Ti rules vs Fi rules

[Joy]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

(Not that Ti types are law abiding and Fi types aren't. Obviously.)

[munenori2]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

(Not that Ti types are law abiding and Fi types aren't. Obviously.)

I feel that there's something to this. I like where you give examples of what the respective valuers might say, though I flounder to put anything more to it than that at the moment. I shall have to meditate on this issue.

[MysticSonic]

These are aspects, right?

[Joy]

These are aspects, right?

Hmm... not exactly. More like common manifestations of valued aspects.

[Joy]

I feel that there's something to this. I like where you give examples of what the respective valuers might say, though I flounder to put anything more to it than that at the moment. I shall have to meditate on this issue.

The problem arises in that different Ti types value different sets of external rules. Some value science over government, or society over company, or religion over society/government, for example.

[Logos]

The problem arises in that different Ti types value different sets of external rules. Some value science over government, or society over company, or religion over society/government, for example.

And the problem arises in that different Fi types value different sets of internal rules, so you have no idea as to what seemingly arbitrary set of double-standard ethics they are holding you to.

[Hitta]

Fi always has to be based on Ti, because everything internal has to be based on external. I made an entire post about this.

[PotatoSpirit]

A good example imo:

Right: Something that you feel like you should do.

Wrong: Something that you feel like you should not do.

I think common decency is not doing things that give you an advantage smaller than the disadvantage they cause to others.

[Ezra]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

(Not that Ti types are law abiding and Fi types aren't. Obviously.)

This is another reason why the ENTJ of MBTT and Keirsey tradition is a mile apart from the LIE of socionics. The ENTJ loves the rules (so long as they make sense). The LIE, you say, does not.

Just out of interest, Joy, what's your MBTT type?

[Slacker]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

(Not that Ti types are law abiding and Fi types aren't. Obviously.)

Works for me.

[Joy]

This is another reason why the ENTJ of MBTT and Keirsey tradition is a mile apart from the LIE of socionics. The ENTJ loves the rules (so long as they make sense). The LIE, you say, does not.

From my perspective, rules are a necessary evil of sorts. They're necessary so that things can run smoothly, but when they're arbitrary, illogical, unfair, or inapplicable to the situation I tend to disregard them. I'll always do what I think is best rather than letting a system or another person/group of people do my thinking for me. And what I think is best is something that I try to personally evaluate more than most people seem to. Most people seem to find it easier to just follow a system, set of external rules, or person.

Just out of interest, Joy, what's your MBTT type?

Never bothered to learn. The first MBTI test I took said I was INFJ, and I liked the description. I was really unhealthy and stressed out at the time though, and even then there was a large part of me that I didn't feel the descriptions encompassed.

[Blaze]

And the problem arises in that different Fi types value different sets of internal rules, so you have no idea as to what seemingly arbitrary set of double-standard ethics they are holding you to.

LOL no doubt

[discojoe]

And the problem arises in that different Fi types value different sets of internal rules, so you have no idea as to what seemingly arbitrary set of double-standard ethics they are holding you to.

Holding people to arbitrary moral standards isn't specific to Fi types.

[PotatoSpirit]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

(Not that Ti types are law abiding and Fi types aren't. Obviously.)

I hadn't really read what you wrote (c:
I don't agree.
You are using "internal" and "external" in the wrong way imo, it's not about whether the rules come from oneself or from the outside.

That being said I don't really know what it _is_ about... maybe whether the rules are objectively definable or not.

[Logos]

Holding people to arbitrary moral standards isn't specific to Fi types.

And was Joy's list then specific to Ti? And not to play a game of semantics, I did say ethics and not morals.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jane_Eyre]

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

Here, I thought immediately of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran Pastor who participated in the plot to assassinate ****** and was later killed for it. He struggled mightily with the question of whether to join in the plot, because it would mean disobeying Jesus' command to live nonviolently, turn the other cheek, those who live by the sword shall die by the sword, etc. But he came to the conclusion that he had to do something about the Nazis, and every other option had been exhausted, so he joined the plot, and even said that if it fell to him, personally, to kill ******, he would have done it.

I have always wondered about Bonhoeffer's type. I am especially confused now, because his book "Life Together" is practically an Fe manifesto. In it, he harangues his readers about the horror of people not singing in perfect, smooth unison in church. Don't sing louder than everyone around you: That's a sign of pride. Don't sing an alto part when everyone else is singing the melody. That causes disunity, and is therefore bad. And don't you dare just sit there and not sing just because you're feeling a bit depressed that day. That's demoralizing to everybody!

I've gone a bit off-topic, I know, but Bonhoeffer is always interesting to consider when you're discussing ethics and rules.

[Joy]

I hadn't really read what you wrote (c:
I don't agree.
You are using "internal" and "external" in the wrong way imo, it's not about whether the rules come from oneself or from the outside.

