They just want their own way.
UPDATE: OR ARE THEY?
Printable View
They just want their own way.
UPDATE: OR ARE THEY?
Who said they were or any type for that matter? o_O
It's almost as if they were human beings with strengths and faults. /i
There are a lot of descriptions out there that claim Fi is about morals and that ESIs are the most moral and pious - which is utter bunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raver
Fi is about preferences.
MBTI on ISFJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raver
I also see this stereotype in socionics more on EII.
All people with introverted judgement as ego function want that, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
There may be wisdom in considering unhealthy characteristics independently of personality type.
Who doesn't want their own way?
Conformists, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ashlesha
I guess it's easier for people with extraverted judgement ego to follow common rules (either rules of a group or rules of business).
If they are conformists, then conforming is their own way... :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
I agree with ashlesha, types will just try to get their own way with their ego functions so it looks more or less moral. FiSe may stand strong for what they believe right and seem highly moral [key word is seem], while an Si may bail out because confrontation is not what they want, so look like a conformist or a coward. They just don't value the same thing.
Te could to look amoral (or immoral?) because efficiency.
Fi is about preferences but it also manifests as a focus on moral evaluation of people/actions. And of course this doesn't necessarily mean ESIs are more moral.
Not saying you'd necessarily disagree with this point but borrowing your post here to jump off of and play devil's advocate:Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Wouldn't a person who spends most of their mental focus on, and evaluates others with something like that, and bases their ego off of it, also typically be more likely to be more moral than average at the very least as well? I'm not saying morally perfect, but when you spend most of your time doing a thing, you tend to be better at it than not. The chances of failure are going to be lower when compared to the average person who doesn't use that skill.
And then to play devil's advocate in the other direction again, I want to point out that often times once a person thinks they're good at something to the point where it's second-nature, they start to become lazy with it. I pretty much think this logic applies to every lead function IE.
Fi is related to something like "morals, conviction". It's not the same as it, but it works as a hint. It has been said before but these are not definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
It's because you can't really describe the function itself, so you give "pointers" that guide you closer to the phenomenon.
I know lots of ESIs and I have no problem with this.
Each type has a valued introverted judgement function, so the conformity of people are limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderland
There is a lot more to consider, not just functions. Values by upbringing and personal expierence in life, f.i.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderland
Immoral if not properly balanced with an ethical judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderland
If you read Jung he links morals to extroverted types.
If you can't do it yourself so you are left putting pressure onto others. :P
I guess it makes sense in the sense that, all extroverts are more inclined to enforce things onto others than introverts are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Only extroverts that value :Se: or have :Se: as demonstrative function are using force to get something from other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Linking morals to extroverted types clearly sounds like bullshit to me.
As a person with 1D Fi and 2D Fe, I have feelings, but I have no idea what to think about them. I don't trust them and I try very hard not to let my feelings affect my actions.
And my morals are pretty situational. However, I'm aware of this and view it as a potential weakness and am therefore looking for input in this area, which I will be happy to consider in the light of rational analysis.
Can 1D Te implement? Therefore can they demand it from others? Therefore they moralize while being amoral themselves.
If 1D Te is valued, then Te is sought. If 1D Te is not valued, then Te is not trusted. I'm not sure you can extend this to Fi morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
In any case, I think that Fi is not associated directly with morality. Rather, Fi is purely the assignment of personal value to objects and actions. The assignment of value to an action can be interpreted as being associated with a moral system, but it is not the moral system itself. Nor does it determine the absolute morality of the action, if there even is such a thing.
Who says morals are personal? Jung has interesting views of this in his descriptions.
I think that shaking external balance towards own ends would make things unethical. Which indirectly includes lost of Fi base actions. So if you shoot your own foot constantly you should be clear.
And their way is typically moralistic (not necessarily moral indeed).Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
I've looked for an absolute basis for morality for years and I've never found one, outside of "survival of the species".Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
You can find times and cultures where it is alternately moral and not moral to:
1. Kill people
2. Eat your relatives.
3. Marry your sister.
4. Lie, cheat, and steal,
The list goes on. To assume that your morality is the correct one is to assume that your culture and time and circumstance are the correct ones.
For some reason that struck me as tragic. Guess that's Fe super-id instead of Fe super-ego.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Aside from the subjective feeling that I'm not very assured about how to interpret what I'm feeling, it can be objectively very good. Whether I like someone or don't like them, I tend to treat them the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oppai Anschluss
It's like the idea that "All men are created equal". They are not, of course, but they do have equal rights under the law. Ideally, that is.
