Role and development of ethics in ISFj-ENTj duality (minus Fi)

[tcaudilllg]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18021

I suspect that most of the ISFjs here can recognize the behavior discussed in the above thread in their own behavior. I'd also imagine that Expat would feel similarly due to his age, but younger ENTjs like Johnathan and Joy would feel uncomfortable with the notion of restraining their own sense of justice and equity for the good of the group.

ISFJs (and Expat), are my suspicions validated with respect to the above?

[liveandletlive]

and the question is...?

[crazedrat]

I was about to say- if you want a gamma F type to answer your question, you have to put it in simple terms... they will not click on the link and research it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tcaudilllg]

Idiot.

@tc. No, I don't think people should bow to the group and forsake justice. Nobody's personal ethic should ever be sacrificied for the sake of "group emotional comfort" A person should imo however take into account what effect their actions may have and weigh for themselves the costs and benefits to decide what action to take. The reprecussions from your actions may have a more damaging effect long-term than the cause for that action.

OK, yes that's what I was referring to. I used an extreme example but your notion of "towing the line" makes sense: on the one hand you've got to consider your own person and your own psychological comfort, and on the other you've got to consider how the group would react to your pursuit of that comfort. Looking at it from your viewpoint is -Fi/+Fe, like is postulated by Model B; looking at it from the group's viewpoint (the reprecussions) is -Fi/-Fe. By alternating between the two views, one may be capable of making the judgement most amenable to both your own sense of equity and the group's. (if one is available) For example, punching back someone who punched you might be looked at by the "group" as disorderly conduct, and the group may insist that your sense of retribution be repressed in respecting the group's desire for tranquility; however, there is the still the problem of you being injured by someone without recourse. Early law (Hammaurabi's Code and other "eye for eye" laws) argued in favor of the -Fi/+Fe approach by allowing the afflicted every right to take from the afflictor in proportion to what was taken: this is the victims rights theory. Opposing this approach is the social desire to rehabilitate instead of punish. (the -Fi/-Fe approach/social rehabilitation/social responsibility theory) The real answer lies somewhere in between: society owes a measure of retribution to the afflicted even as the afflicted owes restraint to society. Harmony lies in keeping both viewpoints evenly satisfied, or else either the individual or society will feel disenfranchised.

Is that consistent with your own reasoning, Diana?

[crazedrat]

Idiot.

@tc. No, I don't think people should bow to the group and forsake justice. Nobody's personal ethic should ever be sacrificied for the sake of "group emotional comfort" A person should imo however take into account what effect their actions may have and weigh for themselves the costs and benefits to decide what action to take. The reprecussions from your actions may have a more damaging effect long-term than the cause for that action.

I was thinking of SEE more of ESI, really... in retrospect. Maybe I should of been more careful with my words, and not generalized so much. And the question was addressed to ESI, and not to SEE... So okay, I regress. Although I still think ESI shows the tendency I was talking about, just not as much as SEE. Really though, you are too easily offended

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18021

I suspect that most of the ISFjs here can recognize the behavior discussed in the above thread in their own behavior. I'd also imagine that Expat would feel similarly due to his age, but younger ENTjs like Johnathan and Joy would feel uncomfortable with the notion of restraining their own sense of justice and equity for the good of the group.

Who is this "Johnathan" you are referring to? Surely not Jonathan the ILI, right?

[liveandletlive]

i'm not a fan of nor knowledgeable enough about plus and minus blocks to truly understand the difference between Fe-/-Fi vs. Fi-/-Fe, however following your explanations of these "fractions" (i don't really know what else to call them haha) i think you need to be very careful when associating with group dynamics. remember Expat's laser () vs. fog () ?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ighlight=laser

i'm sure this is redundant information for you, but considering myself an subtype, i feel i can shed some light on this disparity between , and their particular expressions regarding group dynamics. for me, even though at parties and social gatherings i'm the typical talkative, "social butterfly" SEE, i always end up having these intense, deep conversations with 1-3 people (4 being the maximum). being an extravert i do feel somewhat responsible for the functioning of the group (even when my part in organizing the gathering is minimal; however the greater my role as "social coordinator" in organizing the gathering, the more i feel responsible for the group's dynamic), and consequently when interacting with the group in its entirety or playing the role of the "good hostess" i find my suddenly switched on and i'll talk to everyone at the gathering, make a lot of small talk, become suddenly super expressive and reactive to what my interlocutor is telling me, and make people laugh- i'm suddenly more concerned with, aware and in control of the mood of the group. i also ensure that everyone feels at ease by making sure no one feels ignored or slighted by me being anything less than 100% hospitable, engaging, pleasant, and responsive.

