Fi and Ethics

[silverchris9]

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about Fi, and how it's so often associated with morality, despite the fact that at the most basic level, it's just about the bonds between people.

What I realized is that Fi does have to do with morality, in a certain sense. This is because, since Fi focuses on the bonds between people, it also focuses on what will help and what will harm those bonds on a far deeper level than any of the other functions. This is the connection to morality. Specifically, I think a connection can be drawn between Fi and deontological ethics. Deontological ethics focuses on what should and should not be done to another person, i.e., bonds of obligation. This is precisely what Fi focuses on. Fi is not so much about making moral judgments about other people, and when paired with Ne, it actively avoids assuming that a person will always behave in a certain way because "that's the kind of person they are." Rather, Fi is concerned with the bonds of obligations of certain types of relationships. Fi is the voice that cries, "you can't do that to another human being," focusing on the obligation one member of the human race has to another. To do harm to another human being is to harm the implicit bond that exists between human beings. It is the voice that says "a husband should behave in a certain way towards a wife," and this assumption has its ultimate roots in an apprehension of what will help the bond and what will hurt the bond.

This clears up a quandry I was in about determining whether a given judgment is Fi or Ti related. Both Fi and Ti are inclined to make generalized prescriptions about what should or should not be done in general. Both Fi and Ti make "rules". But Ti rules are rooted in avoiding logical contradictions between givens: given that a king is greater than a subject, and given that a subject correcting a king implies the reverse, subjects should not correct kings. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. Fi rules, as I have said, are rooted in information about what will help or harm a bond between a group or pair of individuals: since making jokes about weight will hurt the feelings of an overweight friend, one should not make jokes about weight, especially around that overweight friend.

Hurting someone's feelings is something that Fi types try to avoid, for two reasons: first, because the attention to the bonds between people gives Fi types great capacity for empathy, and secondly because feelings in the sense of subjective sentiments from one person about another are a type of bond, or emotional relationship, between two individuals, something of which Fi types are extremely aware.

Also, note that an Fi type can use their understanding of relationships to hurt as well as to help. An Fi-ego can deliberately take actions that they know will hurt or sever the bond between herself and another person. But they usually feel bad afterwords, especially deltas (ESIs can be a little more ruthless, as can SEEs).

So, those are my thoughts. Opinions, questions, disagreements?

[thePirate]

Bonds of obligation is exactly how I would phrase it. This is how Fe manipulation differs from Fi manipulation, when Fi types want to get you to do something I feel they mainly use your relationship with them as leverage in getting you to do said action.

The moral judgements come as a result of focusing on everything you have talked about. What one is obligated to do for another is based upon somewhat of a strict criteria, as Ti deals with a set of logical rules, Fi deals with a set of ethical rules which when broken or upheld lead to said judgements about the person. Fe and Fi types both have sets of morality that differ from each other in part due to this focus. Fe types can have some very strict obligatory criteria as well, however their focus is not on it. Fi in your ego gives much more to managing that aspect, hence more sensitivity towards those aspects, more easily upset at the 'rules' being broken, more rules in general. Fi has a smaller focus in general, one that goes from person to person whereas with Fe types it concerns the broader emotional atmosphere. Hence, to Fe types, Fi egos can seem unneccessarily anal about things. To Fi types, Fe types can be insensitive and less caring about individual persons.

I find it funny that Fi obligations are not fully encompassing. Meaning, for Fe types an obligation is that we want to be free from obligations; this is one important criteria that is not upheld by Fi types and as such I have at times interpreted them as selfish for it. Disregard of Fe for THEIR OWN Fi criteria which takes precedent. Granted, we can also be dicks to them for disregarding Fi for our own Fe criteria. However, if we do this, to us its on a miniscule level where true, deep values dont come into play. Fi types may take such an act as a giant offense against them while Fi obligations burden us.