Call this Fe masochistic morals if you do not hurt others and possibly yourself you can be a fool but not a bad person. :confused2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Anyways I have heard ESI judgements. I think Ti takes much harder path on individual but less so in communal sense.
"May", "seem", "could look" don't mean "it is".Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
f.i. = factual information or fucking idiot? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fi
Prolly the latter, I wrote "could to look"... :lol:
f.i. = for instance
Morality improves over time, and is therefore objective like any other knowledge and exists independently of any person. To say that morality "comes from" within a person is absurd.
In any culture and any society, morality improves over time. Therefore, everybody's morality will ultimately be wrong and abhorrent. We'd all think people from thousands of years ago were barbaric and abhorrent.
@Adam Strange I just said that because extroverts have more force and extroversion in general, whether or not the morals being enforced are actually good or it's being done effectively or not. That was my impression of what Troll meant too.
Fi is a specific kind of "moral" evaluation though. Specifically it's about how to treat other people in the context of the relationship you have with them. Ti's principles are also a big factor in evaluating morality, just as much as Fi is, one which Fi leads reject. So are Fi leads more likely to treat their close relations with respect, loyalty, devotion, etc.? That's more reasonable to say, but again a big part of it (Fi) is subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
I might add that the same thing applies to Ti: Ti egos aren't always more "logical", but they are still focused on logical structure.
Ok. As far as I am concerned, Fi as it's described like this is just a spook to me. I want an Fi lead to objectively describe Fi to me lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Healthy Fi types are inherently more moral in their behavior because that's the way they interpret life. They will fulfill their obligations, be polite with everyone, etc etc just like a healthy Se type will be kinda bossy with everyone but in a way that benefits the whole environment.
Unhealthy Fi types have been nicely described by jung - crazy scheming paraonoids who can justify the worst actions in themselves just because others are'evil'
@sbbds, I can see understand your argument. I was objecting to Jung’s association of morals with extroverted types. On a fundamental level, I just can’t see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Anyway, @FDG just wrote a definitive post on morals and ESI’s. (As did @consentingadult.)
In retrospect, I am adjusting my model of types among people I know. I think I accidentally started typing SLEs as ESIs. I am going to delete my ESI celeb suggestions to make the correction.
Not really no lole. Leave that to EIIs.
I think this is why sometimes ESIs are pinned as hypocritical. If it's inside the realm of preferences and interests, that's when I can get uppity but that's just me.
It also would depend on the environment one is raised in and abounds no? I wouldn't consider myself as known for being a morally righteous person, nor would I do that for other ESIs. If something, I think duty and :Se: overrides morals or at least what people perceive Fi to be.
I feel like despite the transition from MBTI to Socionics (lol that sounded weird), some people still think Fi means being a flowery person who is ultra sensitive.
Calling Fi "ethics" in English Socionics terminology has led people to focus wrongly on a phenomenon that is determined by all the information elements. "Feeling" is actually a better word for Fi and Fe. Its associations are closer to the actual reality of Fi and Fe.
Example:
Te dominant types are often unaware of their personal feelings (Fi) determining their judgment outside of their conscious awareness. They sincerely believe their judgment is the result of an objective process and are unaware of the influence.
Ti dominant types are unaware of how the emotion they receive from the external environment determines their process of logic or perceptions of categories. They think they are acting based on an impetus that is entirely internal and within themselves when in reality the external feedback they receive emotionally from other people determines their thought.
The reason for the mis-association of Fi with morality is the gravity that people attribute to Fi types. People usually associate gravity and severity with morality.
Fi is just personal internal feeling that isn't exposed openly. Fi types can appear serious to Fe types because of the lack of emotional feedback Fi valuers tend to supply when those types have spent a lot of time in egosyntonic environments.
They look so for Te types, at least. They irrationally inspire higher ethical/moral trust to them and are more restrained from acting "badly" for the taste of Fi/Te types.
Also all F types understand better a morality and hence may behave to look better in this. Fi types try to be more pleasant, Fe to be more respectable - this is linked with morally good behavior. People having differing valued Fi/Fe may to have worse perception of their actions, - it's not objective partly.
