Is Fi of any use to Merry types?

[suedehead]

Or is it something that only Gammas/Deltas are sensitive to, or consider to be important/necessary? Could a world made up exclusively of Alphas/Betas presumably get by without the presence of 'Fi-moralizers'?

[kadda1212]

As an IEI I seem to use Fi, but only subconsciously. I don't value it. I get extremely pissed of when I get told what to do and hat not to do and whenever someone tries to moralize me. I have a manner of questioning some people's radical morals by showing that they don't make sense, I guess I answer with Ti.
I think my subconscious use of Fi still led me to behave in a certain way around other Fi-users, maybe I also mimicked their decency. Recently I told a somewhat perverted joke in church camp. You should have seen the looks of disgust some of them gave me. Thanks God, there were enough Fe-valuers that automatically jumped in and raised the mood again because I was slightly shocked.

But I think, Fi is there for some reason. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but we need the Gammas and Deltas of this world and if its
just for the sake of being annoyed from time to time, having someone that questions you.

[Radio]

i think Fe-ego types are receptive to Fi sometimes, but not Ti-egos.

[woofwoofl]

i think Fe-ego types are receptive to Fi sometimes, but not Ti-egos.

Hm, I was thinking of a sort of symmetrical thing, with likely Ti-Egos and the tendency for them to kinda check their stuff with a Te-oriented approach here and there. With Fe-Egos, this doesn't happen. For this to also happen with the Ts and the Fs switched makes a hell of a lot of sense

[Radio]

i should note that my LSI best friend often asks me for my perspective on things, and what i think about so-and-so persons and so i know he is values what i have to say. and most social interactions are a complex mix of different information elements and other factors, so it's never purely Fi or purely Fe. if a person pisses you off there's likely a lot more to the interaction than just an information element. regardless, i know that when i start to get a little too indignant about what i deem as "good behavior" and what constitutes a shithead, it bothers LSI friend just a little bit because his conception of people revolves around what people do, rather than how people are. also it pisses him off when i try to guess what he is feeling or thinking, esp when it's something serious. but we're still best friends because we value each other's insights and are, in some (limited) sense, receptive to what either has to say. i don't know if this is helpful, all i'm saying is that, people are nearly impossible to predict, with socionics or otherwise.

[Pookie]

Yeah. Fi keeps you honest.

[Narc]

Whether it's valued or not, important and practical information and advice can come from the root of any of the IEs.

[DaftPunk]

As an IEI I seem to use Fi, but only subconsciously. I don't value it. I get extremely pissed of when I get told what to do and hat not to do and whenever someone tries to moralize me. I have a manner of questioning some people's radical morals by showing that they don't make sense, I guess I answer with Ti.
I think my subconscious use of Fi still led me to behave in a certain way around other Fi-users, maybe I also mimicked their decency. Recently I told a somewhat perverted joke in church camp. You should have seen the looks of disgust some of them gave me. Thanks God, there were enough Fe-valuers that automatically jumped in and raised the mood again because I was slightly shocked.

But I think, Fi is there for some reason. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but we need the Gammas and Deltas of this world and if its
just for the sake of being annoyed from time to time, having someone that questions you.

I remember you that you're part of a christian free church. Aren't you pressed there in a moral corset? Or do you enjoy it in a Ti-Way?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

As an IEI I seem to use Fi, but only subconsciously. I don't value it. I get extremely pissed of when I get told what to do and hat not to do and whenever someone tries to moralize me. I have a manner of questioning some people's radical morals by showing that they don't make sense, I guess I answer with Ti.

is not morality, and morality is not the sole province of quadras. users simply have a very strong idea of what is or is not OK with them personally, and they may or may not push this onto others. Whether they push can depend on the value being violated. Also, valuers are not the only ones capable of pushing like this. My ESE mother was an insanely controlling woman during my childhood and adolescence. If I said or did something that went against her moral code or her rules for me, she'd go batshit. If I told her that I thought I was bisexual and may prefer women, she'd have a fit because according to her morals, I'm not supposed to do that.

I may not handle it in the same way you do, but I also do not care for being told what I can and cannot do as a person. There are times when it is useful (it's always good to know boundaries so one does not get in trouble inadvertently), but as a life philosophy, it's incredibly frustrating and the biggest problem I've had with Christianity (and other things, but that's not relevant to this thread).

