Question to Fi valuers

[xerx]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

[717495]

Just to warm up the initial phase of discussion here, obviously is a large obstacle, especially to someone like me, an -PoLR. But I think that "dominants" have a lot more in common than one would think, from something like ethical values. If they have clashing views, I believe they may still have positive relations. With someone like ILI, however, I'm sure values might get looked at a bit more personally, and by that I mean in reflection of one's ego and personal goals, less seriously and superficially on the outside, to where it might still not even pose a huge problem. One ILI might say that as long as the other values , it is easier to get along in the long run, and in stable circumstances, right off the bat. The / divide is a big value determiner in of itself, and it says a lot.

[Minde]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

I would think that would depend on the circumstances, as well as any number of other variables.

Fi valuers - that's 8 different types right there, half of the socion. And each of the types deal with reality in their own ways, which influences how they also deal with those who disagree with them. Quite a variety.

But perhaps one thing they might do is sort of put that other person in a category, or assign some label to them. Perhaps distance themselves relationally.

What leads you to ask this?

[Galen]

For the most part I can generally deal with people who hold clashing values so long as both parties can respect each other's values. I like to try to see through the other person's eyes and come to understand why they hold those values in the first place, but if I can't come to that understanding then that's where real trouble sets in for me. To me, real communication deals with trying to find these points of irreconcilable contrast, and if I can find those specific points then I feel that a meeting with someone has been quite worthwhile.

But whether or not this is related to Fi kinda eludes me, because I feel like most pairings of people with clashing value systems can get on at least fairly well if there's mutual respect.

[Marie84]

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

[Creepy-female]

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

Would you mind giving a few examples?

[strrrng]

For the most part I can generally deal with people who hold clashing values so long as both parties can respect each other's values. I like to try to see through the other person's eyes and come to understand why they hold those values in the first place, but if I can't come to that understanding then that's where real trouble sets in for me. To me, real communication deals with trying to find these points of irreconcilable contrast, and if I can find those specific points then I feel that a meeting with someone has been quite worthwhile.

But whether or not this is related to Fi kinda eludes me, because I feel like most pairings of people with clashing value systems can get on at least fairly well if there's mutual respect.

this makes sense to me, especially the bolded. obviously I can't input personal... sentiment; but, I tend to see Fi-valuers' style of 'relating' as based on some sort of implicit harmony, as in, even dissonant positions have internal alignment. this is in contrast to the more segregated way that Ti will denote people. but that seems to be an overall theme with internal field functions -- 'feeling' the interior of perceptions to maintain that coherence.

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

I think you're describing beta Ni more than gamma. extract underlying theme –> establish broader, ideological 'validity' -- this is the strength and vice of beta aristocracies...

gammas seem more unassuming to me than all other quadras, in this respect.

[717495]

Yes I like the bolded part too and I agree with your response to Arctures. I think anyone with respect can get along.

[strrrng]

yeah, that's the thing. anyone who isn't blind and presumptuous should be able to hear someone out and appreciate their viewpoint through disagreement. the point of emphasis, lies in their methodology.

a beta will be more concerned with assessing the 'solidity' of, most likely, an ideological standpoint, gauging how a person expresses it just as much as what is said; this is directed toward the end of... finding structural alignment or dissonance, i.e. establishing a clear position in their 'hierarchy'

deltas will divide people based on individual traits and how they resonate on an internal level; this kind of 'hierarchy' is stabilized via SiTe, i.e. establishing a common, objective understanding of the context which the respective parties are operating within.

delta assumes objective harmony in action to allow for individual difference in structure, and beta assumes individual direction in action to allow for broader coherence in structure.

aristocracies are easier to describe in this respect, because of the polarized attitudes.

[xerx]

What leads you to ask this?

The possibility was brought up in the delta lounge thread that different Fi values can clash. So I'm mostly just curious.

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

Yes this is definitely a true observation and a trait that makes it hard to get along with them.

But I've also known betas to go to the other extreme and have an obligatory super-acceptance of other beliefs no matter how "wrong" they believe they are. And there are gammas that are only interested in doing their jobs and don't even think about other people's values as long as they have nothing to do with that person.

In my experience, Alpha NTs with opposite beliefs find interacting with each other a bit awkward, even if they respect other people's rights to different beliefs, and even if they like each other. Sort of feels like walking on eggshells.