Some more thoughts: When I read the ENFp - ISTp dualities, and read peoples comments, I got a picture of a dual relationship free from obligation, the two being together out of free will and love for each other. The more I got to see the differences the more I got to see this wasn't the case. It was in an outward, surface sense. However, there is definitely an underlying sense of restriction wherever Fi is concerned. Duty, a sense of having to do things that go against what you would prefer to do in some cases. This can degenerate into trying to force people to pay them back what they 'owe' so to speak. Dealing with Fi types in relationships can feel like being in perpetual debt. It kinda sucks. No offense.

[Krig the Viking]

Dude. This is seriously one of the best, most insightful analyses of Fi I've read to date. It echoes and expands upon my own thoughts on the subject.

I'm more familiar with the Ti side of the equation -- Ti creates logical systems of morality, basing "what ought to be done" on carefully considered premises and deductions. Ti considers morality to be "objective" (in the common sense) and impartial, in other words not taking Fi relationships into account. Breaking "the rules" for the sake of someone you have a close relationship with is abhorrent to Ti morality, but almost a requirement of Fi morality, in which relationships trump impartial rules.

[xixi]

Agree.

But I think the notion of Fi as 'attention to relationship bonds between ppl' could be extended to...'attention to individual's relationship to themselves - how people's thoughts will influence their actions, and how those actions will in turn impact on others as well as back on themselves, i.e. by affecting psychological state, future prospects, etc'. Fi'ers seem particularly sensitive to how 'well balanced' ppl are. Also, there appears to be a distinctively 'implicit' as opposed to 'explicit' nature to Fi understanding of these things.

[xerx]

Dude, ballin' description.

I only have one minor disagreement though. I do think Fi types judge people based on their behavior, because an awareness of anything inside yourself, e.g. something like this:

Fi is the voice that cries, "you can't do that to another human being," focusing on the obligation one member of the human race has to another. To do harm to another human being is to harm the implicit bond that exists between human beings. It is the voice that says "a husband should behave in a certain way towards a wife," and this assumption has its ultimate roots in an apprehension of what will help the bond and what will hurt the bond.

implies IMO an awareness of it in others. So someone acting maliciously would be judged as a bad person, with bad values -- in the sense that a Ti type would reject a wrong logical system. An ESI with Ne PoLR would be unlikely to ever forgive a transgression, whereas an EII would judge but still try to sympathize and find the root of the person's bad behavior in order to guide him to better principles.


There are also Fi types who don't have as much overall concern for humanity. Richard Nixon (ESI) comes to mind. At least some (or a big %) of the corrupt business elite in the USA is surely Fi valuing. To be able to apply humanitarian judgments to others, you have to have the same values yourself. And that involves a lot of personal knowledge and introspection, which isn't something everyone is capable of doing.

ETA: Bonds of obligation is a nice way to put it. Fi types, especially Te egos don't usually feel obligated to most people. As such they don't mind harshly criticizing them if the situation calls for it (Angela from The Office), and wouldn't be seriously affected by insults from them. But they'd feel obligated to someone who has a close bond and/or expect the latter to have certain obligations to them, and would weigh insults from them very seriously.

It's also entirely up to the individual Fi ego whether or not to extend those obligations to the total sphere of human interests, like Jeremy Irons does above. (ETA 2: I'm aware that Ne vs Se valuing polarizes things somewhat as well.)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I agree that Fi doesn't necessarily equal morals. When you consider that for instance being selfish is typically regarded as being immoral, i've known some ENFp's who are pretty selfish - with their time, and putting themself out for others. Although it's not something I particularly like, I have to admit i'm kinda selfish myself.

I think morals in the more conventional sense (what's regarded as being moral) is more an Fe thing, as it is external so places more importance on externally accepted ways of behaving.

I haven't had time to read all of your post just now, but what I have read makes sense I think.

I also agree with ISFj, some of them can be pretty manipulative, maybe even nasty in how they manipulate people.

When Fi is good though, when it cares in a positive sense, it's pretty awesome.

[Blaze]

Dealing with Fi types in relationships can feel like being in perpetual debt.

hello? totally. thank you.