however playing this role is not my primary goal, nor do i see it as of the utmost importance, and this role is definitely not of interest to me. to be honest, taking on the part of the "good hostess" is actually really uncomfortable and stressful for me. my is screaming on the inside "take this facade off!" and i'll indubitably end up berating myself for being untrue to who i am and what i stand for (this can be attributed to my perception of as superficial and meaningless- sorry betas and alphas!). inevitably, i always end up having (IMHO) in-depth, poignant conversations with few people away from the group. these deeper one-on-one interactions are much more natural, worthwhile, and significant to me; in these heart-to-hearts i feel alive, back in my own skin, feeling as if us "getting naked emotionally" will help us both learn about understanding, helping, listening, sharing, vulnerability, trust, etc. while simultaneously according us the opportunity to deepen and intensify our own relationship.

If -Fi is fairness and -Fe is the mood of the external environment (the shared emotional charge or viewpoint), then -Fi resting on -Fe argues that the mood itself should be respected; in other words, a person should conduct themselves according to the mood around them. (-Fe resting on -Fi would argue differently, that the mood should obligate itself to the individual and be responsive to the ethic sense of all involved). -Fi/-Fe argues that a person should subordinate their personal ethic to the pursuit of the group's emotional comfort

sorry for getting on a tangent but to get back to your original post, i agree with your -Fe/-Fi point in bold above and when my is engaged i can completely understand this. however in saying -Fi/-Fe "argues that the mood itself should be respected" brings 2 things to my mind-

#1: how well can a rational function detect the group's mood? in perceiving the group's mood, perceiving functions would be best suited for this.
#2: i can also see how can detect the group's mood (but still not as adeptly as the perceiving functions which can pick up on the subtle, constantly oscillating group mood) like Expat's fog.

I also disagree with the statement, "Fi/-Fe argues that a person should subordinate their personal ethic to the pursuit of the group's emotional comfort." IME above, without me even being an -leading type i still could not and can not subordinate my personal ethic to the pursuit of the group's emotional comfort. whenever im confronted with something that goes against my , the internal dissonance and unease (i literally feel) can become intolerable and despite the outcome, i resolve that i could not live with myself if i went against my values. i can only imagine what this must be like for an ESI. the nature of (what it's about, what it does, how it manifests, etc.) makes it very hard for me to see -leading types subordinating their personal ethic to the pursuit of the group's emotional comfort. this still feels very much like to me.

btw, this post is probably useless seeing as plus and minus blocks are completely foreign to me AND i am not an ESI, but i figured i'd give you my two cents anyway

[tcaudilllg]

First of all, I'd like to clarify what I meant by "subject" -- what I meant was the determination to evaluate one's personal sense of ethics in the light of the group's emotional comfort. A ruler determining to invade another country on behalf of the wellbeing of their own subjects, despite their own, is an example of this thinking at work. You could also take into account what Diana said about "looking at the consequences of one's actions" as another example of this mentality: in the end, what is ethical is that which is in service to the group. That may seem unworkable, however when you take into effect the characteristics of the function which is serving as the background (-Fe in this instance, lifted right out of the 7th function slot) the conditions for its acceptance become clearer.

Diana, am I right in thinking that you overcome the problems of adopting arbitrary ethical standards by only framing your ethics in terms of people you agree with in the first place? (thus conditioning your ethics to your personal viewpoint, and subjectifying it?)

Now for ENTj, this would equate to assuming only -Fe that was demonstrably ethical. (something one's dual can assist with) However, a better understanding of -Fe role is needed to understand the details.

Edit: I intuit that it means one only associates oneself with ethical persons. If you think about it, business isn't necessary ethics based: you associate yourself with those who can help you make money, whatever their persuasion. (who am I to judge?, is the theme) But with -Fi as the filter, ENTj only associates themselves with morally upstanding persons. (can you confirm, Expat?) Basically, 2nd function transcendence means wedding yourself to your dual's advice and opinions, in exchange for your dual's acceptance of your own views as indisputable fact.

[Expat]

First, I agree with everything Diana said. Nothing to add or change. It applies to me as well.

in the end, what is ethical is that which is in service to the group.

I disagree with that. I don't think it's about a group; from the point of view of Gamma Fi, being "ethical" is more related to how individuals interact with each other. For instance, someone who has never done anything to me may be cut off from my circle of relations if s/he does something I see as bad to someone else (not necessarily even someone I know). To me it says, that person doesn't deal with others fairly, so I won't deal with that person at all. So I don't see any "group" involved. It's about a network of individual interactions, not a group as such, since some of "lines" in that network may not cross at all.

If you think about it, business isn't necessary ethics based: you associate yourself with those who can help you make money, whatever their persuasion. (who am I to judge?, is the theme) But with -Fi as the filter, ENTj only associates themselves with morally upstanding persons. (can you confirm, Expat?) Basically, 2nd function transcendence means wedding yourself to your dual's advice and opinions, in exchange for your dual's acceptance of your own views as indisputable fact.