I think my subconscious use of Fi still led me to behave in a certain way around other Fi-users, maybe I also mimicked their decency. Recently I told a somewhat perverted joke in church camp. You should have seen the looks of disgust some of them gave me. Thanks God, there were enough Fe-valuers that automatically jumped in and raised the mood again because I was slightly shocked.

We're capable of telling those kinds of jokes as well; perhaps we're just more cognizant of who we are around, whether they'll react well to such jokes, and whether we ultimately care how they react. And you should see how my mother reacts when I, as an ego, tells a joke that she finds too gross or offensive. It goes both ways.

As a side note, I have to admit I'm shaking my head over the fact that you told that kind of joke at a church camp and are shocked at the reactions you got. I don't know you well enough to know your background or how progressive/relaxed your church is, but having grown up in very fundamentalist/conservative circles myself, it seems pretty common-sense that you'd want to be very careful what you say around religious people, especially if you don't know them and are not sure they'll tolerate those kinds of jokes.

[kadda1212]

I remember you that you're part of a christian free church. Aren't you pressed there in a moral corset? Or do you enjoy it in a Ti-Way?

I think, only because someone doesn't value Fi it doesn't mean they have a set of morals and I think many things Christianity teaches us are good. And remember how Jesus in a not very Fi-ish way says that every law is fulfilled in loving God and loving your neighbor. I guess that statement inspires Ti more, because you can recognize what will logically follow out of those two rules.
But Fi is associated with a moral code that applies to any given situation. Fi users don't make any exceptions inside their moral code, but I often do. And sometimes that can cause conflict.
For example if I talk about abortion with an Fi-user and Christian who is absolutely Pro-Life and say that I think it's ok to abort a child if you were raped - they already freak out and start telling me stories of some woman who carried out the child anyways.
I can give you other examples that annoy the hell out of me:
I used to be team of the children service helpers. One time we had a meeting and we were talking about stuff concerning the children service, how to educate children, etc. - and the children service supervisor said the following: "We have to teach the children a Christian lifestyle and tell them what's the reason why we live a different kind of life than most of the people, for example why we don't read Harry Potter." I hate that kind of indirect moralizing. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan and so are many other Christians. Does that mean, I don't live according to scripture? I was really pissed off by that and almost wanted to blurt out that Harry Potter is an amazing book and wanted to teach her that scripture only forbids the practice of magic, and so on... I mean, some Christian out there also created the Urban or should I say Church legend, that Joanne K. Rowling was a Satanist. Which is not true. So whoever started this, invented a lie only to be able to convince others of his subjective moral code. So stupid. Makes me angry.

Different situation, but similar: There's a girl in my church and she doesn't listen to "secular" music. The only music she is allowed to listen to is CCM and worship. So every time she's with our group we have to care about not hurting her feelings so we don't play "secular" music. One time she actually came to me and asked me whether I knew any good Christian bands or musicians, because she's bored by most of the music she already knows and in search for something new. I almost had to break out in laughter. I told her that most CCM sounds like crap, but still gave her some names of bands, which are good enough. Still, if they say it's good only to listen to Christian music and avoid listening to "secular" music, the conclusion is that listening to "secular" is bad and makes you a bad second-class Christian. But I have experienced God talking to me through songs that were not particularly Christian. So I think, that rule is really, really stupid. They same family by the way doesn't want to celebrate Christmas, but celebrates Hannukah although they are not Jewish. I don't get it.

I only have to ask myself: What would Jesus do? And Jesus wasn't particular interested in following the rules that were set up by men. He often broke them and annoyed the hell out of the pharisees. So, if some Christian comes along and wants to set up some extra rules that have nothing much to do with the scripture (which is by the way not much different from what Gnostics were doing in late antiquity) and if they want to force those rules upon me - I will tell them to piss off and leave me alone. Fortunately, not many have tried to moralize me directly. I guess, I'm just to nice most of the time and they don't know me enough. And many people share my attitude anyway. I guess, that is because free churches that tend to be more charismatic like my church attract Fe-valuers more than Fi-valuers. Last can rather be found in the baptist church or in "anti-charismatic" free churches, where you only sing songs from the 70's-90's, are not allowed to raise your hands in adoration (because that's a pagan rite...), not allowed to pray in tongues (because that's demonic blabbering...) and so on. One of those kind of Christians that went to school with me actually told a mutual *atheist* friend of ours that 1. she would go to hell, 2. that all gay people should be burned on the stake. That mutual friend told me and asked me if I believed the same, I was so shocked. If I would have been there in the moment that certain Christian girl said this, I would have slapped her in the face, right there right now. Sure of it. Unfortunately I only knew it from hearsay.