I also agree with ISFj, some of them can be pretty manipulative, maybe even nasty in how they manipulate people.

absolutely....i see this all the time.

Unsurprisingly, the reasoning behind Fi interpersonal ethics is also inconsistent (not an inherently bad thing, I hasten to add, it's a viable evolutionary strategy). Sometimes it will be based on feelings (treat people well who you like, and badly who you don't like), on lack of feelings (don't bother too much with the feelings of people you're not close to), reactions to a specific events ("he did X, now he does not even deserve civility" <-- a real example, paraphrased), among other things. What's interesting is that, due to Ti-role, Fi-leading types will often give logical-sounding justifications even though there is little real logic and the inconsistencies are in at least some cases easily exposed (Fi-creative types are usually not concerned with appearing logical in this regard, due to their Ti-PoLR and that Fi "merely" supports their leading function anyway).

yes this is exactly how Ti types see Fi types. kind of like yeah they think they're being logical but there is actually very weak logic in how they look at things and what they say. Fi has to be subjective. Fi types often will not admit to this though.

[Lobo]

yes this is exactly how Ti types see Fi types. kind of like yeah they think they're being logical but there is actually very weak logic in how they look at things and what they say. Fi has to be subjective. Fi types often will not admit to this though.

Something being logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true... Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum). Too much focus on Ti will make you lose objectivity in order to satisfy a logical requirement.

[stanprollyright]

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about Fi, and how it's so often associated with morality, despite the fact that at the most basic level, it's just about the bonds between people.

What I realized is that Fi does have to do with morality, in a certain sense. This is because, since Fi focuses on the bonds between people, it also focuses on what will help and what will harm those bonds on a far deeper level than any of the other functions. This is the connection to morality. Specifically, I think a connection can be drawn between Fi and deontological ethics. Deontological ethics focuses on what should and should not be done to another person, i.e., bonds of obligation. This is precisely what Fi focuses on. Fi is not so much about making moral judgments about other people, and when paired with Ne, it actively avoids assuming that a person will always behave in a certain way because "that's the kind of person they are." Rather, Fi is concerned with the bonds of obligations of certain types of relationships. Fi is the voice that cries, "you can't do that to another human being," focusing on the obligation one member of the human race has to another. To do harm to another human being is to harm the implicit bond that exists between human beings. It is the voice that says "a husband should behave in a certain way towards a wife," and this assumption has its ultimate roots in an apprehension of what will help the bond and what will hurt the bond.

This is really good.

[mu4]

Something being logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true... Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum). Too much focus on Ti will make you lose objectivity in order to satisfy a logical requirement.

Actually Fi types are the ones most likely to make these sort of mistakes, and either they will do something such as assuming two contradictory positions because they cannot let go of one or the other.

The problem of logic is that everyone uses it regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Take your propositions here...

Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum).

Because x, then y and this sort of thinking is inescapable for anyone. But by devaluing and not understanding logic one will constantly use logic in ignorance and blindness and result in inconsistent and contradictory positions.

The wierd thing about Fi types is that they are often use logic or at least the mechanics of formal logic without knowing it but to apply it to absurd notions of morality and traditions such as "Eating pork is dirty", "Homosexuality is a sin" and the like. Because these absurd preferences which they develop and apply formal logic to, they come up with multiple contradictory positions for whatever they happen to be attached to.

Let's not forget that Fi, Fe, Ti, Te are all rational functions. Ti just happens to deal with the nature of logic and methods of logical analysis.

[jughead]

I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

EXTp's that I know quickly pick this up and hate any such attempts by EXI or XEE.
This would sorta be be a EXtp's reaction to such things.
Love Contract | Chappelle's Show | Comedy Central

[Beautiful sky]

[QUOTE=jughead;623944]I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

[QUOTE]

What?
I forgive and forget.

I am a very happy and content person; I don't hold on to grudges and wallow in misery. I try to find humor.

[jughead]

Everyone forgets but the relation takes up the same quality again.

[thePirate]

[quote=Maritsa33;623945][QUOTE=jughead;623944]I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

What?
I forgive and forget.

