"immoral" INFjs

[The Greeter]

Morality for me used to be at times "impersonal," as in I would cast judgment on a person/situation because it made sense, rather than understanding where people were coming from... For example, a woman becoming a stripper to get money to feed her kids. A long time before, I would have just said that it's wrong to be a stripper, regardless of the situation. Now though, I understand that people do things under desperation, and it just makes things harder for them to be judgmental about it.

I think it's related to maturity and an increased ability to empathize, Lobo.

Also, I think the correct term you are looking for is "amoral".

I am slowly being able to separate more and more actions from "the person within".

I am hesitant to relate this to a particular type or function but I feel that I have been able to do this for a long time. In some cases, it is just me being incredibly naive and denying the reality, but more often than not I feel I am right. Though I believe action speaks louder than words, I feel sometimes that what is within speaks louder than action.

Being able to understand or see the inner essence of a person, I think, allows me as a person, and maybe I can generalize this to EIIs, to empathize, accept and forgive more readily than most people. And by acceptance and forgiveness, I don't mean it in a passive way--that is, "all is forgotten" kind of approach, but rather, taking it all in (not sure if I am clear here).

The thing is, I can hardly pin this down to one particular function and see it more as a holistic consequence of the interactions between the eight functions in the EII psyche and, of course, my own personal journey.

[silverchris9]

lol. This isn't a reduction in morality, it's an increase in contextualization. This is entirely consistent with INFjs. Fi isn't about being moralistic or narrow-minded (that critique is more often and more accurately leveled at Ne-polrs, although INFjs certainly have their faults as well), it's about empathy and relationship and bond. Fi is about "fellow feeling". It starts with attention subjective sentiments towards others, and proceeds out (especially when accompanied with Ne creative) to others subjective sentiments, especially stable relational bonds (parent-child, husband-wife, brother-sister, etc.). It is very sensitive to things that affect those stable relational bonds, and perhaps quests towards their ultimate stasis as a sort of "unconditional love."

Black and white morality isn't actually something that's particularly common to Fi types, especially EIIs, who are always trying to find excuses for people (for certain behaviors). What EIIs will not tolerate is anything they see as harmful to the individual or to the important bonds (which is really the same thing, if you think about it). Actually, I think the fact that in contemporary American (Western?) culture, delta is the quadra most associated with traditional morality has more to do with historical and cultural influences and generational changes than with anything inherent to the type. In the post-Civil War American South, for instance, it was the betas who were the bastions of the "old ways" and such. I do think that EIIs are inclined to be very deontological in dealing with morality; that is, "duty" seems to be an important concept not only with EIIs but with deltas in general. I don't think you're giving up the idea of duty, only adding more context to determine what one's duty is in a given circumstance. You're adding complexity, not subtracting moral obligations.

[consentingadult]

lol. This isn't a reduction in morality, it's an increase in contextualization. This is entirely consistent with INFjs. Fi isn't about being moralistic or narrow-minded (that critique is more often and more accurately leveled at Ne-polrs, although INFjs certainly have their faults as well), it's about empathy and relationship and bond.

In addition to the things you mention, Fi is also about making value judgments of other people's character. Fi does not only serve to create bonds and relationships, but also to keep other people at distance if you, for whatever reason, don't like them. In that sense, Fi does involve moral estimation of other people, although the morals involved can be highly personal and totally insane, as well as totally out of sync with the morals of a specific group.

In unhealthy, unbalanced Fi-egos it is certainly possible that Fi becomes neurotic or pathological in the form of heavy moralism and/or unrelenting moral standards and hypercriticalness.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

I would like to agree with what's already been said about "maturity". Being able to separate people from their actions is a sign of enlightment IMO, and I definitely see EIIs as being the most capable of truly "getting" this earlier on in life.