[jewels]

I look at the values first from their perspective and usually can respect where they're coming from. Maybe they're really religious (and I'm not), but I can see it's something they really value, so ok. That's fine.

But when their "values" include things that piss me off in a Fi way (being mean to others, not respecting others, etc.), that pisses me off and I might end a relationship or take it w/ a grain of salt and not get too close to them.

For instance, an ISFj friend of mine is a very different religion from me and very into it, and I can respect that totally even though I may not "get" it, but that's fine -- so different values there aren't a problem. But she was saying that she didn't care if her bf was happy at work, that he needed to stick it out so she'd be taken care of, despite him having some really high anxiety/stress. I thought that was selfish to not consider his welfare also, and not just her own. So that pissed me off. I told her if he had a heart attack from the stress, then neither of them would be in a good spot, and no one can put up w/ unhealthy levels of stress for too long, etc. She was just focused on wanting more money from him, which annoyed me. (Or maybe that's actually a Si vs. Se valuing issue, who knows).

[717495]

Hmm jewels, I'd say that it seems more likely Se-valuing, because if I we're in that position I think I'd be able to understand a Gamma saying that out of care for his work and who he is nevertheless, how he performs (on the "outside"), which seems more Se than Fe, and still have that care for him, and still wouldn't like him to be hurt, but I'd put my priorities in place like anyone else, and I might sometimes sound rather insensitive and risk-taking in methodology, but not show much of that in my actions. That lady is probably trying to put things in perspective. I know I'm capable of saying some foolish things that makes me look Fi-devaluing, and then I end up feeling rather guilty. An ESI might not typically say such a thing, but an SEE, ILI, LIE could, I presume. Also not saying that Si-valuing won't care about performance, they'd just come across a little more safety-oriented I guess. From experience. Some Si-valuers I know in real life can be pretty annoying and limiting to me about safety, almost like there are these rules, and I certainly chose to ignore it because they often exaggerate things that they think would happen to me. All of those negative "possibilities." Thinking about it is scary and I sometimes think about what could have happened to me right after the fact, oftentimes I am farfetched and unrealistically extreme with these visions (Ne catching an Ni drift), and I know I shouldn't do things to put me in danger, but I don't want to always worry about it. Your friend might be annoyed by the topic.

[Marie84]

Would you mind giving a few examples?

Sure.
One is a particularly religious fundamentalist LSI who holds his belief as universal truths, and thus all should follow said beliefs in the way said LSI views as correct. This includes said LSI believing his beliefs should be instated in government
When attempting to reason with said LSI that his beliefs may be misinterpreted, or in anyway not factual, said LSI will either use his interpretation of certain scriptures to back-up his factualness or/and repeat an earlier argument in an imposing manner in order to force his opponent into submission.
The LSI will never compromise his position in an argument, as in, he can't except that not everyone will believe in the same thing and thus enforcing personal values on others is both unrealistic and block-headed

An SLE who "bullied" an LII guy. The SLE guy (co-worker) believes LII should be doing some project a certain way, while LII has some ideas he'd like to propose to his co-workers. SLE has already decided the he will only except EIE co-workers idea and that further suggestions for said project would be pointless. SLE makes it clear to LII that LII should go along with the plan of EIE and stfu. LII is now too scared to discuss his ideas with the rest of the group.

I have another good example of conversing with an ESI, though it's similar to the LSI one except the topic in question was on gay people

[Marie84]

Yes this is definitely a true observation and a trait that makes it hard to get along with them.

But I've also known betas to go to the other extreme and have an obligatory super-acceptance of other beliefs no matter how "wrong" they believe they are. And there are gammas that are only interested in doing their jobs and don't even think about other people's values as long as they have nothing to do with that person.

yah, that's why I'm particular of saying "some" rather than the collective of Se's since they're not all imposing and uncompromising, though the ones that are can be incredibly difficult to reason with (from an Ne point of views, at least)

I think you're describing beta Ni more than gamma. extract underlying theme –> establish broader, ideological 'validity' -- this is the strength and vice of beta aristocracies...

gammas seem more unassuming to me than all other quadras, in this respect.

yah probably. I really only run into the extreme ideologies with EIE's, so far at least

[xerx]

yah, that's why I'm particular of saying "some" rather than the collective of Se's since they're not all imposing and uncompromising, though the ones that are can be incredibly difficult to reason with (from an Ne point of views, at least

got it

[Creepy-Cyclops]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

Eh, supposing you get two people with completely clashing values, you think they'll typically get on whether they value Fi or not?