I am a very happy and content person; I don't hold on to grudges and wallow in misery. I try to find humor.

you have already shown an apalling lack of awareness of your own internal proccessess and acted in a way that correlates with what people are saying here.

basically, your word means shit.

[Beautiful sky]

[quote=thePirate;623982][quote=Maritsa33;623945]

I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.




you have already shown an apalling lack of awareness of your own internal proccessess and acted in a way that correlates with what people are saying here.

basically, your word means shit.

You are ISTp

[Blaze]

Something being logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true... Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum). Too much focus on Ti will make you lose objectivity in order to satisfy a logical requirement.

you can have relability without validity for sure. and yes overdose on Ti can make you lose the bigger picture of the "facts" of how people will be people.

i'm saying that logic is not the purview of ethicals....kinda like ethics is not the purview of logicals.

[Minde]

I think you have some good thoughts there, silverchris. On a side note, I tend to really like it when INFps verbally philosophize about socionics. They strive for good logic, but they also include a sense of understanding and general non-judgemental-ness. The OP reminds me of things that Starfall and Glamourama have written, which I also like a lot.


With regard to using logic to support my convictions - it seems to me that often I *know* things, but for people to also know I feel I have to "build a bridge" of logic so they can follow me. To me it's like knowing that the earth rotates, causing the sun to rise and set each day. It doesn't need explanation for me to know it's true and for me to even go so far as to use that fact in my daily life. But sometimes it's as if there are people who simply won't believe me when I say the sun rises and sets each day, and so I have to explain to them how it works before they'll believe me. If they can't see that the sun does that, I can understand them needing an extra explanation, and I usually don't begrudge them it.

But, still, I often feel that I'm not always the best "bridge builder" or that the need to do so is somewhat undesirable. The thing is, that "bridge" isn't what's real to me - it's just a means to an end. So if I have to redo part of it to make it stronger I'm ok with that, except that the people who do value bridges (or who rely on them to get where I'm going) get suspicious of me when I have to do that and sometimes decide not to follow me, thinking I'm wrong or stupid or lying or some such thing. Also, sometimes I tend to under- or over-estimate how much effort and materials need to go into that bridge. So sometimes my logic is weak or incomplete, and sometimes it's way more than what's needed and I end up looking over-analytical or too preoccupied with details.

[Lobo]

I think you have some good thoughts there, silverchris. On a side note, I tend to really like it when INFps verbally philosophize about socionics. They strive for good logic, but they also include a sense of understanding and general non-judgemental-ness. The OP reminds me of things that Starfall and Glamourama have written, which I also like a lot.


With regard to using logic to support my convictions - it seems to me that often I *know* things, but for people to also know I feel I have to "build a bridge" of logic so they can follow me. To me it's like knowing that the earth rotates, causing the sun to rise and set each day. It doesn't need explanation for me to know it's true and for me to even go so far as to use that fact in my daily life. But sometimes it's as if there are people who simply won't believe me when I say the sun rises and sets each day, and so I have to explain to them how it works before they'll believe me. If they can't see that the sun does that, I can understand them needing an extra explanation, and I usually don't begrudge them it.

But, still, I often feel that I'm not always the best "bridge builder" or that the need to do so is somewhat undesirable. The thing is, that "bridge" isn't what's real to me - it's just a means to an end. So if I have to redo part of it to make it stronger I'm ok with that, except that the people who do value bridges (or who rely on them to get where I'm going) get suspicious of me when I have to do that and sometimes decide not to follow me, thinking I'm wrong or stupid or lying or some such thing. Also, sometimes I tend to under- or over-estimate how much effort and materials need to go into that bridge. So sometimes my logic is weak or incomplete, and sometimes it's way more than what's needed and I end up looking over-analytical or too preoccupied with details.

