Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Interesting question

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Interesting question...

    I've come to the conclusion that political outlook may be leading us to different interpretations of the functions. In particular, I interpret as "subjective experience". Others seem to interpret it as "ethics". I don't really see the correlation, except in so far as one can use knowledge of a person's subjective experience as a guide to whether or not something should be reasonably expected from them. This is not the ethics that is described in most analyses of the subject I have read, however....

    Perhaps liberals have a tendency to perceive being ethical as being open to many points of view, thus allowing one to understand what a person is attempting to accomplish and as such, to know what they feel themselves open to.

  2. #2
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Well I think the point is ethics are largely subjective. is really a concept that can't be described in any other terms except , it represents the part of a person which experiences emotional/feeling based things in external reality. This usually determines a person's ethics, which are usually subjective since people have trouble identifying a strict objective sense of ethics. An example of is being inspired to show mercy to a person breaking the law, this is because mercy is an emotional/feeling experience which inspires an ethic in a person and its Fe not Fi since it is in reponse to a specific event and not an internal thing that is always on. However a person can still be using if they are inspired to ruthlessly arrest a person breaking the law, this may be a different emotion/feeling of disgust for the criminal and empathy of the vicitim's lack of justice. Anyways I think this is what confuses people the most about , they carelessly type people based on their feelings and emotions, if they feel a person is being ethical by their measure then they are using , this is not the case. Ethics in socionics simply is refering to something that is based on a person's feelings and emotions and not based on Logic which seeks to understand things in Functionality. A better sense of the two outlooks would be Functionality versus Emotionality, however this terminology would be less intuitive for people using socionics, we usually find Emotional people are concerning with Ethics while people that get things Functioning are concerning with Logic.

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
    Anyways I think this is what confuses people the most about , they carelessly type people based on their feelings and emotions, if they feel a person is being ethical by their measure then they are using , this is not the case.
    What do you mean?

  4. #4
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
    Anyways I think this is what confuses people the most about , they carelessly type people based on their feelings and emotions, if they feel a person is being ethical by their measure then they are using , this is not the case.
    What do you mean?
    Well not everyone does this.... but let me make an example.....

    Say you were firmly against the iraq war and believed war was gross and unethical. That death and destruction were the complete evils in man and that it must be eliminated and that art was the good in man. You believed that people should learn to appreciate beauty and not destroy it and that people participating in the war had no sense of human compassion. In this case your individual sense of Ethics would cloud you from typing another as ethical if they were participating in the iraq war lets say, your rationale would be fighting shows a lack of human compassion.

    However it would still be possible in this case for a person participating in the iraq war to be an ethical type, they may simply have a seperate value system. To them they may find service and sacrifice to their country to be meaningful, maybe an ESFj? So to them they actually could be experiencing , while to you -- you may not catch this because its hard to empathize with them because of your different values.

    A good example of thinking over feeling is the industrial revolution, the revolution helped propel society into a more productive system and therefore was seen as good in terms of functionality. However the daily routine and lack of individual trade sets began making factory workers feel like life was meaningless and repititive. This shows that the industrial revolution was ultimately a Logic dominant phenomenom, because if Ethics had been considered over Logic the feelings of the workers would be considered in the design and not just the functionality.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Logical types can think the Iraq war is 'good' or 'bad' as well. I don't think it necessarily boils down to ethics. I personally think that war is right, only when the means are justified by the end.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  6. #6
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @HaveLucidDreamz, yeah I remember seeing a post here that claimed ESFjs weren't "ethical" because they were mean or something. Of course that doesn't make any sense.

    I personally prefer the terms Thinking and Feeling, because IMO they are closer to the actual meaning of the dichotomy. Although you might call Fe Feeling and Fi Ethics.

  7. #7
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Logical types can think the Iraq war is 'good' or 'bad' as well. I don't think it necessarily boils down to ethics. I personally think that war is right, only when the means are justified by the end.
    Well I don't want to get into political debate, it was just an example to illuminate different value systems.

    Now about Logical types --> Logical types only argue in terms of right and wrong based on what functions better or accomplishes the task best. Ethical types argue in terms of good and evil based on what feels like the noble/good thing to do. Both are usually present in a person just that socionics claims one takes presidence in a persons mind. A hypothetical logical type argument against the iraq war may be its a waste of money which could be used for social security, an ethical argument would be war is an immoral human practice. A hypothetical logical type argument for the iraq war may be that it focuses the warzone of terrorism in iraq and out of the united states, an ethical argument would be the war helps liberate the dominated masses sadam subjugated.