[Deleted: long post on Shagbag's spiritual journey]
[Reason: no one gives a frack / EIIs don't like discussing these things publicly]

[Rubicon]

[Deleted: long post on Shagbag's spiritual journey]
[Reason: no one gives a frack / EIIs don't like discussing these things publicly]

lol.. yeah, keep to the script! :-p

[Slacker]

I was going to say "that isn't what Fi is about really", but then I read Silverchris' response. So, what he said.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

lol.. yeah, keep to the script!

Well, it looks like I did the right thing, lol.

[anou]

.

[Lobo]

I think it's related to maturity and an increased ability to empathize, Lobo.

Also, I think the correct term you are looking for is "amoral".

Yes, you are right. "Amoral" is more of what I was referring to. However, I'd like to think of it as developing a different ethical standard, like consentingadult mentioned.

I think you're going through some positive changes (I would rather use "a-moral" instead of "immoral"). Think of Sartre, who said morality was a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the masses.

It's not unlikely that you'll end up with a new set of ethical standards, one that has been carefully thought over and therefore feels more authentic. But I want to warn you upfront: at first, this process might set you apart from the people you know, if they hold preconceived ideas about morality, and you won't be able to communicate your new understanding. It takes time to find new people who will.

Yeah, it's an ethical system that changes with time, based on observations and analysis. I can then arrive at certain conclusions about a situation, which to others might seem like there is no thought behind it unless I explain why I think it's that way.

You're ISTp

I don't think that way about people and their choices...I have changed very little on my thoughts about what I think about why people do or don't do things from the age of 7. I know who is good and who is bad; but, I know who is at what level of good and bad and at what level they are honest or not. But, I don't cast judgement, when I do things that reflect the real situation, it only seems like judgement to others because they can't see or feel what I can.

I don't believe that your thoughts about people have remained the same since you were 7. At least it seems really unlikely... For one, I doubt that a kid will experience backstabbing and genuine evil, which has a way of shaking your belief system quite a bit.

I think the 'sin' of EIIs is most often developing a sense of ambivalence about things, and/or their own their own relationship to them. There can be an expectation that action is dependent upon other people for something to change or happen; or thinking that by the amount mental energy or emotion they put into things, that will, therefore, translate into reality somehow. I've seen this in E9s, but also the E6s and the E4s, in their own ways. Basically, just because they are 'aware' of relationships or even 'ethical structures', that doesn't mean they are going to own up to them fully or use them properly.

I wasn't really getting at what you are describing. It's more like having the feeling that you could potentially be "kicked out of delta" if it were some sort of club . Regardless, I don't see those things you mention as "sinful," more like being clueless.

When people are immoral or unethical or mean, they use their strong functions. EIIs use Fi, so they can threaten relationship status unless people do what they want, often from what I've seen by using guilt. Also, I've seen them be very passive aggressive, which I think is a reaction to very weak Se.

People of all types have the potential to be good or bad.

The threatening part makes sense, but then it would mean that I don't have feelings for the other person... I can see it as knowing someone and making them believe I'm their friend, and then threatening the "friendship" as a way to manipulate, when I didn't have any feelings invested whatsoever. Yeah, that would be evil.

The passive aggressive part is the EII stereotype, and I see it as the result of being in a bad state of mind. Sort of like Cesar Milan, and how he shows that dogs in a bad state of mind will do the behaviors that the owners don't like. I personally don't value Se, don't see it as the preferred way of handling things. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily be passive aggressive in situations, especially when I realize that it's not the best way to deal with the particular situation. In fact, I don't remember the last time I was passive aggressive, but it's something that I know I have the inclination of doing if I don't fight the urge, hehe. It's the easy way of dealing with situations, but doesn't mean it's the best.

[consentingadult]

Yeah, it's an ethical system that changes with time, based on observations and analysis. I can then arrive at certain conclusions about a situation, which to others might seem like there is no thought behind it unless I explain why I think it's that way.

Good to read that. Overall I have the feeling that you're on the right track towards the future, existentially speaking. Keep going like that, you will get there!