Yes, this applies to me as well. That's what I mean by focusing too much on Ti that you can lose objectivity. It has happened to me that I'm trying to get at something, but instead of trying to understand what I'm getting at, the other person gets nit-picky at how I phrased something and then doesn't trust what I'm saying. There's this professor I have who is like this, and when you make a mistake in something you phrased, in that it can be interpreted differently, you spend a good 5 minutes rephrasing until it's "perfect," which undoubtedly affects the flow of conversation and building something to a climax.

Actually Fi types are the ones most likely to make these sort of mistakes, and either they will do something such as assuming two contradictory positions because they cannot let go of one or the other.

The problem of logic is that everyone uses it regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Take your propositions here...

Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum).

Because x, then y and this sort of thinking is inescapable for anyone. But by devaluing and not understanding logic one will constantly use logic in ignorance and blindness and result in inconsistent and contradictory positions.

The wierd thing about Fi types is that they are often use logic or at least the mechanics of formal logic without knowing it but to apply it to absurd notions of morality and traditions such as "Eating pork is dirty", "Homosexuality is a sin" and the like. Because these absurd preferences which they develop and apply formal logic to, they come up with multiple contradictory positions for whatever they happen to be attached to.

Let's not forget that Fi, Fe, Ti, Te are all rational functions. Ti just happens to deal with the nature of logic and methods of logical analysis.

Yes, I know what you are talking about, but I don't agree in saying that it's often the case with Fi types. It frustrates me when I read broad generalizations in the forum about types, because it doesn't take into account that people can overcome their difficulties in dealing with certain functions, and it doesn't do them justice... Yes, this is a belief I have.

I destest any gift or favor from Fi types, from ESI's and EII's you will quickly know what you now "owe" them whilst irrational Fi types have a way of glossing it over and making you owe there "perpetual debt" in other ways.

EXTp's that I know quickly pick this up and hate any such attempts by EXI or XEE.

To me this is an Fi rant, so I find it ironic that the post is against Fi people.

[UDP]

silverchris' post is nicely met with hkkmrs post, i enjoyed both of them.

[mu4]

Yes, I know what you are talking about, but I don't agree in saying that it's often the case with Fi types. It frustrates me when I read broad generalizations in the forum about types, because it doesn't take into account that people can overcome their difficulties in dealing with certain functions, and it doesn't do them justice... Yes, this is a belief I have.

Yes, way to be logical about it...

To me this is an Fi rant, so I find it ironic that the post is against Fi people.

Could also be not

[Lobo]

Yes, way to be logical about it...

I don't understand what you mean or getting at.

Could also be not

It seems like a a static belief he has based on previous experience.

[mu4]

It seems like a a static belief he has based on previous experience.

Is it a belief or is it a emotion he feels.

I destest

Right here he already establishes the personal non-static nature of his experience.

There is a difference between saying "I hate you" vs "God hates you" or "You're despicable"

[Blaze]

But, still, I often feel that I'm not always the best "bridge builder" or that the need to do so is somewhat undesirable. The thing is, that "bridge" isn't what's real to me - it's just a means to an end. So if I have to redo part of it to make it stronger I'm ok with that, except that the people who do value bridges (or who rely on them to get where I'm going) get suspicious of me when I have to do that and sometimes decide not to follow me, thinking I'm wrong or stupid or lying or some such thing. Also, sometimes I tend to under- or over-estimate how much effort and materials need to go into that bridge. So sometimes my logic is weak or incomplete, and sometimes it's way more than what's needed and I end up looking over-analytical or too preoccupied with details.

funny...logic is kind of like "work". and perfectly acceptable. role function logic. sometimes it scares me how much socionics really plays out.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Wynch]

yes this is exactly how Ti types see Fi types. kind of like yeah they think they're being logical but there is actually very weak logic in how they look at things and what they say. Fi has to be subjective. Fi types often will not admit to this though.

You quoted exactly what peaked my interest! And I agree completely with what you've described here. It matches the experience I've had with my SEE friend that frequently creates conflict between us.