So much for moral corsets in church. It depends on what kind of church you go to. What kind of people are there. If it was too moralizing, I would probably have left it and searched for a different church. But the one I'm going to is fine.

[kadda1212]

is not morality, and morality is not the sole province of quadras. users simply have a very strong idea of what is or is not OK with them personally, and they may or may not push this onto others. Whether they push can depend on the value being violated. Also, valuers are not the only ones capable of pushing like this. My ESE mother was an insanely controlling woman during my childhood and adolescence. If I said or did something that went against her moral code or her rules for me, she'd go batshit. If I told her that I thought I was bisexual and may prefer women, she'd have a fit because according to her morals, I'm not supposed to do that.

I may not handle it in the same way you do, but I also do not care for being told what I can and cannot do as a person. There are times when it is useful (it's always good to know boundaries so one does not get in trouble inadvertently), but as a life philosophy, it's incredibly frustrating and the biggest problem I've had with Christianity (and other things, but that's not relevant to this thread).



We're capable of telling those kinds of jokes as well; perhaps we're just more cognizant of who we are around, whether they'll react well to such jokes, and whether we ultimately care how they react. And you should see how my mother reacts when I, as an ego, tells a joke that she finds too gross or offensive. It goes both ways.

As a side note, I have to admit I'm shaking my head over the fact that you told that kind of joke at a church camp and are shocked at the reactions you got. I don't know you well enough to know your background or how progressive/relaxed your church is, but having grown up in very fundamentalist/conservative circles myself, it seems pretty common-sense that you'd want to be very careful what you say around religious people, especially if you don't know them and are not sure they'll tolerate those kinds of jokes.

Thanks for your insight. I will consider this. I don't have perfect understanding of the functions, yet. I can only access the things I've already learned so far.

So, you're shaking your head over me telling that joke? Hmmm... our group is actually very relaxed when it comes to those things, we were telling jokes that evening around a bonfire and they already made lots of jokes about ... excrements. And we were drinking beer. And the joke had been so funny when my SLE uncle told it, so I only thought people would probably enjoy it and laugh about it. Also, it was still acceptable, and not too graphic. It involved tomatoes and cucumbers.

[kadda1212]

is not morality, and morality is not the sole province of quadras. users simply have a very strong idea of what is or is not OK with them personally, and they may or may not push this onto others. Whether they push can depend on the value being violated.

But I think, we have the same definition of Fi, I just used different words. I just recently heard a definition of Fi, that you have that inner "moral code" or lets say set of rules, what is ok and what's not ok for you personally, and that this applies in any given situation, so it's very radical, whereas others tend to make exceptions and bend their morals and rules according to the situation (which is what I do very much). But say, e.g. your inner rule would be not to use swear words, it wouldn't matter whether you are at the opera or in a five star restaurant or at home or in a biker bar, you would still not use swear words and probably feel uncomfortable whenever you hear one. Though I can understand that you probably wouldn't push your feelings on some bearded, tattooed biker in that moment. But maybe on your children at home or maybe on your friends. But I guess, you would still always feel uncomfortable when you see someone else do something that is not ok in your eyes. Is that correct?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Thanks for your insight. I will consider this. I don't have perfect understanding of the functions, yet. I can only access the things I've already learned so far.

Addressing your above post, my mother also thinks that Harry Potter and Pokemon are the devil, and it took both parents (ESE and LSE) years to become even slightly OK with magic or fantasy magic of any kind in books or movies. My mother is nowhere near uptight as my stepfather, but I, as an ESI, am actually more relaxed than both of them (granted, I get uptight about other things). Our brand of morality as valuers can be very different from that of valuers, both in what beliefs we have and how we work through/in our religions (or lack thereof), but that morality is not the only Morality, and those personal values are incredibly varied even among valuers.

So, you're shaking your head over me telling that joke? Hmmm... our group is actually very relaxed when it comes to those things, we were telling jokes that evening around a bonfire and they already made lots of jokes about ... excrements. And we were drinking beer. And the joke had been so funny when my SLE uncle told it, so I only thought people would probably enjoy it and laugh about it. Also, it was still acceptable, and not too graphic. It involved tomatoes and cucumbers.