  8. #8
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    @HaveLucidDreamz, yeah I remember seeing a post here that claimed ESFjs weren't "ethical" because they were mean or something. Of course that doesn't make any sense.

    I personally prefer the terms Thinking and Feeling, because IMO they are closer to the actual meaning of the dichotomy. Although you might call Fe Feeling and Fi Ethics.
    Well I like that -- Fe is Feeling and Fi is Ethics, Fi is an internal value system that searches for a place to express itself in reality, Fe is a reponsive value system that comes alive when experiencing reality.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
    Logical types only argue in terms of right and wrong based on what functions better or accomplishes the task best. Ethical types argue in terms of good and evil based on what feels like the noble/good thing to do. Both are usually present in a person just that socionics claims one takes presidence in a persons mind. A hypothetical logical type argument against the iraq war may be its a waste of money which could be used for social security, an ethical argument would be war is an immoral human practice. A hypothetical logical type argument for the iraq war may be that it focuses the warzone of terrorism in iraq and out of the united states, an ethical argument would be the war helps liberate the dominated masses sadam subjugated.

    this is ridiculous. logical types aren't allowed to have priorities or values? ethical types aren't allowed to think about efficiency or rational behavior?

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
    Logical types only argue in terms of right and wrong based on what functions better or accomplishes the task best. Ethical types argue in terms of good and evil based on what feels like the noble/good thing to do. Both are usually present in a person just that socionics claims one takes presidence in a persons mind. A hypothetical logical type argument against the iraq war may be its a waste of money which could be used for social security, an ethical argument would be war is an immoral human practice. A hypothetical logical type argument for the iraq war may be that it focuses the warzone of terrorism in iraq and out of the united states, an ethical argument would be the war helps liberate the dominated masses sadam subjugated.

    this is ridiculous. logical types aren't allowed to have priorities or values? ethical types aren't allowed to think about efficiency or rational behavior?
    Lol thats not what I am saying, think in terms of focus --> I am saying according to socionics, ethical types focus most of their energy on values since this is in their ego block. Meanwhile, logical types focus most of their energy on functionality since this is in their ego block. In no way is an ethical uncapable of logical cognition and a logical type uncapable of ethical cognition -- Socionics includes all 8 functions in the psyche model.

    An example of a real life case in which functional cognition outdid emotional cognition was the industrial revolution, where the feelings of workers trying to adapt to foreign conditions wasn't considered when compared to efficiency and functionality. Most industrial tycoon where likely thinking types and not emotional types, however this doesn't mean they didn't possess their own values, ford for one attempted to indoctorate certain beliefs to his factory workers that were considered appropriate american values.

    However I personally don't believe in the socionics model as rigid because certain circumstances can in my opinion can switch a person's general focus from functioning to emotions and vice versa.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
    In no way is an ethical uncapable of logical cognition and a logical type uncapable of ethical cognition -- Socionics includes all 8 functions in the psyche model.
    Unless you're Mr. Spock.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

    Lol thats not what I am saying, think in terms of focus --> I am saying according to socionics, ethical types focus most of their energy on values since this is in their ego block. Meanwhile, logical types focus most of their energy on functionality since this is in their ego block. In no way is an ethical uncapable of logical cognition and a logical type uncapable of ethical cognition -- Socionics includes all 8 functions in the psyche model.

    your examples seem to suggest otherwise. or perhaps they are just poor examples with minimal knowledge of what the functions actually represent.

  13. #13
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

    Lol thats not what I am saying, think in terms of focus --> I am saying according to socionics, ethical types focus most of their energy on values since this is in their ego block. Meanwhile, logical types focus most of their energy on functionality since this is in their ego block. In no way is an ethical uncapable of logical cognition and a logical type uncapable of ethical cognition -- Socionics includes all 8 functions in the psyche model.

    your examples seem to suggest otherwise. or perhaps they are just poor examples with minimal knowledge of what the functions actually represent.
    I figured my explanation was intuitive enough to grasp what I was saying, but to rigidly define rationally what I truely meant was ----

    an example of a 100% purely logical argument would be.....
    and I didn't mean
    an example of a logical type arguing would be........