It all depends on what you mean with "associate". Ideally, yes: I'd only have anything to do with morally upstanding persons; in professional situations, unfortunately, compromises are made. But in voluntary situations, yes: I can only have as personal friends, and romantic partners, persons who I see as morally upstanding. In fact, in situations where I see little or no need for the kind of compromise I mentioned - such as in this forum - I will minimize or nullify any contact with persons I don't see as moral.

On "who am I to judge" as the theme: not sure as to what you mean, but in point of fact, Gamma Fi is, indeed, judgemental, bitchy, even hateful and vindictive. I never, ever, ask myself "who am I to judge" on ethical matters; I may be unsure of my judgment, though.

On the duality with ISFj, one aspect of it that is relevant to this issue is something like the following dialogue, which I already used elsewhere:

ENTj: "Hmm, I think that guy is evil and should be destroyed, but I'm not sure -- perhaps there was some justification for his actions -- perhaps I'm being too harsh --"
ISFj: "No, you're not too harsh. He's evil and must be destroyed".
ENTj: "Yes, you're right". *destroys evil guy*


Regarding "acceptance of my views as indisputable fact" as another part of the ENTj-ISFj duality, that's not correct. The correct formulation is "acceptance of my words as being a true expression of my views and knowledge when they were spoken".

As I mentioned elsewhere, the ENTj-ISFj duality becomes increasingly "robotic-looking" to outsiders as it develops, in the sense that there is no second-guessing of each others' words, no reading between the lines: we say what we mean and we mean what we say (or at least that's the inclination).

[crazedrat]

weird... i've yet to meet an ENTj I would consider "morally upstanding" ...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

weird... i've yet to meet an ENTj I would consider "morally upstanding" ...

Yes. Same here too. Interesting one. I've met a few, one in particular who thought she had morals, but in practice it wasn't really the case at all, it was apparent to me and others, but then, how do we define morals really, that's another conversation.

[FDG]

how do we define morals really, that's another conversation.

Yeah, exactly. I'd never really defined myself as "morally upstanding" though. Sounds a bit self-righteous, to name one of the few.

[Expat]

Perhaps one of the points to clarify is exactly what we mean with "morally upstanding" then.

For instance, one of the characteristics I see as being "morally upstanding" is not to be two-faced. Let us say my friend Bill is going through a personal crisis (lost his job, his girlfriend, someone stole his Barbie doll collection, whatever) and he talks it over at length with his friend Bob. Bob is very "sympathetic" and encouraging and acts as a true friend to Bill. But, later, Bob meets another friend, Jack. Over a drink, Bob tells Jack about what Bill told him and says stuff like "gee, Bill is really a loser, I had to control myself not to laugh".

For me, that is a reason to cut off Bob from my relations, regardless of how pathetic Bill's problems may have been.

On the other hand, suppose that Jack is lazy, loves pornography, has odd religious beliefs, whatever -- that sort of thing doesn't concern me much.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Perhaps one of the points to clarify is exactly what we mean with "morally upstanding" then.

For instance, one of the characteristics I see as being "morally upstanding" is not to be two-faced. Let us say my friend Bill is going through a personal crisis (lost his job, his girlfriend, someone stole his Barbie doll collection, whatever) and he talks it over at length with his friend Bob. Bob is very "sympathetic" and encouraging and acts as a true friend to Bill. But, later, Bob meets another friend, Jack. Over a drink, Bob tells Jack about what Bill told him and says stuff like "gee, Bill is really a loser, I had to control myself not to laugh".

For me, that is a reason to cut off Bob from my relations, regardless of how pathetic Bill's problems may have been.

At the risk of dragging this out into a lengthy moral conversation, here's an alternate respective:

Perhaps the following should be considered before cutting him off;

1. Later Bob realised Bill's problems were silly
2. Bob thought the problems were silly at the time but didn't think a kick up the ass would help Bill.
3. Bob sees you (and/or Jack) as the sort of friend he can confide his true feelings to-you're the bigger person who can take it
4.(very possible I reckon) Maybe Bob is actually quite upset about Bill, and is trying to talk about it to get it out his system and downplay it a little to convince himself that he doesn't care as much as he really does.

People are a bit more complicated I suppose, and perhaps another way to look at being moral is to take the bigger picture and take into account we are all just human and not perfect. Morally speaking (you or whoever it is) should still try fufill your obligation to your friend to Bill, even if it turns out he isn't always perfect.

On the other hand, suppose that Jack is lazy, loves pornography, has odd religious beliefs, whatever -- that sort of thing doesn't concern me much.

Cool.