I see. I personally can see how poop jokes would be alright but not sex jokes. But you know for next time, if your aim is to avoid evoking that kind of reaction again. (You said nothing of the sort, so I honestly don't know.)

[anndelise]

But Fi is associated with a moral code that applies to any given situation. Fi users don't make any exceptions inside their moral code, but I often do. And sometimes that can cause conflict.
For example if I talk about abortion with an Fi-user and Christian who is absolutely Pro-Life and say that I think it's ok to abort a child if you were raped - they already freak out and start telling me stories of some woman who carried out the child anyways.

What happens when you talk about abortion to an Fi NonChristian pro-choicer?
What happens when you talk about abortion to an Fe Christian Pro-lifer?
What happens when you talk about abortion to a Ti Christian Pro-lifer?

[kadda1212]

What happens when you talk about abortion to an Fi NonChristian pro-choicer?
What happens when you talk about abortion to an Fe Christian Pro-lifer?
What happens when you talk about abortion to a Ti Christian Pro-lifer?

I don't know. I just used an example of one person I talked about this with.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

But I think, we have the same definition of Fi, I just used different words. I just recently heard a definition of Fi, that you have that inner "moral code" or lets say set of rules, what is ok and what's not ok for you personally, and that this applies in any given situation, so it's very radical, whereas others tend to make exceptions and bend their morals and rules according to the situation (which is what I do very much). But say, e.g. your inner rule would be not to use swear words, it wouldn't matter whether you are at the opera or in a five star restaurant or at home or in a biker bar, you would still not use swear words and probably feel uncomfortable whenever you hear one. Though I can understand that you probably wouldn't push your feelings on some bearded, tattooed biker in that moment. But maybe on your children at home or maybe on your friends. But I guess, you would still always feel uncomfortable when you see someone else do something that is not ok in your eyes. Is that correct?

I do feel uncomfortable, yes. But for my mother to have reacted the way she did, she must get pretty damn uncomfortable over moral violations, too.

While I can confront people over crossed values, I don't tend to push my values onto my friends or those I live with. For example, I have some pagan friends who like to get drunk. Both of those things make me uncomfortable, and I have mentioned that I am religious and that I do not get drunk (one knows it's for religious reasons), but I'm not going to shove my values down their throats at the expense of our friendship. I had a lesbian roommate when I first moved up here. It did make me uncomfortable, and I'm glad I learned before she mentioned her girlfriend, which gave me time to react in a safe space and not put my foot in my mouth. But I would never have shoved my beliefs down her throat. I happen to like having a peaceful household. And lo and behold, I'm not exactly straight myself. Ha.

Also, not everything is universal. For example, I typically do not drink, and I chose not to have any alcohol for years. Not getting drunk is definitely a religious thing, but the Bible doesn't say that alcohol in moderation is sinful. If some personally choose never to touch a drop, that's fine. If others choose to drink responsibly... well, it does make me uncomfortable still, but they're not doing anything that I would consider actually wrong. I don't get pissy about it unless people try and use the Bible to tell Christians (or others) that they cannot drink at all, which I consider absolutely wrong. Back when I was more against premarital sex, I thought it was wrong, but I recognized that the majority of people don't care what I think and will do it anyway, so I think that for those people, they need to at least be completely honest with each other about what they want and what they are giving. I actually don't have a problem with moderate swearing, but I recognize that some people do, so I try to be careful when and where I do it, and I feel that others should do the same. I actually said something to a friend in high school because she used the word "whore" in a pizza shop, and there was a mother with a young kid well in hearing range.

And sometimes, it really just depends on who's saying (or doing) what to me. A joke from a friend, even a nickname from a friend, is very different than that same thing from someone who pisses me off (especially if they know they do) or someone who I don't see as close enough to get away with that sort of it.

[applejacks]

The subject of Fi and Fe differences has been a popular topic lately, and I do think both functions are needed, yet commonly misunderstand each other.

I do think @anndelise said it best when she mentioned that Fe functions tend to focus on the raw emotions, whereas Fi tends to focus on the root cause of emotion. Hence, why Fe might think Fi are cold or emotionless, and why Fi might think Fe are too emotional.

As for the OP, I do believe balance is important. Although I am Fi, I can appreciate Fe where I find myself lacking. I would hope Fe could appreciate what Fi brings to the table in terma of balance and stability.