[UDP]

Hmmm

(we need a "hmmm emoticon")

[Lobo]

a child could experience that depending on what kind of parents s/he's stuck with

Well yeah, even those kids growing up in Baghdad, but I was referring to a more general case of children who are still "kids" at age 7.

[thePirate]

shagbag, even your own dual here doesnt believe your self typing.

wake up

[consentingadult]

Overall, I get the impression that you read my post as a critical attitude towards Fi egos in general, and EIIs in particular, which is not the case. Let me go over your points one by one:

I think it`s the nature of morality being subjective/personal. You call other`s morals insane because they differ from your own personal ones...

That's not what I meant. Obviously, people differ in their ethical standards, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm thinking more about things that most people would consider extreme, such as having sex with one year old babies as a way to prevent AIDS. We can be relativistic about that, but I think we probably agree that such 'ethics' are insane. That's the kind of extreme things I'm talking about.

It`s possible to have defined/strong ethical values (and belong to them) and anyhow being aware of their "subjectivity". Being EII doesn`t meen tunnel vision... I never really understood why EIIs are ill-reputed being narrow-minded or overly judging or something...

I never said EIIs have tunnel vision or a narrow minded, and I don't even think that. However, any mentally unhealthy person can have tunnel vision or can be narrow minded, but that was not the point I was making. What I mean by Fi making value judgements, can be taken two ways: the healthy way, which is trying to establish a value judgment in the sense of "how does this other person relate to me, is he going to cross my boundaries and if I can't defend myself against that, I'd better stay away from him", or an unhealthy way in the sense of "that person holds different political ideas than I do, and thus he must be a bad person and not worthy of my respect". Making value judgments is in itself not a bad thing, all of us do this all day long. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how.

Sometimes it seems like people call a statement "judging" or "hypercritical" because it`s written by an EII. Why isn`t it judging or hypercritical to call ones morals "totally insane"?

I refer to what I said earlier about totally insane morals. As to hypercriticalness, I mean this in the pathological sense. It's also known as (part of) obsessive-compulsive personality, anal personality or whatever you want to call it:

UNRELENTING STANDARDS / HYPERCRITICALNESS (US)

The underlying belief that one must strive to meet very high internalized standards of behavior and performance, usually to avoid criticism. Typically results in feelings of pressure or difficulty slowing down; and in hypercriticalness toward oneself and others. Must involve significant impairment in: pleasure, relaxation, health, self-esteem, sense of accomplishment, or satisfying relationships.
Unrelenting standards typically present as: (a) perfectionism, inordinate attention to detail, or an underestimate of how good one's own performance is relative to the norm; (b) rigid rules and “shoulds” in many areas of life, including unrealistically high moral, ethical, cultural, or religious precepts; or (c) preoccupation with time and efficiency, so that more can be accomplished.

Source: Listing of Schemas & Domains

To be honest - I don`t think that`s a negative trait. I believe your personal opinions should be independant from your surroundings in some degree... Being totally sync with the morals of a specific group is not desirable in my opinion. One should retain his individuality...

I fully agree: groups sometimes holds very destructive ethics, and in that case it's better to hold on to your own concepts of what is ethical or not. But this will come at a price: being shut out of the group. But when you find yourself in a group where the morals greatly differ from your own, it is always a good idea to ask yourself: are the people in society-at-large really wrong and am I right, or might I be deluding myself?

I believe I`m one of the "unhelthy/insane" Fi-egos. But in my case it manifest in tyrannizing myself... Heavy moralism is not pathological. And I don`t believe high criticalness towards other`s behaviour is related to Fi ego (at least not to Fi + Ne). I think Fi is more about ones own behaviour.

Like the quote from the Schema therapy page says, it is indeed possible to tyrannize yourself. And I never said that hypercriticalness is exclusively related to Fi egos, I said Fi egos can turn hypercritical if unhealthy, your reversing my statement. Any type can be hypercrital, e.g. an unhealthy ILEs and SLEs who lean too much on their Fi-PoLR, can become very hypercritical in the ethical area as well, having rigid ideas about decency. But where an Fi-ego will optimize and regulate the psychological distance between themselves and the interactor, an Fi-Super-Ego is more likely to 'force' their morals onto someone else.