Essentially he will make a statement or judgment call which I feel is poorly thought out. For instance "Natural selection dictates that people will get more and more attractive because attractive people have more children". Now his basis for this argument was a study which showed that men with typically "attractive" features demonstrated higher testosterone levels. I verified the details of this study (which I had demanded to see because he has a tendency to talk out of his ass, which pissed him off). I made the argument that fertility is equally the role of the female as the male and that the capability of women to bear children didn't have links to their physical appeal based on his evidence. Also, he did not demonstrate an actual link to fertility in men, simply testosterone levels. He immediately turned my disagreement at this point to be purely a fun killer and that I was just trying to be a bitch (despite the fact that this outlandish statement was a fun killer to begin with from my perspective). Essentially, there was no way to challenge him because a) he is always right and has decided that people don't say these things because they're too PC and b) arguing a contentious point makes you a fun-killer and/or ignorant.

We constantly have clashes like these. It begins with him making a very firm conclusion based on a subjective observation. When I inevitably challenge him (whether because I know he's wrong or simply to test the foundations of his claim because I doubt the validity) it quickly deteriorates into a personal attack on me. He feels he has the right to make these judgments and then thinks he has the experience or evidence to back it up, and I tend to disagree on both the content and the method by which he has arrived at said conclusion. Also, I don't mean to paint him as completely unreasonable, it's just hard for me to evaluate this from his perspective because I experience it so differently than him.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that all Fi types arrive at conclusions that are wrong or outlandish. Simply that my experience is they don't take criticism to the method by which they've arrived there very well.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

Talk more about Fi dominant, pinnochio. This thread resonates a lot in me, and that bit of what you added.

[Wynch]

Alpha NT interferes: for an Alpha NT such theory is valid until something doesn't make sense, and that doesn't mean statistical data or evidence, because things can be the opposite statistically because of other factors, while inherently the local process is valid.

That was exactly the nature of my argument with him, if you bothered to read it:


such theory is valid until something doesn't make sense

"make a statement or judgment call which I feel is poorly thought out"

that doesn't mean statistical data or evidence, because things can be the opposite statistically because of other factors, while inherently the local process is valid.

"Also, he did not demonstrate an actual link to fertility in men, simply testosterone levels."

Where first I established that the evidence was real and that "the local process is valid" = attractive men have high testosterone

but "things can be the opposite statistically" = no link between fertility and testosterone

[Wynch]

That's not what I was talking about at all. Fi types are inconsistent because they treat different people differently, based not on their moods but on inconsistent criteria. Fi, while a static element, is still based on feelings. A Fi type may espouse an ideal of, for example, treating people with dignity, but (especially for Gammas) they are about as likely to decide that you don't deserve the consideration (this is outside the realm of discrimination, which is certainly not limited to any types). Whatever one might think of this in principle, it's not a bad thing in practice because it likely prevents them from getting burned too often.

(I have a tentative theory that, when assessing the character of others, Alphas get more false positives and Gammas get more false negatives, with Beta and Gamma getting a more even spread of both.)

This is to say nothing of how the same person is treated differently over time, in which case I do agree that there is more of an argument for calling Fe types the inconsistent ones.

Yes. I think this is a very good description.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Shagbag The Wizard]

Amazingly, I have to say.......100% agree with the 1st 2 posts.

Pirate and Silverchris, what can I say.....praise where praise is due. You guys have surprised me.


Now I know you probably are not inclined to believe this, but your descriptions of Fi are EXACTLY the way I operate. It's all about the bonds. Pretty much all my behaviour is dictated by.....what will improve/change/manipulate this bond in the way I want/need/believe it needs to change?

Bearing in mind, this can work both ways. I know how to draw and ingratiate people to myself, and I know when and how to keep them at arm's length. However, all will be done in a way that carefully preserves the dignity of everyone involved. I absolutely will never make a joke about anyone unless I know they'll be able to take it, and if I think it will help with said bonding agenda.


Hmm. Interesting.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I just think it all boils down to is that treating people with respect and stuff isn't as hard or complicated as we make it. When people treat you poorly you should always take the higher way because they're just doing what was done to them.