As for the examples of Christian camp jokes, there may be more at play than mere Fi / Fe. As an Fi Christian, I've enjoyed my fair share of preverted jokes, and will always listen to a Pro Life OR Pro Choice point of view. I'm not certain these examples can be narrowed directly to Fe / Fi.

Just my two cents. These are all potentially heated topics, so I hope I've not offended anyone.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I do think @anndelise said it best when she mentioned that Fe functions tend to focus on the raw emotions, whereas Fi tends to focus on the root cause of emotion. Hence, why Fe might think Fi are cold or emotionless, and why Fi might think Fe are too emotional.

Not necessarily. users can use someone's emotions to gauge their internal state and then make guesses as to why the person feels that way in the given moment. Hence "reading between the lines" or a strong focus on "finding the motivation" being attributed to them. Expat has a post somewhere about how his ESE mother would read into a simple statement like "What's for dinner?" and assume he was hungry (trying to zero in on the root cause), which would drive him crazy since he was just asking a simple question. users tend to be more interested, IIRC, in the more stable emotional sentiments and less in the emotional state of the moment. Though this line seems to blur a bit with creatives, to be sure.

[kadda1212]

I do feel uncomfortable, yes. But for my mother to have reacted the way she did, she must get pretty damn uncomfortable over moral violations, too.

While I can confront people over crossed values, I don't tend to push my values onto my friends or those I live with. For example, I have some pagan friends who like to get drunk. Both of those things make me uncomfortable, and I have mentioned that I am religious and that I do not get drunk (one knows it's for religious reasons), but I'm not going to shove my values down their throats at the expense of our friendship. I had a lesbian roommate when I first moved up here. It did make me uncomfortable, and I'm glad I learned before she mentioned her girlfriend, which gave me time to react in a safe space and not put my foot in my mouth. But I would never have shoved my beliefs down her throat. I happen to like having a peaceful household. And lo and behold, I'm not exactly straight myself. Ha.

Also, not everything is universal. For example, I typically do not drink, and I chose not to have any alcohol for years. Not getting drunk is definitely a religious thing, but the Bible doesn't say that alcohol in moderation is sinful. If some personally choose never to touch a drop, that's fine. If others choose to drink responsibly... well, it does make me uncomfortable still, but they're not doing anything that I would consider actually wrong. I don't get pissy about it unless people try and use the Bible to tell Christians (or others) that they cannot drink at all, which I consider absolutely wrong. Back when I was more against premarital sex, I thought it was wrong, but I recognized that the majority of people don't care what I think and will do it anyway, so I think that for those people, they need to at least be completely honest with each other about what they want and what they are giving. I actually don't have a problem with moderate swearing, but I recognize that some people do, so I try to be careful when and where I do it, and I feel that others should do the same. I actually said something to a friend in high school because she used the word "whore" in a pizza shop, and there was a mother with a young kid well in hearing range.

And sometimes, it really just depends on who's saying (or doing) what to me. A joke from a friend, even a nickname from a friend, is very different than that same thing from someone who pisses me off (especially if they know they do) or someone who I don't see as close enough to get away with that sort of it.

I just recently had a discussion with someone about premarital sex on the internet. I tried to explain to him that it doesn't exist, because through sex you consumate a marriage. So, in a biblical sense there is only post-marital sex, which is considered adultery if it happens with a different partner than the first one. I think, the one I had the discussion with didn't understand me.

So, you say, that moralizing is not particular a part of Fi, and that Fe-moralizers exist, too?

[applejacks]

Not necessarily. users can use someone's emotions to gauge their internal state and then make guesses as to why the person feels that way in the given moment. Hence "reading between the lines" or a strong focus on "finding the motivation" being attributed to them. Expat has a post somewhere about how his ESE mother would read into a simple statement like "What's for dinner?" and assume he was hungry (trying to zero in on the root cause), which would drive him crazy since he was just asking a simple question. users tend to be more interested, IIRC, in the more stable emotional sentiments and less in the emotional state of the moment. Though this line seems to blur a bit with creatives, to be sure.

Constructive clarification! Thank you

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

ego-Fi isn't, but Fi helps you understand other people's true connections with each other, which is always helpful. An entp fi polr friend I have is just naturally bad at knowing how people will click, but I don't attach morals or immorals to this kinda stuff that seems weird. I don't think 'ooh you're such a horrible person because you were wrong about another person's attraction and repulsions!'

I can see some rare examples of an "unhealthy" (I hate that corny word but don't know what else to say) Fi ego infj on some power trip.