[Aiss]

I think once we get to the clashing values, it depends more on each person's tolerance and respect towards the other than their types. Though of course how well they communicate would be influenced by it, so a potential conflict might be more or less intense (or pointless in case of complete misunderstanding).

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

What polikujm said - it's more often met with in Betas, IMO less because of but of + combined. types rarely project objectivity on their own beliefs, and Gammas in particular are more likely to be forceful about what they think to be beneficial rather than what they think to be right.

[leckysupport]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

Not a description of how Fi egos clash, just how people clash in general. Because I think it's more important...

Clashing views general means you want the other person to stop saying things which you don't agree with. Most people try social tricks and arguing first and by social tricks I mean techniques such as guilt and peer pressure.

If arguing and tricks fail or can't be used, depending on how dangerous you consider the view/person to be you have might have to get rid of the person or limit his ability to affect other people. Then it all becomes political and whether or not your view or theirs gets implemented starts depending on who has control over what, who says what, who has influence with who etc..

If you consider the person to be not that dangerous or annoying, you might be able to get along with them regardless.

IMO this is basically what happens everywhere in every Quadra.

The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.

I, ofc think this is wrong. IMO pretty much every other idiot thinks they are right (in general) and wants to force their values on everyone else.

[Creepy-female]

Sure.
One is a particularly religious fundamentalist LSI who holds his belief as universal truths, and thus all should follow said beliefs in the way said LSI views as correct. This includes said LSI believing his beliefs should be instated in government
When attempting to reason with said LSI that his beliefs may be misinterpreted, or in anyway not factual, said LSI will either use his interpretation of certain scriptures to back-up his factualness or/and repeat an earlier argument in an imposing manner in order to force his opponent into submission.
The LSI will never compromise his position in an argument, as in, he can't except that not everyone will believe in the same thing and thus enforcing personal values on others is both unrealistic and block-headed

Maybe it is unrealistic but you know..I guess I don't see that as particularily negative. As far as bigots go, at least he's making his reasoning..challengeable. I mean even if he's not really interested in other's opinions, he's actively involved in "beating" them. Which attends to a sort of accountability. Even if he's trying to force people into submission, he's being open about doing it. Sure that can be annoying and maybe he's breaking some Fi related considerations along the way..but it's like I've seen an ISTp do this sort of thing..covertly. He won't talk about his views in large groups, and he won't go breaking down the doors in outright presentation if there's a sign that his view is contested, if it is, he'll simply shut down out of lack of close friends to express his complete opinion to. He won't express his views to anyone he can't dominate with them. Perhaps that's pragmatic if his views aren't changing. But his approach has the same authoritarian flavor. I don't think an Ne valuer would help him be more "open". They'd just have to adapt to him, or already be the same way. An INFj I know gets frustrated with his inability to be socially acquiescent, and complains about him. But that's the key. She's concerned with managing people's reactions and how they see her and that she is associated with being diplomatic. And it seems sometimes the only net result she had was just managing the reactions and not getting into fights. But in the end, no matter how seemingly accepting she is, she's implacable in views and pretty harshly judging, just like he is. Delta's don't put their views up for challenge as much as Betas, but to me they're both essentially pretty aristocratic and fixed. And to me there isn't much of a difference, cause there's a certain amount of just surviving without bombing yourself and others on a social basis from day to day. And there's a certain amount of "fuck that". And that's more honest to me. It kind of doesn't matter how Deltas aren't open about their views, because it's not always so diplomatic when it falls on the people that are close to them, which are the only people that matter anyway. Betas are cheapening their original insight by their flagrant emotional expression, compromising it into some fire and death presentation. And Deltas saved themselves some confrontation from the general public. Big deal lol.

An SLE who "bullied" an LII guy. The SLE guy (co-worker) believes LII should be doing some project a certain way, while LII has some ideas he'd like to propose to his co-workers. SLE has already decided the he will only except EIE co-workers idea and that further suggestions for said project would be pointless. SLE makes it clear to LII that LII should go along with the plan of EIE and stfu. LII is now too scared to discuss his ideas with the rest of the group.