When somebody treats you poorly, the way to go about it is to always say "I feel sorry for you. You suffered. I know you're just treating people the way you were treated."

It's not to play the victim and let them bother you. It's not fighting with them or being angry that they hurt you. Retaliating like a bully just shows insecurity, it just proves to people that what they're saying actually has a point. If you didn't really believe there was truth in what they were saying, you wouldn't get so upset. It's not trying to help years of emotional drama and abuse that cannot be unwound in one day. It's simply taking the higher way, and doing that- you might transform them with your grace. Who knows?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Shagbag The Wizard]

An Fi type may not care about you, but talk to you and to a person they care about in the same manner that you can't notice.

Yes!! That is precisely what we do!

[Blaze]

You quoted exactly what peaked my interest! And I agree completely with what you've described here. It matches the experience I've had with my SEE friend that frequently creates conflict between us.

Essentially he will make a statement or judgment call which I feel is poorly thought out. For instance "Natural selection dictates that people will get more and more attractive because attractive people have more children". Now his basis for this argument was a study which showed that men with typically "attractive" features demonstrated higher testosterone levels. I verified the details of this study (which I had demanded to see because he has a tendency to talk out of his ass, which pissed him off). I made the argument that fertility is equally the role of the female as the male and that the capability of women to bear children didn't have links to their physical appeal based on his evidence. Also, he did not demonstrate an actual link to fertility in men, simply testosterone levels. He immediately turned my disagreement at this point to be purely a fun killer and that I was just trying to be a bitch (despite the fact that this outlandish statement was a fun killer to begin with from my perspective). Essentially, there was no way to challenge him because a) he is always right and has decided that people don't say these things because they're too PC and b) arguing a contentious point makes you a fun-killer and/or ignorant.

We constantly have clashes like these. It begins with him making a very firm conclusion based on a subjective observation. When I inevitably challenge him (whether because I know he's wrong or simply to test the foundations of his claim because I doubt the validity) it quickly deteriorates into a personal attack on me. He feels he has the right to make these judgments and then thinks he has the experience or evidence to back it up, and I tend to disagree on both the content and the method by which he has arrived at said conclusion. Also, I don't mean to paint him as completely unreasonable, it's just hard for me to evaluate this from his perspective because I experience it so differently than him.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that all Fi types arrive at conclusions that are wrong or outlandish. Simply that my experience is they don't take criticism to the method by which they've arrived there very well.

classic superego, right? this is exactly how it goes with my sueprego partners.

lately i've been trying to let the Fi types dominate with people and relations. i try to give them their berth in that area. the problem is they won't let you secede the logical areas. they want to own that, too.

i think it's because they don't trust Ti logic. they think it's going to overrule Fi ethics. dunno....the Fi-Ti tussle is a tough one. i would have to say that Fi intimidates me because i think the Fi's are going to psychologically manipulate people into doing what they want on the basis of how much they like them. and i think i'd be right about that.

in other words politics. people make decisions for political reasons not for fact-based logical reasons. politics wins every time. it sucks.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Essentially he will make a statement or judgment call which I feel is poorly thought out. For instance "Natural selection dictates that people will get more and more attractive because attractive people have more children". Now his basis for this argument was a study which showed that men with typically "attractive" features demonstrated higher testosterone levels. I verified the details of this study (which I had demanded to see because he has a tendency to talk out of his ass, which pissed him off). I made the argument that fertility is equally the role of the female as the male and that the capability of women to bear children didn't have links to their physical appeal based on his evidence. Also, he did not demonstrate an actual link to fertility in men, simply testosterone levels. He immediately turned my disagreement at this point to be purely a fun killer and that I was just trying to be a bitch (despite the fact that this outlandish statement was a fun killer to begin with from my perspective). Essentially, there was no way to challenge him because a) he is always right and has decided that people don't say these things because they're too PC and b) arguing a contentious point makes you a fun-killer and/or ignorant.

Typcially, women with broader hips are more fertile than women with narrower hips. At the least, women with broader hips are better designed for childbirth.