In fact I don't understand the connection with fi = morals at all. Fi to me just always means somebody's natural knack at understanding the true amount of weight of their likes/dislikes and that of others (and I get the stark impression they highly dislike sugar coating in this area as well), if anything it's pretty immoral and selfish/subjective and shadow-y to be honest.

[krieger]

it is useful for ridicule and satire.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I just recently had a discussion with someone about premarital sex on the internet. I tried to explain to him that it doesn't exist, because through sex you consumate a marriage. So, in a biblical sense there is only post-marital sex, which is considered adultery if it happens with a different partner than the first one. I think, the one I had the discussion with didn't understand me.

I realize the problem inherent with using a translation of the original Hebrew and Aramaic/Greek, but if this was the case, surely there would be no need to refer to "adultery" and "fornication" separately. I see marriage as depending on the society involved. For some, it can involve just sleeping together. In others, it requires legal documentation. Either way, there is deliberate intent to make a life together under those conditions and a commitment to remain together. (I'm trying to distinguish between marriage and cohabitation here. Hopefully I succeeded.)

So, you say, that moralizing is not particular a part of Fi, and that Fe-moralizers exist, too?

I'm saying that having a moral system and pushing those morals on others is not exclusive to types. That may be what you're trying to say here, but I was not certain.

[kadda1212]

Not necessarily. users can use someone's emotions to gauge their internal state and then make guesses as to why the person feels that way in the given moment. Hence "reading between the lines" or a strong focus on "finding the motivation" being attributed to them. Expat has a post somewhere about how his ESE mother would read into a simple statement like "What's for dinner?" and assume he was hungry (trying to zero in on the root cause), which would drive him crazy since he was just asking a simple question. users tend to be more interested, IIRC, in the more stable emotional sentiments and less in the emotional state of the moment. Though this line seems to blur a bit with creatives, to be sure.

In Germany we call that "Appellohr" (= appeal ear), you hear something and interpret it as a request that needs to be carried out asap. Sometimes it works that way, sometimes don't. If I say "There's a spider in the bathroom." it's a request and can be translated to "Go! Kill the spider in the bathroom." It's not to be understood as an information. Some people have a very strong, almost overly strong "appeal ear" though. My father for example. For example we ordered Italian food and when we were opening our food, I saw he ordered something different than usual and asked him what he ordered and he said to me: "Do you want to eat it?" - almost in a very aggressive way like saying "Why do you stare at my food! It's mine! Mine alone!". And then a fight started. That always happens when he's depressed. I have the feeling, the more he's in a depressed mood, the more he tends to think every single statement that is made somehow is related to him and a request to him. When he's happy he doesn't act like that.

[Satan]

In Germany we call that "Appellohr" (= appeal ear), you hear something and interpret it as a request that needs to be carried out asap. Sometimes it works that way, sometimes don't. If I say "There's a spider in the bathroom." it's a request and can be translated to "Go! Kill the spider in the bathroom." It's not to be understood as an information. Some people have a very strong, almost overly strong "appeal ear" though. My father for example. For example we ordered Italian food and when we were opening our food, I saw he ordered something different than usual and asked him what he ordered and he said to me: "Do you want to eat it?" - almost in a very aggressive way like saying "Why do you stare at my food! It's mine! Mine alone!". And then a fight started. That always happens when he's depressed. I have the feeling, the more he's in a depressed mood, the more he tends to think every single statement that is made somehow is related to him and a request to him. When he's happy he doesn't act like that.

It's so cool you have a word for that. Some people do take everything really personally. Is he paranoid he's not going to get enough food?

[Satan]

I just recently had a discussion with someone about premarital sex on the internet. I tried to explain to him that it doesn't exist, because through sex you consumate a marriage. So, in a biblical sense there is only post-marital sex, which is considered adultery if it happens with a different partner than the first one. I think, the one I had the discussion with didn't understand me.

I don't understand you either.

So, you say, that moralizing is not particular a part of Fi, and that Fe-moralizers exist, too?

I dunno if I'm beyond moralising.

[Satan]

But I think, we have the same definition of Fi, I just used different words. I just recently heard a definition of Fi, that you have that inner "moral code" or lets say set of rules, what is ok and what's not ok for you personally, and that this applies in any given situation, so it's very radical, whereas others tend to make exceptions and bend their morals and rules according to the situation (which is what I do very much). But say, e.g. your inner rule would be not to use swear words, it wouldn't matter whether you are at the opera or in a five star restaurant or at home or in a biker bar, you would still not use swear words and probably feel uncomfortable whenever you hear one. Though I can understand that you probably wouldn't push your feelings on some bearded, tattooed biker in that moment. But maybe on your children at home or maybe on your friends. But I guess, you would still always feel uncomfortable when you see someone else do something that is not ok in your eyes. Is that correct?