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In truth,
    logical types depend on logical arguments to express and validate their values, while feelers express their values then attempt to justify them later with logic, however they are one in the same -- every human has logic and values.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think that you are blurring the line between logic and ethics and don't have a good grasp of either, and i say this because of the nature of the examples which you say that you think are "100% logic/ethics."


    for example, you had suggested that a purely ethical reason to support the war in iraq might be that "it helps liberate the dominated masses that saddam subjugated."

    is that not a logical argument? sure, it's based on the value that people should be free from the sort of regime that saddam imposed, but it relies extensively on logic to make its point.

    similarly, the logical argument that "the war is bad because it wastes money that could better be spent on social security" relies on the fundamentally moral assumption that social security is good because it helps people (stupid rationale, but you get the idea).


    the problem, i think, is this idea that logic and ethics (particularly Te/Fi) are two fundamentally separate entities that treat different areas and cannot lead to the same conclusions because they deal exclusively with different types of data, which is largely not the case.

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I am not blurring the lines, the simple fact of the matter is their is no example of a 100% logical person or 100% ethical person. My examples aren't supposed to be perfect, they are only supposed to illuminate a difference.

    Also the reason why the social security argument is an example of a logical argument is because it doesn't address if social security is good or not, it only addresses the function of the war. However the ethical argument is more ethical since it involves the feelings of people and not merely the functioning of a poltical system. A Logical counterpart to the ethical argument would be liberating the masses allows us to spread democracy, a better political system, since this address the function of a political system and not the feelings of people.

  16. #16
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    i think that you are blurring the line between logic and ethics and don't have a good grasp of either, and i say this because of the nature of the examples which you say that you think are "100% logic/ethics."


    for example, you had suggested that a purely ethical reason to support the war in iraq might be that "it helps liberate the dominated masses that saddam subjugated."

    is that not a logical argument? sure, it's based on the value that people should be free from the sort of regime that saddam imposed, but it relies extensively on logic to make its point.

    similarly, the logical argument that "the war is bad because it wastes money that could better be spent on social security" relies on the fundamentally moral assumption that social security is good because it helps people (stupid rationale, but you get the idea).


    the problem, i think, is this idea that logic and ethics (particularly Te/Fi) are two fundamentally separate entities that treat different areas and cannot lead to the same conclusions because they deal exclusively with different types of data, which is largely not the case.
    I think it is. You can use logic and ethics in the same sentence, but they are clearly separable.

    For example, "war is bad" is an ethical statement. However, asserting that it uses a resource (like money) inefficiently is a logical statement operating within an ethical framework. Once the standard of efficiency has been defined (according to ethical principles), it is a purely logical task to apply it.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't see why the two would be separable from that kind of a scenario; in order to reach any conclusion, the two would have to work together.

  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    i don't see why the two would be separable from that kind of a scenario; in order to reach any conclusion, the two would have to work together.
    This is not always the case, many people for example may agree that hitler helped germany's morale, helped germany get out of an economic crisis, was a great funcitonal leader, and helped spark major technological advancements. However these same people may also feel hitler's actions where unethical and that his behavior was "evil" or bad. This is a fairly common example I hear alot of where functionality and ethics collide.

  19. #19
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ATTENTION: Morality and Ethics ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Look them up. Ethics goes hand-in-hand with pragmatism. That's why there's courses on business ethics but not courses on business morality. Ethics should be seen more so as knowing how to act properly to benefit yourself. Thus Ethics are utterly subjective. As a type with Fe as strong function I can tell you that I don't believe in absolute good or evil, it's all relative to how society has brainwashed us. If we lived in a cannibalistic society I'd be eating humans right now and they'd taste good and I wouldn't be evil.

    Fi is more to do with morality than Fe. It's the Fi person that's going to make strict moral judgments and adhere to them.
    INFp-Ni

  20. #20
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I completely disagree with your outlook, ethics are in my interpretation a matter of individual subjective feeling and not personal benifit. Business ethics are not about traditions and pragmatism, they are about conducting business in a way that both parties feel good about. Ethical behavior focuses on behavior that the individual feels well about and that people feel well about. Morality is different, its a matter of principles of behavior. Morality is usually synonomous with Dogma and based on operating with traditions and such. Anyways I don't want to get into this dividing line, but ethics and morality are very similar just that ethics are a matter of circumstance and feeling concerning good and evil and not a matter of principle and discipline like morality.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  22. #22
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snp7901
    although Fe accepting types are supposed to have strong Fi too. i think i know some ESFj's who moralize a bit (though not quite as much as the people i've typed IFj.)
    IME the extent of ESFj (or Fe) moralizing is "That's so mean!" or "That's so nice!"

  23. #23
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I associate ethical judgments with conclusions that have a validity outside of the context they are found in.

    If thinking says: in this particular situation, factors X & Y, determine that it is not right to Z.

    Feeling says: it is never right to Z.