It just so happens that guys tend to like curves in a women in such a place.

Although, depending on their menstrual cycle, women find guys with higher testosterone (typically evidenced by strong jaw lines and such) more attractive, but at other times more feminine faces are more attractive (sort of guy who may make good father figure). Although, the most fertile period ties in with the higher testosterone attractiveness looks.

However..even then it is a highly complex issue not even fully covered by myself here. From my own experience, I think the ESFp was just trying to be funny, and in a way she's right to get a bit annoyed, as none of us, not you or I or probably even specialists in the field can rationalise it completely at least at this stage.

She's probably also a bit attracted to "rugged" looking men herself, on the basis of her Se looking for some "rough sex", lol.

[silverchris9]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. There's too many comments to respond to all of them (and not all of them are addressed to me anyway), but thanks for the feedback, and glad that some discussion has cropped up around this; that makes me very happy.

Although, depending on their menstrual cycle, women find guys with higher testosterone (typically evidenced by strong jaw lines and such) more attractive, but at other times more feminine faces are more attractive (sort of guy who may make good father figure). Although, the most fertile period ties in with the higher testosterone attractiveness looks.

How do you know when they're into girly-faced men? Not that I would make a good father figure either.

[Wynch]

i think it's because they don't trust Ti logic. they think it's going to overrule Fi ethics. dunno....the Fi-Ti tussle is a tough one. i would have to say that Fi intimidates me because i think the Fi's are going to psychologically manipulate people into doing what they want on the basis of how much they like them. and i think i'd be right about that.

in other words politics. people make decisions for political reasons not for fact-based logical reasons. politics wins every time. it sucks.

Yes, he's kind of the ring leader of the people who hangout at my boyfriend's house and I get a little intimidated to continue arguing with him on these occasions because his word is typically law in those social groups. You cross him and you face public shame, regardless of the soundness of your argument. Still, I'll start these debates and go down that road regularly because it just makes my skin crawl when people say things that are so wrong or so poorly rationalized.

Typcially, women with broader hips are more fertile than women with narrower hips. At the least, women with broader hips are better designed for childbirth.

It just so happens that guys tend to like curves in a women in such a place.

Although, depending on their menstrual cycle, women find guys with higher testosterone (typically evidenced by strong jaw lines and such) more attractive, but at other times more feminine faces are more attractive (sort of guy who may make good father figure). Although, the most fertile period ties in with the higher testosterone attractiveness looks.

However..even then it is a highly complex issue not even fully covered by myself here. From my own experience, I think the ESFp was just trying to be funny, and in a way she's right to get a bit annoyed, as none of us, not you or I or probably even specialists in the field can rationalise it completely at least at this stage.

She's probably also a bit attracted to "rugged" looking men herself, on the basis of her Se looking for some "rough sex", lol.

This SEE is a male, if you noticed the use of "he" in my post

And the SEE wasn't trying to be funny. He has a lot of opinions and he likes to share them. On this occasion we were talking about something related to the topic and then he made the statement I mentioned before. When I call him out on something that's supposed to be a joke he has a different reaction. Instead of shaming me for being a fun killer he tries to shame me for thinking that he could possibly serious.

On the topic we were arguing about, wider hips simply makes it easier for you to give birth, but still doesn't necessitate higher fertility or birth rate. The key to his argument was that natural selection would make the world full of more beautiful people because people with attractive features have more children. This argument was entirely based on the study that said men with higher testosterone were considered more attractive. Once again, there's nothing wrong with what the study is saying, but high testosterone in attractive men doesn't mean that they're having more children (by capability or by choice) nor does it mean that the hypothetically more attractive women they're marrying are any more able to have children vis-a-vis fertility of the uterus or that they will choose to have more children.


EDIT: It may also be relevant to know that this is not a topic that I have expertise in from a scientific perspective, but I'm a student of sexuality and gender relations (my focus in history) and my approach is usually counter-normativity. Also, the SEE knows this and I suspect he sometimes says these things to get under my skin.