BTW, the worst combination of self-tyranny is not just Fi, but the combination of Fi-ego + Te Super-Id. Especially EIIs and ESIs can have a tendency to be perfectionistic. IEEs and SEEs too, but not as strong as their rational counterparts.

As to unhealthy/insane: you made that connection, not I!

Finally I would like to say that most people I recognize to be EII have no problem interpreting my statements. On the other hand, ESIs typically do, and their style of misinterpretation is very similar to yours. Perhaps you might want to consider that you are ESI instead of EII, but I leave that up to you.

[anou]

.

[consentingadult]

Sorry for misunderstanding, Consentingadult.

You are quick with questioning one`s type. That`s a bit hurting... being told "who you are" by a person who don`t even know you. I`m more than my posts in this forum and I`m more than my type...

I`m pretty much certain I`m INFj and I mostly identify with Fi-subtype descriptions a bit more than with the ones of Ne-subtype. When I was younger I had a ESI friend, which "judged" me when I didn`t fit her "social norms" (or whatever you want to call it) in a way of asking "Are you supid?". I was very wounded each time, not only because of the words iself, but also because she didn`t show much tolerance towards other`s opinions, personality traits, differentness,... Her judgement seemed a bit one-dimensional, a little bit like "black and white". She seemed to only regard one`s behaviour itself, mostly disregarding the context or possible reasons. I can`t identify with that.
After reading your post I was uncertain about my type for a moment, because when I was into MBTi I identified with some ISFJ descriptions. But I don`t think I`m Se ego. I don`t try to force someone into a certain direction. I`m damageable, it`s mostly easy to hurt me and I`m pretty sure about having Se polr. The thought of valuing Se or even be Se ego myself seems almost strange to me. I`m also quite certain of having not weak but Strong Ne. Nevertheless I`m a bit unsure at the moment...


EDIT: Is it possible to be Se ego and even though being easy hurt and intimidated by other people`s Se?

Yes, I can indeed be quick with estimating other people's type, especially when they present their souls to me on a silver platter. It's true that I don't know you, but then again: you have exposed yourself to me quite a bit. Of course it is possible that you are EII, but all of us have to estimate other people's attitudes all the time, it's a natural part of survival, and so far I have way more reasons to believe you're ESI than EII, so I'm going with that for the moment.

You are describing interactions with a friend, who said things as "are you stupid?" Imho, you really have do drive an ESI crazy before they start saying such things. Perhaps with the exception of SEIs, ESIs are amongst the most friendly and composed people. When they don't have a lot of self-esteem, they can be bitter or harsh in their judgments, but I have difficulty recalling an ESI who ever said such blantant things. Could it be that your friend was LSI instead of ESI?

As to Se in ESIs: there is a common misunderstanding that Se is always about 'force'. It often is in Beta Se-egos, but Gamma Se-egos are way more diplomatic about applying Se. In ESIs, Se manifest itself not as physical force or violence, but as willpower, as stamina, as the capability to determine how much 'pressure' must be applied in order to get what you want. E.g. my mother is ESI and by many people considered the most sweetest and kindest of people, she will give the shirt of her back if that can help you out, even when you're not that close to her. But if she goes to buy a new laundry washer and dryer and a dishwasher as a package deal, she's is perfectly capable of estimating how far she can go with negotiating a good price, and she will keep negotiating till she gets the price she wants, even if it takes an hour (where I would have given up after 30 seconds). All the while she remains friendly, not emotionally manipulative at all, but steady anyway. That's how Se works in ESIs. You can also see it in their work ethics, they can work extremely hard.