I have quite a lot of context for things like swearing. I normally swear though. But not normally in places like churches or banks. A few years back I swore in a bank, even though I wouldn't normally, and suddenly they seemed more willing to help me -- some process bullshit was going on -- but somehow I end up getting placed by some people as someone who doesn't swear, and some people as someone who swears all the time. Which is weird, and suggests people have quite limited understandings.

So if Fi has no context, and things are bad anywhere or any place, and places like churches and banks are dominated by Fi types, then maybe I am just trying to avoid Fi clashes, and keep a level of formality and superficiality.

[ashlesha]

But I think, we have the same definition of Fi, I just used different words. I just recently heard a definition of Fi, that you have that inner "moral code" or lets say set of rules, what is ok and what's not ok for you personally, and that this applies in any given situation, so it's very radical, whereas others tend to make exceptions and bend their morals and rules according to the situation (which is what I do very much).

this is not the case for me and i've seen other Fi egos on the forum say it isn't the case for them - morals very much can be situational. i think people who have a lot of strict moral rules in place are more likely compensating for weak ethics rather than using strong Fi.

[Radio]

there's also a difference between how these "ethics" manifest for EII/ESI and IEE/SEE. while EII/ESI appear curt and rigid on the surface, they are IME more easily adaptable (base Fi) with regards to different ethical "systems" and are far more situational about how they feel towards certain something, whereas IEE/SEE have a certain stubbornness about what is right and wrong ethical behavior and tend to be more universal about the beliefs they hold.

also let me just emphasize ethics over morals, because morality is a product of both T and F functions.

[golden]

Morals and jeebus and sky fairies and biblical sins are not Fi or Fe. True believers and worse are found across the typological spectrum.

As for the original question, I am not an Fi valuer, I don't "get" Fi, and I think a lot of my interpersonal misunderstandings derive from differing ideas about social / emotional / relational / comportment / group dynamic stuff. These clashes could be down to Fe versus Fi.

So if those experiences are a fair indication, then yes, I could live without Fi ... But I figure Fi has utility out there in the world. Someone wants it and needs it. Therefore I only ask for Fi to bypass me whenever possible.

[kadda1212]

It's so cool you have a word for that. Some people do take everything really personally. Is he paranoid he's not going to get enough food?

Haha! My father's a little weird sometimes. But he had a psychosis and has to take medication and I guess weird
behavior is normal then.

[kadda1212]

there's also a difference between how these "ethics" manifest for EII/ESI and IEE/SEE. while EII/ESI appear curt and rigid on the surface, they are IME more easily adaptable (base Fi) with regards to different ethical "systems" and are far more situational about how they feel towards certain something, whereas IEE/SEE have a certain stubbornness about what is right and wrong ethical behavior and tend to be more universal about the beliefs they hold.

also let me just emphasize ethics over morals, because morality is a product of both T and F functions.

But did you no that the Greek word "ethos" and the Latin word "mos" from which moral derives have the exact same meaning: fashion, custom, habit. So it's kind of confusing to make two different things out of them.

[Park]

Could a world made up exclusively of Alphas/Betas presumably get by without the presence of 'Fi-moralizers'?

Sure. It would be a world driven by the pursuit of independent, impersonal goals, where personal relationships are always regarded as means to an end, and never and end in and of itself. Forget about forming deep personal bonds where you can share your deepest feelings and sentiments, which you won't be inclined to develop in the first place. Forget about unspoken trust and loyalty, or broader ethical considerations in terms of the consequences of people's actions. Expect backstabbing to be socially acceptable and seen as "the victim's fault." Think of complete self-reliance, emotional or otherwise. Think of a highly impersonal society, where people's feelings and innate morality are analyzed with mathematical formulas. Think robots.

[ConcreteButterfly]

Alphas will throw people under the bus to get a laugh. They protect Fi bonds only when it keeps the general mood cheerful.

[Beautiful sky]

yes, we laugh when they do silly things and make jokes. I love watching Ricki Gervais when he does his stand up comedy routines. It's enjoyable.