Hmm I would just say in contrast Se polrs don't seem to be able to pare down their opinions very easily. They like shooting out a lot of ideas for how something is going to happen based on a very detailed negative progression of the focus in the environment. And it's like I'd rather just act, and deal with the negative consequences of the action later. And it's like if you had some SLE being pigheaded or whatever..it would be a relief if he told another Se valuer to stfu. Because now they have something concrete to deal with, instead of being paranoid about what boundary rules they're trampling on this time. And I don't exactly get the scared thing, I mean what is the SLE going to do? Maul the LII in a dark alley because he doesn't agree with his ideas?

[somavision]

Values are bonds that herd the sheep together, values are weakness, values are the stenched piss of the elderly. I prefer immediate sensory satisfaction and the taste of human flesh, everything else is neither here nor there.

[Mattie]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

I like ultimately where this conversation is going, saw it too late to really add on more. But the first thing I thought is why would -valuers have a harder time with clashing values than -valuers? =/= moral code or anything, and that doesn't leave -egos moral/valueless. I think everything that has been mentioned can be applied to every single type... If you have respectful and mature parties involved, then there's no real conflict when it comes to things like that, I don't think this question is really unique to the side of things. Just thought I'd drop that in and see if that echoes anywhere.

[Marie84]

Maybe it is unrealistic but you know..I guess I don't see that as particularily negative. As far as bigots go, at least he's making his reasoning..challengeable. I mean even if he's not really interested in other's opinions, he's actively involved in "beating" them. Which attends to a sort of accountability. Even if he's trying to force people into submission, he's being open about doing it. Sure that can be annoying and maybe he's breaking some Fi related considerations along the way..

I really don't have a problem with his beliefs, it's that he uses his beliefs to make excuses that hurt people, which is the difference between being a devoted believer and an extremists (he's the latter)

but it's like I've seen an ISTp do this sort of thing..covertly. He won't talk about his views in large groups, and he won't go breaking down the doors in outright presentation if there's a sign that his view is contested, if it is, he'll simply shut down out of lack of close friends to express his complete opinion to. He won't express his views to anyone he can't dominate with them. Perhaps that's pragmatic if his views aren't changing. But his approach has the same authoritarian flavor. I don't think an Ne valuer would help him be more "open". They'd just have to adapt to him, or already be the same way. An INFj I know gets frustrated with his inability to be socially acquiescent, and complains about him. But that's the key. She's concerned with managing people's reactions and how they see her and that she is associated with being diplomatic. And it seems sometimes the only net result she had was just managing the reactions and not getting into fights. But in the end, no matter how seemingly accepting she is, she's implacable in views and pretty harshly judging, just like he is. Delta's don't put their views up for challenge as much as Betas, but to me they're both essentially pretty aristocratic and fixed. And to me there isn't much of a difference, cause there's a certain amount of just surviving without bombing yourself and others on a social basis from day to day. And there's a certain amount of "fuck that". And that's more honest to me. It kind of doesn't matter how Deltas aren't open about their views, because it's not always so diplomatic when it falls on the people that are close to them, which are the only people that matter anyway. Betas are cheapening their original insight by their flagrant emotional expression, compromising it into some fire and death presentation. And Deltas saved themselves some confrontation from the general public. Big deal lol.

I can totally understand how this can be incredibly annoying to and valuers.
From experience, I find that when Deltas express their personal values among other Deltas, who may not share the same beliefs, there's a consensuses that you're entitled to those beliefs as long as you're not stepping on other peoples toes. The purpose of even discussing these issues is to gain an understanding of the other person and/or to learn about what it is they believe in and why.
Alphas are somewhat like this too, in terms of the passivness, except they sometimes mock or passively debate people rather than resort to confrontation like some Betas and Gammas do.
But yah, I'm not trying to say that one way is more obviously superior, it's just that I don't see any purpose in intimidating someone into believing in what you do, since a belief only has value when you willfully and honestly see things that way.

Hmm I would just say in contrast Se polrs don't seem to be able to pare down their opinions very easily. They like shooting out a lot of ideas for how something is going to happen based on a very detailed negative progression of the focus in the environment. And it's like I'd rather just act, and deal with the negative consequences of the action later. And it's like if you had some SLE being pigheaded or whatever..it would be a relief if he told another Se valuer to stfu. Because now they have something concrete to deal with, instead of being paranoid about what boundary rules they're trampling on this time. And I don't exactly get the scared thing, I mean what is the SLE going to do? Maul the LII in a dark alley because he doesn't agree with his ideas?