That's not really what I meant. I didn't intend to imply that all things internal (as in the internal vs. external component of information aspects/elements) exist within a person or anything like that. In this example I was more going by the English definition of the words "external" and "internal", though I was pointing out the connection to the words used to describe the components of information aspects/elements.

That being said I don't really know what it _is_ about... maybe whether the rules are objectively definable or not.

External: Readily apparent, explicit, definable, measurable, etc.

Internal: Beneath the surface, implicit, unseen, not readily observable, etc.

[Blaze]

External: Readily apparent, explicit, definable, measurable, etc.

Internal: Beneath the surface, implicit, unseen, not readily observable, etc. Today 11:41 AM

not sure about this. Ti kinda sees the internal structure of an object. kinda like a skeleton.

[Joy]

not sure about this. Ti kinda sees the internal structure of an object. kinda like a skeleton.

A skeleton is external.

[XoX]

I think common decency is not doing things that give you an advantage smaller than the disadvantage they cause to others.

Interesting thought. However, the perception of the amount of "advantage" and "disadvantage" and how they compare seems like something very subjective and so Ti doesn't seem any more objective than Fi. Just more complex, heh.

[Logos]

A skeleton is external.

You wear yours over your skin?

[Joy]

English meaning vs. Socionics meaning.

[mm]

External: Readily apparent, explicit, definable, measurable, etc.

Internal: Beneath the surface, implicit, unseen, not readily observable, etc.

You can impersonal/personal to that. In a given situation, NF aspects depend on the individual. ST aspects don't.

[Logos]

English meaning vs. Socionics meaning.

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

[Blaze]

A skeleton is external.

huh?

[Creepy-bg]

no I rulez!

[Creepy-bg]

huh?

maybe she's sayin it's external to the mind? or something?

as odd as I think Joy is I refuse to believe she has an exoskeleton

[Minde]

A skeleton is external.

If you're a bug...

[snegledmaca]

Ti values external rules over internal rules. This includes those of science, math, government, religion, society, club/association/similar organization, company, etc. You'll hear things like, "There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should."

Fi values internal rules over external rules. They concern themselves with personal likes and dislikes, an individual's own self-decided moral values, etc. You'll hear things like, "It's your responsibility to do what you think is right, even if it's against the rules."

Your examples are wrong. In your example for Fi it should go "It's your responsibility to do what I think is right, even if it's against the rules." and for Ti "There are rules. But if somebody doesn't like them they can decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should.". From my experience this would be accurate.

[Ezra]

From my perspective, rules are a necessary evil of sorts. They're necessary so that things can run smoothly, but when they're arbitrary, illogical, unfair, or inapplicable to the situation I tend to disregard them. I'll always do what I think is best rather than letting a system or another person/group of people do my thinking for me. And what I think is best is something that I try to personally evaluate more than most people seem to.

Well, so do I. If this is to back up your being Fi valuing, I don't understand how it works. Because if I, a Ti valuing type, agree with you, then either it's got nothing to do with Fi vs. Ti, or we're both Fi or Ti valuing.

[PotatoSpirit]

That's not really what I meant. I didn't intend to imply that all things internal (as in the internal vs. external component of information aspects/elements) exist within a person or anything like that. In this example I was more going by the English definition of the words "external" and "internal", though I was pointing out the connection to the words used to describe the components of information aspects/elements.

Ah that's a relief (c:
I still think you got it wrong using the english meaning.

Ti rules are as personal as Fi rules. If someone's rules are the same as his government's, he'll abide the law, if they aren't he might or might not do it. Government rules are more likely to be Ti, because it's easier that way.

Fi rules work the same way, they are usually cultural rules of good behavior, and here too a person has his own, and they might or might not be the same as his culture.

[Joy]

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

By the English definition of the word "external", anything external is outside.

In Socionics, however, external means something which is readily apparent, explicit, definable, measurable, etc. What it's physically inside or outside of is irrelevant.

Your examples are wrong. In your example for Fi it should go "It's your responsibility to do what I think is right, even if it's against the rules." and for Ti "There are rules. But if somebody doesn't like them they can decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should.". From my experience this would be accurate.

Negative. Whether one insists of imposing their values on another or not is related to their level of security vs. insecurity, not Ti vs. Fi.

I still think you got it wrong using the english meaning.

I did indeed. That's just a miscommunication though.

Ti rules are as personal as Fi rules. If someone's rules are the same as his government's, he'll abide the law, if they aren't he might or might not do it.

I'd say Ti rules are as individual as Fi rules. Ti types have Ti reasons for valuing or not valuing what is culturally/legally acceptable/allowable.

Fi rules work the same way, they are usually cultural rules of good behavior

Negative.

Government rules are more likely to be Ti, because it's easier that way.

Here we're getting into aspect vs. element. Culture is as much an external aspect as government laws are, btw.

and here too a person has his own, and they might or might not be the same as his culture.

Right. They're not dependent on culture.