And yes, it is possible for Se egos to be hurt, especially in ESIs, who have strong expectations on how they themselves and other people should behave properly. But even SLEs can be hurt, but they are more likely to express that hurt by creating a lot of angry drama to cover up that they feel hurt (like most EP's by the way).

One more reason why I think you might be ESI: it almost sounds like you're trying to get some recognition from me. Assuming I'm acting as an IEE here, our interaction makes more sense as a supervision than a mirror relationship. In time, you will learn that my style of Te is not LxE style Te and realize the folly of interacting with me: you're never going to get your suggestive-Te needs fulfilled from me

Hope this helps.

ETA:

You are quick with questioning one`s type. That`s a bit hurting... being told "who you are" by a person who don`t even know you. I`m more than my posts in this forum and I`m more than my type...

This is another thing I often hear from ESIs when they don't agree with me: that I don't have sufficient empirical data to justify the conclusions I've drawn

[UDP]

Fi and Fe aren't about actually being good people. Just because those types might talk more or vocalize more or comment more about what is right and wrong or positive or whatever - making normative statements, doesn't mean they are particularly saintly themselves. It's kind of like saying - oh, you're a priest, right? That must mean you're a good person. Obviously that isn't the case; someones occupation or someone's type doesn't mean morality.

All people have to fight their weaknesses and overcome difficulties, and deal with different pressures in different ways. EIIs, yes, like everybody else, make bad decisions, wuss out, use people, cop out, and other such things. EIIs tend to be immoral via passivity or omission, using their reservedness or typically seeming ethical disposition. Although not always.

I think the 'sin' of EIIs is most often developing a sense of ambivalence about things, and/or their own their own relationship to them. There can be an expectation that action is dependent upon other people for something to change or happen; or thinking that by the amount mental energy or emotion they put into things, that will, therefore, translate into reality somehow. I've seen this in E9s, but also the E6s and the E4s, in their own ways. Basically, just because they are 'aware' of relationships or even 'ethical structures', that doesn't mean they are going to own up to them fully or use them properly.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi and Fe aren't about actually being good people. Just because those types might talk more or vocalize more or comment more about what is right and wrong or positive or whatever - making normative statements, doesn't mean they are particularly saintly themselves. It's kind of like saying - oh, you're a priest, right? That must mean you're a good person. Obviously that isn't the case; someones occupation or someone's type doesn't mean morality.

All people have to fight their weaknesses and overcome difficulties, and deal with different pressures in different ways. EIIs, yes, like everybody else, make bad decisions, wuss out, use people, cop out, and other such things. EIIs tend to be immoral via passivity or omission, using their reservedness or typically seeming ethical disposition. Although not always.

I think the 'sin' of EIIs is most often developing a sense of ambivalence and expectation that action is dependent upon other people for something to change or happen; or thinking that by the amount mental energy or emotion they put into things, that will, therefore, translate into reality somehow. I've seen this in E9s, but also the E6s and the E4s, in their own ways.

We never omit information. Always ethical.

[UDP]

We never omit information. Always ethical.

edit: eh, whatever. I forget sometimes that it's just not worth it to respond to you.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

edit: eh, whatever. I forget sometimes that it's just not worth it to respond to you.

I actually thought it was quite a good post.

Perhaps not to resurrect an old joke of yours, but it occurs to me that if this girl really is EII, she's likely the sort of type to bake you brownies.

[UDP]

I'm compelled to 'take shots' at her all the time because it's sort of nonstop baloney, but whatever.