I agree. Socionics doesn't treat Fi like how Jung described it. I think Fi and Fe are on a scale of emotional expression, with Fi being emotion that is very strong, but not expressed and Fe being strong emotion that is openly expressed. Fi types don't like to openly express their emotions. Pretty simple concept really that has become "ethics of relations", which really sounds like some Ti bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
There is a scale. That part is correct. The introverted elements have a split with the intensity of information they can handle. Introverted elements can process information in a dual state manner, both passive and active. In the passive state, they process information more slowly than the extroverted counterpart, as in Fi vs. Fe. There are moments, though, when the introverted element switches to an active state and processes information much more quickly than the extroverted element can comprehend, and the introverted element makes a "quantum leap" of understating and exerts force much stronger than the extroverted element would. This active state can only be maintained for a short period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Velvet
So the emotional aspect of Fi is usually more subdued and subtle in most cases. But, rarely, it can be really really intense and even show itself openly. The introverted elements in themselves can't handle the usual extroverted intensity. They have to withhold and save up, so to speak, before making a large expenditure.
As I've said before, the introverted elements have the nature of yin, and the extroverted of yang.
.
I tend to agree (not so sure about the examples though). "Feeling" is not perfect either but it's preferable to "ethics". Augusta's reason for changing the terminology is a bit obscure, maybe it makes more sense in Russian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Yeah there might be some lost in translation issue there. I don't know Russian so I can't comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
The only type that is inherently moral is the INTp, and only because we're sane tryhard perfectionists. I'll stop meming now. Also, that's if you ignore the prostitution.
I think as an argument the concept of moral-licensing or self-licensing would be interesting. https://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/mo...-make-you-bad/Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
This is only objective insofar as I'm using myself as a barometer and I think type is bs anyway...but in this thread I keep seeing Fi described as quiet/unexpressed feelings and I think that's not quite right if said feelings are happiness, sadness etc. for any reason. I don't think Fi types have stronger feelings than other people in general that just aren't expressed, that seems crazy. I think Fi does associate itself with things like preferences. Attitudes. Consistent feeling-based inclinations. Aversions. Values, even if they're personal and idiosyncratic or inconsistent or situation-dependent, leading to hypocrisy. How do I feel about X over time, what's my attitude towards X when I see it again? Not just how do I feel right now. Which would make Fi base types more predictable, I guess, if the particular inclination you've discovered in them holds across spheres as much as you think? Lol, but not more moral because the inclination could be to eat babies or something. Maybe only on Tuesdays though.
No type has cornered the market on morality. Now, Fi-types do tend to act in a moralistic way even when what they're doing is far from moral. All types usually want it their own way but most are willing to compromise, including ESIs. Most Ij-types (and Eps) tend to think that they hold the high ground with respect to their rationalization whereas Ejs and Ips tend to think that they 'know' best - it's all about ego. I've seen copies of all types with high moral fibre and other copies, the scum of the earth.......:content:Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
a.k.a. I/O
Yeah, I think if we're talking about healthy types, Fi egos have the ingrained sensitivity to take in an emotional understanding of other people and have a lot more potential to form positive relations from this. Good Fi is awesome. And that in itself leads to a kind of charm and consideration of other people that becomes its own kind of ethic - something that Ti ego types can't really logic their way through.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
To everyone else,
IMO anyway; I don't really get the hardcore Fi bashing as some kind of self-indulgent narcissistic mental process. In my experience anyway, if an Fi ego lashes out, it's usually because they feel hurt or victimized or something like that (whether it's even true or not which aligns with Jung's idea of paranoia and such), which is a far cry from selfishly following emotional whims and desires that just disregard other people. Maybe that applies more to weak Fi valuing types and unvalued Fi types.
But I just don't think that's specifically Fi cause some of the cruelest most self-indulgent people I've known in my life have been Fe egos anyway. :shrug:
the interesting example of possible ESI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb4qVoFHl8g
Grace Slick
k4 types Her SLE. ....(?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I think what is going on here is people online catch a glimpse of Fi processes that in real life would ottherwise be hidden from view as in internal. If these walls could talk sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Caan
mb. the example, where she clearly looks shy as introvert [and seems has nun inspired suite :) ]Quote:
Originally Posted by timber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klRoSj0nYmE
Yup. Her bassist is more outgoing than her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
The topic of morality is mostly a parlor game of philosophers, jurists, and theologians. Anybody talking at length about it probably isn't Fi ego.
Some are (speaking of my aunt); they are more about relations (maintaining their close relationships)
ESI's are so sexy. Gotta love that morality