. i mean think of it this way, could you picture my dual valuing "proper behavior"?

I think that deals with proper behavior, but it is question of defining proper with respect to what? Associating "proper behavior" with can be problematic since it is a dynamic element much like .

[anndelise]

So individuals should be allowed to enjoy themselves and freely act so long as their enjoyment and freedom doesn't stop others from having their enjoyment and freedom?

That is one of my, personal, beliefs, yes. But I cannot say that it reflects Fi specifically, nor insist on its prescription for every situation.

I don't think people in general realize just how much ethics involves. I've been working on some notes about ethics for a month now and have reached an impasse on how to arrange them into coherence. I also feared what some people here would do with the notes, since there seems to be a need for some to force correllations between theories instead of observing first before seeing if any correllations may or may not exist.

First, a quicky definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethics

Ethic

1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values.
3. The study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy
4. The rules of standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

Ethics - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Ethics - the philosophical study of moral values and rules

Second, some of my notes:

The following gives an idea of the various ways in which ethics or "moral values" can exist and/or be expressed.


There are different beliefs about whether or not moral values exist independently of humans:

• Universalism (moral values are absolute, eternal, and never change),
• Divine command (moral values come from god(s) will as revealed in scripture or prayer)
• Individual relativism ( individual people create their own moral standards)
• Cultural relativism (moral values are grounded in the approval of one's society)

There are different beliefs about what motivates us to be moral:

• Egoism (self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions) (donating to charity may give a person an experience of power over other people, it may also help us feel good about ourselves,..it can stroke our egos)
• Hedonism (pleasure is the specific driving force behind our actions) (it pleases us to donate to charity)
• Altruism ( our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence) (we truly want to help improve the lives of those charity recipients)
• Reason (all moral actions are backed up by reason or justification. Giving the best reasons for one course of action over another)
• Emotions (reason alone will not motivate a person towards moral actions, emotional reactions do. Reason may help give us relevant data, but reason is the slave of passions)

There are different beliefs about what type of standards are used for judging moral action:

• Advocating Virtues (developing good habits of character which regulate our emotions, habitual moral actions) ie
  • benevolence, wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, sincerity, faith, hope, and charity
• Advocating Duties (developing obligations as humans, parents, or other social roles) ie:
  
  • Duties to God
    • 1) a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God
    • 2) a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God
  • Duties to Oneself
    
    • 1) duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents
    • 2) duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies
  • Duties to Others
    
    • Absolute Duties
      • 1) avoid wronging others
      • 2) treat people as equals
      • 3) promote the good of others
    • Conditional Duties
      
      • Involves various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty to keep one's promises.
  • Other Examples of Duties
    
    • Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
    • Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
    • Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
    • Justice: the duty to recognize merit
    • Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
    • Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
    • Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others
• Advocating Rights (developing justified claims against another person's behavior (such as my right to not be harmed by you). Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. (ie, I have a right to payment by Smith; Smith has a duty to pay me) (ann's note: example and description not mine) ie
  
  • Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression.
• Advocating Consequences (moral conduct is determined by weighing the favorable and unfavorable consequences of the action) ie
  
  • Consequential Egoism (how do the favorable and unfavorable consequences of the action affect the agent performing the action)
  • Consequential Altruism (how do the favorable and unfavorable consequences of the action affect everyone except the agent)
  • Consequential Utilitarianism (consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone)
  • Social Contract (without moral rules we are subject to the whims of other people's self-interests, therefore a society is motivated to adopt a basic set of rules allowing for a civilized community (ie no lying, stealing, killing). To ensure the social contract, a means of enforcing these rules are devised)

There are even different beliefs about whether or not moral values are descriptive vs prescriptive.

• Descriptive (these are my/your/his/hers/our moral values and actions)
• Prescriptive (these should be my/your/his/hers/our moral values and actions)

IMO, there are no correllations between the following notes and socionics types. I do not even believe that there is an F vs T correllation, much less a Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi correllation.

(note, after having done this, this will probably be as far as I'll go with my study of ethics, heh, for more information the majority of the notes above were taken from this site: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm )

[UDP]

is tasty