A Fi type may or may not value what is culturally acceptable, but that's also a Fi value in itself. (In other words, they have Fi reasons for valuing or not valuing what is culturally/legally acceptable/allowable.)

[Joy]

I don't like the objective vs. subjective distinction. In some ways, Ti is subjective as well.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If someone decides to never hurt people because they know from their own personal experience that being hurt is not a good thing, what function is that?

And what if someone decides not to hurt people because they saw in a film that hurting others is not a good thing, what function is that?

If you know that being stabbed with a knife makes a dog bleed, what function do you need to know that stabbing yourself with a broken piece of glass probably isn't a good idea?

You see, I don't murder other people because that would take away their autonomy over their destiny. If someone affected my autonomy without my permission and in such a drastic way, I would not like it. I also don't murder other people because I don't want to go to prison, and it might be too physically exerting. I haven't actually been to prison before, and I've never killed anything other than the odd creepy-crawly - so I guess my rules aren't too soundly basic in the ol' logic. Also, I eat meat from time to time - I justify this because it is non-human meat - if I create enough categories, then it can't be . 'Homo sapiens' is an external category, as is 'Bos taurus'.

If one human is capable of painting the Mona Lisa, then you shouldn't kill humans. Have you ever seen a cow paint? Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to eat cows.

[Expat]

If someone decides to never hurt people because they know from their own personal experience that being hurt is not a good thing, what function is that?

I'd say it's more than .

And what if someone decides not to hurt people because they saw in a film that hurting others is not a good thing, what function is that?

I'd guess in super-id, but it's a totally unrealistic scenario imo.

If you know that being stabbed with a knife makes a dog bleed, what function do you need to know that stabbing yourself with a broken piece of glass probably isn't a good idea?

I guess. But starting from input.

You see, I don't murder other people because that would take away their autonomy over their destiny. If someone affected my autonomy without my permission and in such a drastic way, I would not like it.

That's a reason imo.

I also don't murder other people because I don't want to go to prison, and it might be too physically exerting.

That's a input.

Also, I eat meat from time to time - I justify this because it is non-human meat - if I create enough categories, then it can't be . 'Homo sapiens' is an external category, as is 'Bos taurus'.

If you, when asked, feel the need to "justify" why you are eating meat from time to time (so presumably you think/feel it's wrong generally), then I think it's a clear case of role).

If one human is capable of painting the Mona Lisa, then you shouldn't kill humans. Have you ever seen a cow paint? Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to eat cows.

That's just crappy .

[snegledmaca]

Negative. Whether one insists of imposing their values on another or not is related to their level of security vs. insecurity, not Ti vs. Fi.

Then why do you present it as an example of Ti? In case you have forgotten, here is what you wrote as an example of Ti " There are rules. Someone can't decide that those rules don't apply to them just because that person doesn't feel like they should.". Explain to me how this isn't insisting on imposing one's values on another.

[Logos]

By the English definition of the word "external", anything external is outside.

In Socionics, however, external means something which is readily apparent, explicit, definable, measurable, etc. What it's physically inside or outside of is irrelevant.

Are you really that incapable of understanding analogy?

Edit: But Joy, snegledmaca is right, and you need to take another glance at what you wrote try and weed out your bias in your descriptions; they are fairly quite evident.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I was exaggerating slightly in that post, but it is the way I often think - I know there are many ways of justifying things, so I just go with what I feel is right - when I say feel, I mean what I think makes the most logical sense for me or for the circumstances. It's too much effort for me to give up eating meat, but I'd like to, because animals are people too. On the otherhand, humans have teeth well-adapted for eating meat, and lots of cultures, mostly in the past, have eaten their dead relatives and so on...I don't really consider it a 'moral' issue - i.e. everyone should give up meat because someone else says so. It would be nice if they did, but it's not really a pressing issue.

I could really be a INFj, you know.

[Expat]

I was exaggerating slightly in that post, but it is the way I often think - I know there are many ways of justifying things, so I just go with what I feel is right - when I say feel, I mean what I think makes the most logical sense for me or for the circumstances.

I think that's very consistent with how role works in dominants.

I'm not sure why -- with me, it has the opposite effect. If an EII or ESI would tell me, "I think or will do that because I feel it's right for me", I couldn't argue against it, nor would I. But when they give me crappy justifications, I feel inclined to point out the holes in them, which annoys them because they think I am objecting to their view, when I'm actually just saying "do what you want, but not because of that silly reasoning".

It's too much effort for me to give up eating meat, but I'd like to, because animals are people too. On the otherhand, humans have teeth well-adapted for eating meat, and lots of cultures, mostly in the past, have eaten their dead relatives and so on...I don't really consider it a 'moral' issue - i.e. everyone should give up meat because someone else says so. It would be nice if they did, but it's not really a pressing issue.

I could really be a INFj, you know.

I do think you are an INFj, I have thought so since that very lengthy self-description you posted some time ago.