Most people (assuming they don't live under rocks) have a sense of what's
generally acceptable to say and what isn't, including EXTps. This isn't inherent to
![Introveted Ethics](images/smilies/Fi.gif)
; the basics are more a matter of social conditioning and/or just paying attention.
Beyond that, there are some differences in what
![Extroverted Ethics](images/smilies/Fe.gif)
vs.
![Introveted Ethics](images/smilies/Fi.gif)
can find 'offensive'. i.e., I've seen
![Extroverted Ethics](images/smilies/Fe.gif)
valuers (especially in β) place a higher primacy on others possessing what they condone as 'good manners', and taking offense when they don't. Whereas most
![Introveted Ethics](images/smilies/Fi.gif)
people are inclined not to castigate people over such things, since they don't judge people in the same way
![Extroverted Ethics](images/smilies/Fe.gif)
does—which implicitly relies on exernally-based
![Introverted Logic](images/smilies/Ti.gif)
rulesets it treats as "objective standards" to gauge a person's conduct.
![Introveted Ethics](images/smilies/Fi.gif)
valuers OTOH are more likely to understand and embrace the idea that a person's observable behaviors, feelings, etc. cannot be evaluated according to some fixed universal standard. That these are wholly subjective matters that can only really be understood and assessed within the unique context of that individual human being.