This, again, is just a difference in IE values. I see knocking down the LII's proposals as not just inconsiderate but also closing yourself off from the possibility that his idea(s) might be better and thus provide more fruitful results.
Though I'm interested in how people from other quadras see things from another different perspective than I do, so I found your reply to these examples rather fascinating

[Marie84]

I, ofc think this is wrong. IMO pretty much every other idiot thinks they are right (in general) and wants to force their values on everyone else.

It depends what you mean by values and how you view enforcing them. Just like how I took what the LSI and SLE did as being forceful but dolphin didn't, it's all a matter of perspective really; I'm sure I have my own biases and quirks that annoy people, we all do

[krieger]

My ESFp brother in law tends to (want to) speak out with fanaticism against people who don't share his beliefs (mainly classically liberal ones with some atheism on the side; he is philosophy major who is active in politics, so he tends to be quite well informed on things). My INFj mother and ISTp father on the other hand are very tolerant in general. My ENTj sister is... something in between. She does have strong beliefs on most topics, but has more of an attitude of "as long as you don't bother me, you can go on believing that".

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It feels very scheming and under-handed to me if people don't share their real values. It's just slimy and repulsive.

Maybe you can framework that in a socionics way, maybe you can't. But yeah, I agree with this thread because I guess I'm Beta and if somebody treated me like that, I would just get really wary and suspicious and just innately uncomfortable. I wouldn't exactly hate or dislike the person though. I would just be like 'wtf' all the time. Or like a pigeon was pecking at my balls.

I've noticed Betas and Deltas will go out of their way sometimes to try and understand each other, but there's still always this natural clash no matter what. It's like it goes beyond liking or disliking people.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It feels very scheming and under-handed to me if people don't share their real values. It's just slimy and repulsive.

That's an interesting point, i'm not even sure if i know what my values are. How does that work out for you?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't care about ambivalency.

I guess I'm thinking of this more purely, and not so much about socionics. I don't want people to think they have power over me, but something about that whole concept, of not sharing your values with others, seems to be pushing a button in me that I don't like. And I'm really not being oversensitive. It's just like a hit that hits you.

But in a way I shouldn't really be naive to this stuff, and I think it makes me be more careful about the things I do share. But in other ways, the reason why I'm a well-liked guy by some is cause I'm so publically honest. Ehhhh I don't know. Distant fart in space.

and this is even more awkward cause I know most people aren't really mean like that, they don't care in the way that I perceive them to be, and I don't want to make people feel guilty. But I subjectively interpret that as a pretty dickheaded move. And it's like this is all about subjective stuff anyway.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

worth repeating: It's just sooo awkward cause nobody is really trying to be mean here or an obvious like 'I hurt you cause I don't like you way' that's kind of human and endearing and little kid ish. It's just so....awkward to me.

gaghaghah I'm gonna take a break to chew on my shirt. and soothe the natural neurosis i was born with by meditating and letting it go.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

yeah

[Aiss]

I don't care about ambivalency.

I guess I'm thinking of this more purely, and not so much about socionics. I don't want people to think they have power over me, but something about that whole concept, of not sharing your values with others, seems to be pushing a button in me that I don't like. And I'm really not being oversensitive. It's just like a hit that hits you.

But in a way I shouldn't really be naive to this stuff, and I think it makes me be more careful about the things I do share. But in other ways, the reason why I'm a well-liked guy by some is cause I'm so publically honest. Ehhhh I don't know. Distant fart in space.

and this is even more awkward cause I know most people aren't really mean like that, they don't care in the way that I perceive them to be, and I don't want to make people feel guilty. But I subjectively interpret that as a pretty dickheaded move. And it's like this is all about subjective stuff anyway.

I blame -HA. Since everything must be about socionics.

[Park]

Values are bonds that herd the sheep together, values are weakness, values are the stenched piss of the elderly. I prefer immediate sensory satisfaction and the taste of human flesh, everything else is neither here nor there.

[Beautiful sky]

It's funny how my two INFj friends and I pretty much have the same values; we never crash at all with this regard. With my one INFj friend, the only problem we have is that she is holding on to and trying very hard to deal with her father who left her and her mother when she was very young. She is trying to rebuild a relationship with him, but he is distant and very cold sometimes and that really frustrates her, upsets her and makes her emotionally vulnerable; she reacts to this by shutting everyone, including me out and I can't help except to try to comfort her.

We are very tolerant and loving towards one another as a group and to a lot of people as well, but we get drained very quickly if we're not in an emotionally stable and kind environment.

[strrrng]

From experience, I find that when Deltas express their personal values among other Deltas, who may not share the same beliefs, there's a consensuses that you're entitled to those beliefs as long as you're not stepping on other peoples toes.

This is what I find incomprehensible. It makes me think that the possessor of this viewpoint cares less about the substance of their beliefs than being able to maintain them in harmony.

Why are people entitled to beliefs, if they aren't willing to stand up for them?


As far as "stepping on peoples' toes" goes, there comes a point where you must decide if you are willing to prioritize the honest expression of your beliefs over the desire to maintain a sense of harmony.

Why?

Because beliefs are the ground which you stand on.

I take a questioning of my beliefs as an invitation to exchange; in this arena, one's inflection matters far less than what is said, because the goal is to strengthen understanding; this entails being willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong.

As long as each party is expressing themselves genuinely, and appreciating the other for this, who cares about stepping on toes?

[xerx]

This is what I find incomprehensible. It makes me think that the possessor of this viewpoint cares less about the substance of their beliefs, and more about being able to maintain them in harmony.

Why are people entitled to beliefs, if they aren't willing to stand up for them?


As far as "stepping on peoples' toes" goes, there comes a point where you must decide if you are willing to prioritize the honest expression of your beliefs over the desire to maintain a sense of harmony.

Why?

Because beliefs are the ground which you stand on.

I take a questioning of my beliefs as an invitation to exchange; in this arena, one's inflection matters far less than what is said, because the goal is to strengthen understanding; this entails being willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong.

As long as each party is expressing themselves genuinely, and appreciating the other for this, who cares about stepping on toes?

This is what I respect most about Betas. The fact that they express their views all the time and genuinely believe them to be true, and the fact that they allow others the same.

It's a bit of a double-edged sword, though, because their view might be wrong and their conviction can lead them astray, or it might let them resolve a situation in less complexity than it really is from an Ne perspective. Ditto for Gammas.

[Mattie]

As long as each party is expressing themselves genuinely, and appreciating the other for this, who cares about stepping on toes?

I agree, I think anyone who has well thought out ideas and likes to exchange them with others has this viewpoint. I don't find myself going out of my way to only talk about my viewpoints with other Deltas, or close friends even. A lot of times a stranger will come into a conversation randomly and say something I can't allow to stand What is sensitive for me is arguing for argument's sake. I find it grating and a waste of time with most people, but sometimes when I know the person well enough, I can just banter knowing it isn't really going to go somewhere. But with random people, or those who get on my nerves, I don't like to argue if it doesn't seem to be progressive conversation.

[MatthewZ]

Beliefs may be the ground you stand on, but they certainly aren't the bridge you build to reach others. By all means, discuss beliefs; just don't kill anyone over them.

[thePirate]

This is what I find incomprehensible. It makes me think that the possessor of this viewpoint cares less about the substance of their beliefs, and more about being able to maintain them in harmony.

Yes, absolutely agree with all of your post.

this is part of the reason why (certain) Fi valuing types come off as huge hypocrites to me. inconsistency with their beliefs/values, I suppose this is related to opposing Ti. deltas value mercy over justice, but I feel like if your values are so strong, it wont really make exceptions. of course there are times where exceptions are applicable and what not, and neccessary, but it just seems weak and selfish(?) to me to break those rules all the time; putting situations over your own belief system so freely is weak to me. dont know how else to explain it.

I think this is what Fe types see as 'fake'. its funny, because all throughout the forum you have seen posts of Fi relating to traditional ethics more so than Fe, being ethical and Fi being equated to be the same thing.