As for the brownies, yeah, you might be right.
The robotic nature, though, it's strange. "Here, I made you brownies, because it's what EIIs do". :-/

[UDP]

PS

A consequence of the above paragraph often is physical incapacitation of some sort. Look at Dostoevsky, who couldn't manage himself and had gambling issues among other things:

Later Career
In December 1859, Dostoyevsky returned to Saint Petersburg, where he ran a series of unsuccessful literary journals, Vremya (Time) and Epokha (Epoch), with his older brother Mikhail. The latter was shut down as a consequence of its coverage of the Polish Uprising of 1863. That year Dostoyevsky traveled to Europe and frequented the gambling casinos. There he met Apollinaria Suslova, the model for Dostoyevsky's "proud women", such as the two characters named Katerina Ivanovna, in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoyevsky was devastated by his wife's death in 1864, which was followed shortly thereafter by his brother's death. He was financially crippled by business debts; furthermore, he decided to assume the responsibility of his deceased brother's outstanding debts, and he also provided for his wife's son from her earlier marriage and his brother's widow and children. Dostoyevsky sank into a deep depression, frequenting gambling parlors and accumulating massive losses at the tables.

Dostoyevsky suffered from an acute gambling compulsion and its consequences. By one account[who?] he completed Crime and Punishment, possibly his best known novel, in a mad hurry because he was in urgent need of an advance from his publisher. He had been left practically penniless after a gambling spree. Dostoyevsky wrote The Gambler simultaneously in order to satisfy an agreement with his publisher Stellovsky who, if he did not receive a new work, would have claimed the copyrights to all of Dostoyevsky's writings.

Plenty of EIIs drown themselves in drugs or fantasy lands or depressions, focusing on their own comfort or a fixation, as a coping mechanism or otherwise. I've seen EIIs have unhealthy attitudes towards sex, people, drugs, addictions, etc.

[Beautiful sky]

PS

A consequence of the above paragraph often is physical incapacitation of some sort. Look at Dostoevsky, who couldn't manage himself and had gambling issues among other things:
Plenty of EIIs drown themselves in drugs or fantasy lands or depressions, focusing on their own comfort or a fixation, as a coping mechanism or otherwise. I've seen EIIs have unhealthy attitudes towards sex, people, drugs, addictions, etc.

Just because you do those things that doesn't mean you are unethical towards other human beings; you are only doing them for your self and not hurting others. If we realize we hurt others by our actions those things would weigh heavily on our hearts and we would strive to make things better. So what if we have physical incapacitations of any sort, depression is not easy to deal with. What we take upon our selves as a moral responsibility to others is a lot to for any one person to take up at any time.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Just because you do those things that doesn't mean you are unethical towards other human beings; you are only doing them for your self and not hurting others.

Hmmm, I sort of felt like contributing to conversation for some reason.

Do you really think it is simple as that? Doing those things can for instance have an adverse affect on friends, family, even partner, people who care about you and all that.

I'm not convinced it's as easy as you portray here, perhaps?

I'm compelled to 'take shots' at her all the time because it's sort of nonstop baloney, but whatever.

Yeah, kinda like that myself, it's a strange one.

As for the brownies, yeah, you might be right.
The robotic nature, though, it's strange. "Here, I made you brownies, because it's what EIIs do". :-/

Yeah, I think that's the thing where it appears to me that she's got these really simple ideas of what types do so that means she (or others) do them.

Robotic nature of it, sort of like the replica .... ever seen for instance the "Buffy-bot" from Buffy the Vampire slayer?

Hmmm, maybe over time we'll get somewhere, strange situation and all.

[Beautiful sky]

Hmmm, I sort of felt like contributing to conversation for some reason.

Do you really think it is simple as that? Doing those things can for instance have an adverse affect on friends, family, even partner, people who care about you and all that.

I'm not convinced it's as easy as you portray here, perhaps?

I know that when I isolate myself when I am in depression, I hurt my mom, because she wants to see me, to talk to me and to be a part of my life; but, I feel like I will make it worse for myself not to shut myself out for a while; then, when I have gotten over the worst of the deal, I take her flowers and give her a lot of loving attention. People who know us understand this about us and take steps to help us. They, like our duals, protect us from excessive chores that cause the cycle in the first place.

Delta men

ISTp don't do many chores and are not too demanding so they free us up from excessive chores. Activity because of limited chores and not a shield from user people.
ESTj rationally organize and eliminate excessive chores and make sure people who use us are not allowed to do so. Dual because they are a shield.