A Strong Sense of How Things "Should" Be

[Cuddly McFluffles]

What do you think? Rationality? Fi? Something else?

Specifically, I am thinking of people who believe, "People should _________" or "People shouldn't _________". It could be internal or voiced. Also, is the willingness to voice this opinion (and when/where they do so) type-related?

[1981slater]

Creative intuition>Accepting intuition>Sensing ???

[FDG]

I am kind of the opposite of this. Whenever I give such opinions, I'm being completely arbitrary and I don't really believe what I'm saying, unless it's an emergency situation.

[Lobo]

I do get a strong sense of what is right or wrong at times, what someone should or shouldn't do, especially in some kind of relationship setting. I don't force my views on anybody, am careful of my "place", but if I have a certain level of trust with someone then it all comes out.

[DirectorAbbie]

I have a strong sense of how things should be.

[EyeSeeCold]

Te+Fi?
Ti+Ne?

[Creepy-male]

Hmm sounds like the Freudian superego. I'm not sure how this translates into jungian functions or how it translates into socionics. I've always been curious if it relates to people's superego block, as in, people are insecure about their these functions so they develop "policies" in these areas to help them cope with life. In which case people's "shoulds" would be different for each type.

[silverchris9]

IME, LSEs always do. I'm more likely to have a sense of something being right or wrong by examining it after the fact, but I have a comparatively weak/narrow sense of how things should be done, i.e., I only have a few things that I think are imperative. And then of course in professional fields there's a base level of right and wrong (some sentences are just poorly written), but then past that basic level, it's completely about choice and opinion.

Personally, I think it is LSEs and LSIs most of all, but also EIIs and sometimes Fe-leading types.

[force my hand]

What do you think? Rationality? Fi? Something else?

Specifically, I am thinking of people who believe, "People should _________" or "People shouldn't _________". It could be internal or voiced. Also, is the willingness to voice this opinion (and when/where they do so) type-related?

Potentially Fi? I don't know, it's a hard call.

Personally, it's a very attractive judgement to make, at least until you realize that sort of thinking rarely solves the problem. I wonder if Te will take an ought/ought-not situation and turn it into a more practical, effective is/is-not.

[Aleksei]

Enneagram 1, MBTI Si and Ni. Socionics... idfk, Se-creative?

[limNol]

According to WikiSocion, positivist rationals (ESE, LSI, LIE, EII) focus on what things "should be" while negativist rationals (LII, EIE, ESI, LSE) emphasize what they "shouldn't be." Of course, the theoretical solidity of Reinin dichotomies is still up for debate.

Hmm sounds like the Freudian superego. I'm not sure how this translates into jungian functions or how it translates into socionics. I've always been curious if it relates to people's superego block, as in, people are insecure about their these functions so they develop "policies" in these areas to help them cope with life. In which case people's "shoulds" would be different for each type.

Interesting. I was actually just thinking about the relationship between the Freudian ego/id/superego and the blocks in model A with the same names. The intersection isn't exact, but there's definitely a correspondence between the ego/id/superego in Freud vs. model A. Take the superego, which seems to be characterized by a repressive internalization of external standards and evaluations in both systems.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

All writers have it. Compassionate, intellectual, independent, and healthy socially well-adjusted humans have this. People who grow up being emotionally abused (beyond repair, no support network), or just psychopaths and people born with genetic defects that naturally eliminate them from any sense of social responsibility....don't have this thing.

After all, how things 'are' aren't necessarily how they 'should be' otherwise, we still wouldn't allow women to vote, we still would have all sorts of fucked up social problems, with hate in our heart. (we still have these issues, though progress is only natural)

You know what I don't like about this place. Is you are accusing other people of somehow being 'sick' and socially mal-adjusted, when I'm not sure I agree with that. (Maybe a few individuals but I think they are more emo angry at the world then anything truly sociopathic) A strong sense of how things should be isn't socionics related. It has nothing to do with it. most normal humans have a strong sense of how things should be. it's just we don't really agree on what that is. Only humans operating at our very 'base' levels (murder, rape, pure antisocial behaviors) wouldn't ever idealize, wouldn't ever look out the window like a misty fag at how to make the world a better place, truly.

You're just all upset because your fag feelings were stomped over your entire lives, and you can't admit it because you think that it makes you weaker. That's not me projecting, btw. That's me seeing right through you. It's not really any one person's fault. It's just that the public school system brings out the worst in everybody in general. If it didn't exist, and from birth we treated people correctly instead of puppets we have to control out of fear and ignorance and all the darker parts of men..... then we'd have a much better world. Systems are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution.

[Cyrano]

I have a strong sense of how things should be.

Seems like a "j" thing.

[717495]

That's the definition I heard for rationality. Seems like a confusion/argument I'd get into with someone, like they're trying to make a point but don't have evidence, because its not really there just in their mind/ideal.

I guess that's why duality is good with J-J and P-P, because there's not that major communication problem. Irrationals strive to accurately communicate what is (aka perception), rationals strive to successfully communicate on the topic of what should be.

[EyeSeeCold]

I have a sense of how things should be, but I have no clue as to how I would go about implementing my plans.

[The Exception]

I have a strong sense of how things should be.

Same here.

Seems like a "j" thing.

I'm inclined to agree.

I have a sense of how things should be, but I have no clue as to how I would go about implementing my plans.

That's often the case with me as well.

[Exodus]

Rational information, or . and are the "should" functions. is shoulds in the context of interpersonal relations and feelings, is shoulds in the context of obligations or fulfilling a role. I don't think EJ types are generally likely to have as strong a sense of should as IJ types. If they do it's still related to or .

[Park]

I have a strong sense of how certain things should be, sure. But it's more of a form of an idealism and striving to grow and improve, both as an individual and as an influential node in society.

Rationals might be more inclined to want to expose, and impose their believes and judgement.

[Spiro]

I really just want to be left alone. Otherwise, I don't care what society does.

[Slacker]

This is usually described as being related to rationality, as others have said.