Oh, and that fucking wikisocion description. That piece of shit is so biased, theres a piece in there that said that Fe types will hang out with people they dont neccessarily like while Fi types cant do that. That they cant 'put on' for people they dont like, but no one ever fleshed out that this is due to Fi highly judgemental nature, not not neccessarily because an 'ethical' stance that was objectively broken. But then, Fi is about subjective ethics -
I dont feel that the 'subjectivity' of this has been stressed enough, if it had been I think there would be a very very different view about Fi types among members. Ive seen them dislike people for the pettiest things that I would say certainly doesnt fall under 'ethical behavior'. One of such is 'impoliteness', but Fi types(base function) dont seem to get that these rules VARY dammit. Actually, some do but dont care. I mean, the creatives are probably a little better at this but heck if they can keep their creative on long enough to make any use of those values. Yeah, I said it.

Anyway, obviously this description, to me, HEAVILY alluded to Fi types being more 'ethical'. Such bullshit, what it fails to mention is that if an Fe types values are violated they will VIOLENTLY disrupt the atmosphere. Im certainly not implying that Fe types are more ethical as a whole, I illustrate this because I think this bias is unjust and unfair.

Then theres the whole Fi business of saying they respect everyones views but at the same time attempting to conform you to theirs which is just utter hypocrisy to me. I have seen this in people like lobo, maritsa, and minde on the forum here. Yes, Im calling out names, I have nothing against you. I understand this is how you work but somewhere inside me this type of attitude utterly pisses me off. Fi is SUBJECTIVE ethics, so NO you do NOT give a damn about respecting other peoples opinions. You give a damn about people respecting your own or similar values and have little to no patience for others views. If you did, you would give people a chance who you didnt neccessarily like for PETTY BULLSHIT that probably says little about the persons character. You also wouldnt attempt to influce their views, but respect them for what they are.

Pinnochio, are you reading this? I dont see how you could call me an Fi type as I utterly dispise this kind of behavior. On the forum I fight people, sometimes to extreme cases but that is because I care the information and some of the members in it. Do you see Fi types taking up causes like that? Do you see them fighting constantly in such a direct manner? Or do you see the Fi habit of doing that - but attempting to keep this internal harmony at the same time? The leading revolutionaries, and changers of unethical practices have been mainly Fe types to my knowledge; have you not seen them fight violently, or even in peace - the intensity of their resolve has been something beyond what I typically see in Fi types. I mean, I may be wrong about this; but its how it seems to me

That said, I can RESPECT and be OK with that because I realize that those types have their reasons and Im not perfect either. I, and Fe types definitely have our flaws. Im just more okay with them because I AM one of them. In real life, I would also be harmonizing with people probably more than I like. I do that because I know people are different from me, and thats OK. I accept people as much as I can, I strive for that, and really try to stray away from what I consider 'petty evaluations' of dismissing people. So yeah, Im generally considered a chill guy. But, fuck, if I dont speak up on something I feel is wrong in my core.

[Lobo]

Then theres the whole Fi business of saying they respect everyones views but at the same time attempting to conform you to theirs which is just utter hypocrisy to me. I have seen this in people like lobo, maritsa, and minde on the forum here. Yes, Im calling out names, I have nothing against you. I understand this is how you work but somewhere inside me this type of attitude utterly pisses me off. Fi is SUBJECTIVE ethics, so NO you do NOT give a damn about respecting other peoples opinions. You give a damn about people respecting your own or similar values and have little to no patience for others views. If you did, you would give people a chance who you didnt neccessarily like for PETTY BULLSHIT that probably says little about the persons character. You also wouldnt attempt to influce their views, but respect them for what they are.

I don't care if you call me out, I don't bite. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about... So you're saying that since Fi is subjective ethics, then that means that I don't give a damn about respecting others' opinions? Idk how you arrived to that.

[Lobo]

How do Fi valuers with different or completely clashing values get along? Do they get along?

I don't see how values are related to Fi though, at least it's fuzzy to me.

[strrrng]

Yes, absolutely agree with all of your post.

this is part of the reason why (certain) Fi valuing types come off as huge hypocrites to me. inconsistency with their beliefs/values, I suppose this is related to opposing Ti. deltas value mercy over justice, but I feel like if your values are so strong, it wont really make exceptions. of course there are times where exceptions are applicable and what not, and neccessary, but it just seems weak and selfish(?) to me to break those rules all the time; putting situations over your own belief system so freely is weak to me. dont know how else to explain it.

re mercy over justice: I have noticed a similar attitude in some deltas, as if peace and stability are more important than strength of position.

This is the most insidious attitude: passive acceptance veiling a desire to 'correct' -- "I will agree with you on my terms."

Subserving beliefs to situations equates to having no beliefs.