    But: many of such feeling judgments can line up as 'factors' much the same way as happens in the case of thinking. Also, ones 'feeling' philosophy is capable of reshaping itself, so what is considered 'never right' at one time may not be at another. People of different philosophical or cultural convictions can employ different feeling vocabularies aswell.

  24. #24
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I personally also don't think 'emotion' and 'subjective experience' are the direct result of socionic function use; rather they are physiological reactions to the sense of violation a person gets when they know a certain thing is 'not right' and yet cannot point this out in the facts of the moment...

    Of course then they are still intrinsically linked to 'feeling', but its good to make the distinction between the two.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    these viewpoints constitute an absolutely terrific example of Fe v. Fi.

  26. #26
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've come to the conclusion that political outlook may be leading us to different interpretations of the functions. In particular, I interpret Extraverted Feeling as "subjective experience". Others seem to interpret it as "ethics". I don't really see the correlation, except in so far as one can use knowledge of a person's subjective experience as a guide to whether or not something should be reasonably expected from them. This is not the ethics that is described in most analyses of the subject I have read, however....

    Perhaps liberals have a tendency to perceive being ethical as being open to many points of view, thus allowing one to understand what a person is attempting to accomplish and as such, to know what they feel themselves open to.
    I have an idea that has been floating around in my mind for a while. If, like I showed to you before, context lines can be connected to function states, perhaps their influence consists in establishing which function state a person's desired function state is. Any use of master-type functions would then occur with the intention to move events closer to the state of ones context line.

    Remember the double-function model-A machintruc displayed a while ago. According to that model, an INTj has an ego block with: 1. Ti- and Ne+; and 2. Te+ and Ni-. Upholding the rule that events (eg. the current function state of part of the environment) always move from the + to the - function, the former causes a movement to the right, whereas the latter causes movement to the left.

    Now perhaps the second set of functions (Te+ and Ni- in the example) are actually correlants of the aggressive functions that you tend to associate with awareness of context lines. Only when this second set of functions is enabled does a person have full control over the 'flow' of information in his environment. Prior to that, he can only move the flow in one direction, and is thus not a full participant of events in the sense that a person who has reached psychological adulthood is...

    One thing it would explain, is how some people might associate the Fe function with positive movements, whereas the other might see it as a tool of holding back negative movements, thus associating them with 'ethics', where the other would think of it as 'open minded accomodation'.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    I've come to the conclusion that political outlook may be leading us to different interpretations of the functions. In particular, I interpret Extraverted Feeling as "subjective experience". Others seem to interpret it as "ethics". I don't really see the correlation, except in so far as one can use knowledge of a person's subjective experience as a guide to whether or not something should be reasonably expected from them. This is not the ethics that is described in most analyses of the subject I have read, however....

    Perhaps liberals have a tendency to perceive being ethical as being open to many points of view, thus allowing one to understand what a person is attempting to accomplish and as such, to know what they feel themselves open to.
    I have an idea that has been floating around in my mind for a while. If, like I showed to you before, context lines can be connected to function states, perhaps their influence consists in establishing which function state a person's desired function state is. Any use of master-type functions would then occur with the intention to move events closer to the state of ones context line.

    Remember the double-function model-A machintruc displayed a while ago. According to that model, an INTj has an ego block with: 1. Ti- and Ne+; and 2. Te+ and Ni-. Upholding the rule that events (eg. the current function state of part of the environment) always move from the + to the - function, the former causes a movement to the right, whereas the latter causes movement to the left.

    Now perhaps the second set of functions (Te+ and Ni- in the example) are actually correlants of the aggressive functions that you tend to associate with awareness of context lines. Only when this second set of functions is enabled does a person have full control over the 'flow' of information in his environment. Prior to that, he can only move the flow in one direction, and is thus not a full participant of events in the sense that a person who has reached psychological adulthood is...

    One thing it would explain, is how some people might associate the Fe function with positive movements, whereas the other might see it as a tool of holding back negative movements, thus associating them with 'ethics', where the other would think of it as 'open minded accomodation'.
    Yes, we are definitely thinking along the same "lines", on this. There is a lot of information in this post that I will need to come back to. I've got to rest up for an exam now, though.

    But yes, I agree that the transcendental function is conscious control of the 2nd function set of a block. Although I question whether the 2nd function of the ego block's 2nd set is accessible consciously.... What would it mean for the entire 2nd set to be conscious?

    It would seem to me that one would be moving events toward an unknown future, if that were the case.... But if was consciously available also, then one would be moving the world towards a definite future that one was consciously aware of.

    And let's say the was in control... what would that entail?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •