Fi and Ethics

[Rubicon]

Yes!! That is precisely what we do!

:-p

[mu4]

Sometimes it will be based on feelings (treat people well who you like, and badly who you don't like), on lack of feelings (don't bother too much with the feelihttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/ngs of people you're not close to), reactions to a specific events ("he did X, now he does not even deserve civility" <-- a real example, paraphrased), among other things. What's interesting is that, due to Ti-role, Fi-leading types will often give logical-sounding justifications even though there is little real logic and the inconsistencies are in at least some cases easily exposed (Fi-creative types are usually not concerned with appearing logical in this regard, due to their Ti-PoLR and that Fi "merely" supports their leading function anyway).

If someone rigidly adheres to a system of interpersonal ethics (especially in a more universally applicable way), they're more likely Ti-ego than Fi-ego.

Go learn socionics. Logical types use norms and rules of thumbs in ethical matters, Ethical types don't. What type do you think Immanuel Kant was??

When say Kant or Spinoza or some logical types use norms and social convention, they do not consider such topics to be areas of ethical esteem but rather areas of practicality. I would like to make clear that in no way does adhering to non-offensive social norms constitute a ethical system, it is a practical principle with one basic law(be decent to others). There is no moral esteem from such a course of action, it is mere common decency.

This is a very short example of how such practices are viewed.

Thus it is apparent to everyone that I wish to direct all science to one end and aim, so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named; and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless. To sum up the matter in a word, all our actions and thoughts must be directed to this one end. Yet, as it is necessary that while we are endeavoring to attain our purpose, and bring the understanding into the right path, we should carry on our life, we are compelled first of all to lay down certain rules of life as provisionally good, to wit the following:---

1. To speak in a manner intelligible to the multitude, and to comply with every general custom that does not hinder the attainment of our purpose. For we can gain from the multitude no small advantages, provided that we strive to accommodate ourselves to its understanding as far as possible: moreover, we shall in this way gain a friendly audience for the reception of the truth.
2. To indulge ourselves with pleasures only in so far as they are necessary for preserving health.
3. Lastly, to endeavor to obtain only sufficient money or other commodities to enable us to preserve our life and health, and to follow such general customs as are consistent with our purpose.

Having laid down these preliminary rules, I will betake myself to the first and most important task, namely, the amendment of the understanding, and the rendering it capable of understanding things in the manner necessary for attaining our end.

The formation of value systems is fairly well discussed in philosophy and there are many discussions on the mechanisms which formulate these systems.

As a whole I find that Fi ego types tend to formulate moral systems on the basis of ressentiment. Ressentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm going to talk about types that have Fi in the mental ring.

Alpha NT tend to try to reduce sources of ressentiment, such as material inequality, class struggle, ethnic oppression. Backwards traditions and values are asked to be discarded and unity is promoted for the purpose of advancement in human freedom. The ideas of goodness in humility, strength in weakness, and various other form of pleasant absurdities for the despairing are sought to be excised. The weak must be made strong otherwise they will drag us all down. Alphas NT's typically have very little patience for mediocrity or stupdity but value talent and potential in many forms. People should be allowed to prove their strength from a fair place rather then inherit strength and weakness from legacy enviromental circumstances.

Betas ST are simple... if you do not conform to their ideas of strength, you don't deserve anything. However Betas often are in a situation of weakness, but are trapped because they do not recognize that situation and thus are exploited. They are prone to squabbling with themselves and others in petty disputes which only sap their strength. They're too prone to try to prove their strength and mask weakness.

Gamma SF for me are a bit hypocritical, they have a systems of value rooted in contradiction, they value strength yet when their failures occur, they retreat into vengeance and seek to demonize those that defeated them. Their defeat was not because of their weakness but rather because of the wickedness of others.

Delta NF seek to preserve and in that sense they seek to protect the weak, but they view this as a virtue rather then a practicality. Humility, weakness and softness are turned to virtues. The core issue with Delta is stagnation. They are often highly active in social services and environmentalism or animal rights because they view such activity as ennobling.

[Creepy-male]

Also, the SEE knows this and I suspect he sometimes says these things to get under my skin.

So why bite?

[Logos]

When say Kant or Spinoza or some logical types use norms and social convention, they do not consider such topics to be areas of ethical esteem but rather areas of practicality. I would like to make clear that in no way does adhering to non-offensive social norms constitute a ethical system, it is a practical principle with one basic law(be decent to others). There is no moral esteem from such a course of action, it is mere common decency.

This is a very short example of how such practices are viewed.

The formation of value systems is fairly well discussed in philosophy and there are many discussions on the mechanisms which formulate these systems.

While reading through the thread, I was planning on responding to Huginn's view regarding Ti and normative ethics, but you have spoken well on how Kant and Spinoza stand on the matter in relation to Ti. I really do not have much to add, but I would like to raise your points up to give them a greater emphatic weight.

As a whole I find that Fi ego types tend to formulate moral systems on the basis of ressentiment. Ressentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm going to talk about types that have Fi in the mental ring.

Alpha NT tend to try to reduce sources of ressentiment, such as material inequality, class struggle, ethnic oppression. Backwards traditions and values are asked to be discarded and unity is promoted for the purpose of advancement in human freedom. The ideas of goodness in humility, strength in weakness, and various other form of pleasant absurdities for the despairing are sought to be excised. The weak must be made strong otherwise they will drag us all down. Alphas NT's typically have very little patience for mediocrity or stupdity but value talent and potential in many forms. People should be allowed to prove their strength from a fair place rather then inherit strength and weakness from legacy enviromental circumstances.

This appears to be consistent with a number of other Ti philosophers, most notably John Rawls (LII).

[silverchris9]

I'm going to talk about types that have Fi in the mental ring.

Alpha NT tend to try to reduce sources of ressentiment, such as material inequality, class struggle, ethnic oppression. Backwards traditions and values are asked to be discarded and unity is promoted for the purpose of advancement in human freedom. The ideas of goodness in humility, strength in weakness, and various other form of pleasant absurdities for the despairing are sought to be excised. The weak must be made strong otherwise they will drag us all down. Alphas NT's typically have very little patience for mediocrity or stupdity but value talent and potential in many forms. People should be allowed to prove their strength from a fair place rather then inherit strength and weakness from legacy enviromental circumstances.

Betas ST are simple... if you do not conform to their ideas of strength, you don't deserve anything. However Betas often are in a situation of weakness, but are trapped because they do not recognize that situation and thus are exploited. They are prone to squabbling with themselves and others in petty disputes which only sap their strength. They're too prone to try to prove their strength and mask weakness.

Gamma SF for me are a bit hypocritical, they have a systems of value rooted in contradiction, they value strength yet when their failures occur, they retreat into vengeance and seek to demonize those that defeated them. Their defeat was not because of their weakness but rather because of the wickedness of others.

Delta NF seek to preserve and in that sense they seek to protect the weak, but they view this as a virtue rather then a practicality. Humility, weakness and softness are turned to virtues. The core issue with Delta is stagnation. They are often highly active in social services and environmentalism or animal rights because they view such activity as ennobling.

...*sigh*. What does socionics teach? That one quadra's approach is no better than any others. That's socionics 101. Hell, that's the high school class you have to take to even get into socionics U (and it's not hard to get into, it's like maybe community college-level hard to get into). And yet this post clearly assumes that the "alpha NT" approach is inherently better than the other three approaches mentioned. But maybe you're just sharing an opinion, which you don't expect others to take as fact?

Also, I continue to disagree completely with your perspective on formal logic and how it is to be used. But I don't really want to derail this thread with arguing about it.

silverchris' post is nicely met with hkkmrs post, i enjoyed both of them.

Gracias, but how so?

I agree with most of what you wrote, just please let me correct you in that Fi is not inherently connected to relationships and morality. Morality is a field of Fi nature, as information, and Fi types are activating easily in it, but that's not all neither something fundamental. It's the same as Ti is for technical design, or almost.

However, when it comes to Socionics, we focus more on relationships, so the emphasis is not out of place, just reminding you that Fi is much more than that and the association is tangential.

Cool. The comparison makes sense, I suppose, but then what is Fi primarily about, at its core? Certainly I don't think it's fundamentally about ethics; I think the ethics come in as a result of a focus on bonds between people. The focus on the bonds between people, I would assume, is just the nature of the function. Or rather, can you give me some examples of some of the other things Fi is? I think I would understand you better then.

Dude. This is seriously one of the best, most insightful analyses of Fi I've read to date. It echoes and expands upon my own thoughts on the subject.

Thank you very much. It mostly echoes your thought because, if I remember correctly, you were one of the first or maybe the first to correct my misunderstanding of Fi a few months ago in another thread. But I'm quite glad I could add some further food for thought.

@pirate, that debt thing makes sense to me. I'm hesitant to ascribe it completely to Fi, in a way, because I'd imagine that's how it feels to Fe types more than how it is from a neutral perspective, but it's clearly a good explanation of the Fi-Fe relationship. I'm going to be on the lookout for that with the confirmed Fi valuers I know. Strongly agreed on the ENFp-ISTp thing feeling like an external sense of freedom (although again, actual Fi types would probably disagree). It's "freedom" I suppose, but there are all these un-transgress-able rules and expectations and above all duties (another connection between Fi and deontology, although curiously modern deontology was apparently basically invented by Kant, the archetypal LII). And a relationship with all those duties seems highly not-free to me. But that is, I suppose, just an Fe sort of perspective on the matter.

[Beautiful sky]

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about Fi, and how it's so often associated with morality, despite the fact that at the most basic level, it's just about the bonds between people.

What I realized is that Fi does have to do with morality, in a certain sense. This is because, since Fi focuses on the bonds between people, it also focuses on what will help and what will harm those bonds on a far deeper level than any of the other functions. This is the connection to morality. Specifically, I think a connection can be drawn between Fi and deontological ethics. Deontological ethics focuses on what should and should not be done to another person, i.e., bonds of obligation. This is precisely what Fi focuses on. Fi is not so much about making moral judgments about other people, and when paired with Ne, it actively avoids assuming that a person will always behave in a certain way because "that's the kind of person they are." Rather, Fi is concerned with the bonds of obligations of certain types of relationships. Fi is the voice that cries, "you can't do that to another human being," focusing on the obligation one member of the human race has to another. To do harm to another human being is to harm the implicit bond that exists between human beings. It is the voice that says "a husband should behave in a certain way towards a wife," and this assumption has its ultimate roots in an apprehension of what will help the bond and what will hurt the bond.

This clears up a quandry I was in about determining whether a given judgment is Fi or Ti related. Both Fi and Ti are inclined to make generalized prescriptions about what should or should not be done in general. Both Fi and Ti make "rules". But Ti rules are rooted in avoiding logical contradictions between givens: given that a king is greater than a subject, and given that a subject correcting a king implies the reverse, subjects should not correct kings. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. Fi rules, as I have said, are rooted in information about what will help or harm a bond between a group or pair of individuals: since making jokes about weight will hurt the feelings of an overweight friend, one should not make jokes about weight, especially around that overweight friend.

Hurting someone's feelings is something that Fi types try to avoid, for two reasons: first, because the attention to the bonds between people gives Fi types great capacity for empathy, and secondly because feelings in the sense of subjective sentiments from one person about another are a type of bond, or emotional relationship, between two individuals, something of which Fi types are extremely aware.

Also, note that an Fi type can use their understanding of relationships to hurt as well as to help. An Fi-ego can deliberately take actions that they know will hurt or sever the bond between herself and another person. But they usually feel bad afterwords, especially deltas (ESIs can be a little more ruthless, as can SEEs).

So, those are my thoughts. Opinions, questions, disagreements?

Ti makes rules about the law not people...objective as opposed to subjective...and about the above and me ....

Sometimes people cross lines that are against certain values that we have established that their actions not only hurt themselves in the long run, but hurt the system and others as well and that's when we get UGLY...in not such a horrible way though. That's when we need old objective reality Te to step in and say, "it's not worth it honey."

We like to hand out compliments and make people feel rewarded and special.

[Blaze]

...*sigh*. What does socionics teach? That one quadra's approach is no better than any others. That's socionics 101. Hell, that's the high school class you have to take to even get into socionics U (and it's not hard to get into, it's like maybe community college-level hard to get into). And yet this post clearly assumes that the "alpha NT" approach is inherently better than the other three approaches mentioned. But maybe you're just sharing an opinion, which you don't expect others to take as fact?

Also, I continue to disagree completely with your perspective on formal logic and how it is to be used. But I don't really want to derail this thread with arguing about it.

true....but there have been tons and tons of threads about the superiority of beta, gamma, delta as well. i for one am pleasantly surprised but what a great description of alpha hkkmr has written. it's not that the alpha description isn't accurate, it's that the rest of the quadras are not as elegantly described. but i am sure that the other quadras can jump in.

[Blaze]

Yes, he's kind of the ring leader of the people who hangout at my boyfriend's house and I get a little intimidated to continue arguing with him on these occasions because his word is typically law in those social groups. You cross him and you face public shame, regardless of the soundness of your argument. Still, I'll start these debates and go down that road regularly because it just makes my skin crawl when people say things that are so wrong or so poorly rationalized.

LOL yes! that's exactly how it is!

[silverchris9]

true....but there have been tons and tons of threads about the superiority of beta, gamma, delta as well. i for one am pleasantly surprised but what a great description of alpha hkkmr has written. it's not that the alpha description isn't accurate, it's that the rest of the quadras are not as elegantly described. but i am sure that the other quadras can jump in.

Yeah, I guess so... I suppose there's nothing *wrong* with extolling the virtues of your type... but I do think it's misleading. But point taken that there are plenty of threads about the superiority of beta methods (that's just 'cause we're the best though ), and he's just talking about what he likes. It just felt so... factual, when it manifestly isn't fact, it's one perspective. But I'm probably just annoyed with hkkmr in general.

Betas ST are simple... if you do not conform to their ideas of strength, you don't deserve anything. However Betas often are in a situation of weakness, but are trapped because they do not recognize that situation and thus are exploited. They are prone to squabbling with themselves and others in petty disputes which only sap their strength. They're too prone to try to prove their strength and mask weakness.

In my experience, Beta STs tend to have fairly accurate estimations of their place in a given hierarchy, their relative strength and weakness, but may not act as though they have this awareness. Certainly, they can be given to bravado, and would never admit to you that they're weaker than an opponent (or to themselves, really), but they generally know it on some level. Regardless, knowing one's relative strength is more of an Se + Ti thing than an Fi thing. I suppose Beta STs can seem harsh, and the criticism that you don't "deserve anything" if you don't live up to their "ideas of strength" is probably a good description of how they seem to non-betas (or Se-polrs especially), but Beta STs aren't heartless monsters; they do treat people with some basic kindness, even the weak (even if for no other reason than social constraint). Also, I know that I see the "petty disputes" as something akin to sparring for training's sake. It don't think it saps your strength so much as prepares you to be as strong as possible for collective action when the collective action is completely necessary.

From a beta perspective, I suppose Beta STs' disregard of Fi seems like ignoring social customs and niceties and kindnesses that simply aren't important for the sake of attaining a goal, focusing one's attention on places where it is actually needed, etc.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi feels horrible about such things and so from early on we make codes to ourselves, things like "we will never...."; one of mine is to never lie under any circumstance even if the truth is intollerable, that it will produce better results in the long run.

I believe that development of morals and eithics is the very development of distinction between knowing what the word NO and Yes means and in our case, we learn the distinction very early on, so our brains are very well developed.

When a parent asks a child did you do it? (after having spilled the milk). My mom can tell you that in my case I learned to say yes at a terribly young age in comparison to other kids.

And because being honest always accompanied by crying, she knew that if I said no and tears began to fall...that there wasn't a chance in the world I was lying. So it was learning to be honest, gaining love, affection, trust and a sense of right and wrong, or good and bad from this thing we call brain, genes and development is what produces my type.

[mu4]

...*sigh*. What does socionics teach? That one quadra's approach is no better than any others. That's socionics 101. Hell, that's the high school class you have to take to even get into socionics U (and it's not hard to get into, it's like maybe community college-level hard to get into). And yet this post clearly assumes that the "alpha NT" approach is inherently better than the other three approaches mentioned. But maybe you're just sharing an opinion, which you don't expect others to take as fact?

Also, I continue to disagree completely with your perspective on formal logic and how it is to be used. But I don't really want to derail this thread with arguing about it.

You don't even understand and instead moralize from a position of ressentiment.

Better and worse, things are determined in the exposition and not necessary in the start. But true and false, this determination is more worthy of my attention.

You actually imagine I have some value system to determine better and worse, sadly, I leave that for the moralists.

People should be allowed to prove their strength from a fair place rather then inherit strength and weakness from legacy enviromental circumstances.

It's not the strong that survives, but what survives that is strong. I concern myself not with people's absurd notions of strength and weakness, but survival and having a good time while dispensing some truth should I stumble upon such a curiosity. I might not have a better position, but I'm going to try and enjoy it regardless.

[Blaze]

@silverchris: the thing with beta is that beta likes to be one-down. they root for the underdog. they like to fight. it's the fight that's important to them. if they are winning easily, where's the fun/honor/glory in that? at least that's my impression, as an honorary beta.

[silverchris9]

@silverchris: the thing with beta is that beta likes to be one-down. they root for the underdog. they like to fight. it's the fight that's important to them. if they are winning easily, where's the fun/honor/glory in that? at least that's my impression, as an honorary beta.

Hmmm... truth. It is more dramatic that way. And everyone loves a good epic story. Winning easily *is* hella boring. Betas tend to use difficulty as a proxy for value, which is part of why Yeats (who I have had to confess is beta NF) said that poetry is "of all things not impossible, the most difficult." Btw, you should be SLE. I like you, and you're already dating an IEI, aren't you? (NOTE this is not a serious suggestion of questioning your type in any way shape or form. just a joke).

You don't even understand and instead moralize from a position of ressentiment.

Better and worse, things are determined in the exposition and not necessary in the start. But true and false, this determination is more worthy of my attention.

You actually imagine I have some value system to determine better and worse, sadly, I leave that for the moralists.

I dislike you, but I recognize that our differences are largely due to a fundamental difference in our assumptions demonstrating itself even in our use of terms. But it is interesting that I find your opinions and methods of reaching and stating them so particularly odious. But such is life!

EDIT: also, for god's sake, hkkmr, pay attention to your terms and develop an ounce of introspection. Your language implies a system of better and worse. If there were no degree of better and worse in your thinking, what cause would there be for a sense of better and worse in your language?

SECOND EDIT: Also also, blaze, you should def. be SLE, because now that Mimosa has left us, you could be the new great SLE female. We'd put you on a pedestal and worship you and automatically take your opinions more seriously than others. It's really a great position, and of everyone, you'd probably encounter the least resistance to aspiring to the place (not that anyone could replace Mimosa who is, for serious, an awesome person, at least insofar as my knowledge of her via this forum goes).

[mu4]

I dislike you, but I recognize that our differences are largely due to a fundamental difference in our assumptions demonstrating itself even in our use of terms. But it is interesting that I find your opinions and methods of reaching and stating them so particularly odious. But such is life!

EDIT: also, for god's sake, hkkmr, pay attention to your terms and develop an ounce of introspection. Your language implies a system of better and worse. If there were no degree of better and worse in your thinking, what cause would there be for a sense of better and worse in your language

Not a system of better and worse. As I said, things are revealed in the exposition.

You should be the one who pays attention to what I say.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Blaze]

silverchris. i've been betatized for the last 25 years, living and being in close relations with betas. that's why i say i'm honorary. but i like you too...love reading your posts.

pinochio i disagree with your disagreement. every beta i know roots for the underdog. it's like a signature.

[krieger]

ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind.

Ps. their being Serious helps at upholding an image of badassery too in that it makes their communcation style harsher than that of ESTps. ESTps have been known to be charismatic (Churchill) and are very often capable rethoricicians (sp...). They aren't above a little use of Fe to attain the practical control that they live for.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind.

I'd also say, given the ESTp's strong Ti and Te, they are able to more effectively judge the effort required, whereas ESFp's aren't as capable of working out the effort needed due to this weak dichotomy-function, so given their extraverted nature, they usually just spend too much.

[silverchris9]

silverchris.i've been betatized for the last 25 years, living and being in close relations with betas. that's why i say i'm honorary. but i like you too...love reading your posts.

Ah, that makes sense. Well, I hope you have some alpha friends too, so that you don't have to hang with betas *all* the time (we're a demanding lot, I know). And thanks!

ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind.

Ps. their being Serious helps at upholding an image of badassery too in that it makes their communcation style harsher than that of ESTps. ESTps have been known to be charismatic (Churchill) and are very often capable rethoricicians (sp...). They aren't above a little use of Fe to attain the practical control that they live for.

I agree a lot with this post. The ESTps I know are incredibly focused, but only when they have to be, and they have a much better capacity of determining when they have to be focused than most other people I know. But when they're not being focused, they become very charismatic, and, I find, can even be somewhat childish/childlike in what they are enjoying at the moment. I'm not sure if Churchill is actually ESTp (I have no opinion about his type), but one of his quotes is very much an ESTp thing to say: someone walked up to him and exclaimed "why, sir, you're drunk!" and he replied, "Yes, but you, madam, are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober, and you shall still be ugly." That quote is very Ti + Fi-polr, I think, and is an example of the not-so-serious side of an ESTp. But I don't know why everybody views Se-leading types as a threat. They're not that scary; they just have a lot of forward-driving energy. I guess that freaks some people out.

ESFps do perhaps throw more energy out there (back to the "leaking" metaphor for the demonstrative function). But I find them ultimately less powerful than the average ESTp, and generally a lot "nicer" in the sense of "more likely to follow social customs". But perhaps I would also find ESFps more "acutely dangerous" than ESTps if I knew more dangerous ESFps...?

Also... rhetoricians.

@hkkmr, um, fine, I guess. You usually out-Ti me. I'm still pretty sure you're wrong, or at least partially wrong, but I don't have the stamina to pick apart your words, so I grant you victory... this time...

[Mattie]

I only read the OP and some of the first page of comments, so sorry if is seems out of place. I liked that you brought up this topic, and I am in general agreement with the idea. I've had my own thoughts on and I disliked how some people took to equal morality. I was hoping you'd extend this to past interacting with people, like how it would apply outside of "morality." Since Socionics is more about information/perception rather than personality traits themselves, the IM elements can be applied to other areas of reality not directly involving other people.

[Brilliand]

Fi feels horrible about such things and so from early on we make codes to ourselves, things like "we will never...."; one of mine is to never lie under any circumstance even if the truth is intollerable, that it will produce better results in the long run.

This strikes me as more of an / ( creative) judgment, because you gave an "in the long run" reason... stops at "I hate that." I suppose it's both: "I hate that"->"It will be better in the long run" (maybe an implied "others hate it too").

[Beautiful sky]

This strikes me as more of an / ( creative) judgment, because you gave an "in the long run" reason... stops at "I hate that." I suppose it's both: "I hate that"->"It will be better in the long run" (maybe an implied "others hate it too").

Yes, perfectly said. Because INFj's seek not only for morals but to give long lasting advise or ideal. Not here and the now of what it will mean but it's overall future of, very encompusing kind of advise (idealistic). The Ni part is for our dual's weak Ni-polr...what will happen, they wonder?

Rasputin figured out my enneagram type so fast, I wonder how he was able to do that.

I say a lot of things that way...INFj language..."oh don't worry about the, it won't matter by tomorrow."
"you'll see...it will unfold and come up as new informations avails itself." Because we live entirely in what has happened and what will; we know what needs to happen now for something to work out OK; so if we say something about the past, then we wish circumstances were different, but in the future, that circumstance may not be possible, possible, probable, impossible, improbable...etc, you get the point.

This action is Factor (fx) in the equation where if things go a certain way (big picture view), it will likely result in whatever choice...that result (only the one that is most likely to occure) is produced outwards as form of advise.

So we give a lot of business related advise, processing mass info and determining likely sequence of results that will unfold...but we're a lot more confident then our duals who live in the here and now and require immediate proof or data, we just know.

When I sent a typing request to Rick, I remember telling him a story about the past, which he took to mean Ni primary, which wan't true, I was reliving a story in the past out of frustration for Se...polr. That I was trying to buy a home and no one would help me and I couldn't "force" "request" people's financial assistance; it frustrated me and I was trying to convey this information to him but he didn't get my type right...I don't know how he determine Fe as creative function, I don't remember being any such reference to Fe in my letter to him.

[Beautiful sky]

I think this is too over the top. While Betas have a predisposition for such things, they don't necessarily happen and I disagree with the generalization.

One thing is that IEIs for example are not necessarily like that, they may give-up things easily, although, they don't really like to earn something without an effort. Then similarly, about the SLE, I tell you my observations: most SLE males I know (if not all) like challenging things to win, for example strategy games or to bet, but they are not trying to win in every situation. They don't have continuously "winning attitude" in every aspect. They may give up easily a quarrel, but they have some things they're interested to win in.

I think this is important, it makes the difference between the stereotype (the one you expect to be domineering, argumentative, even aggressive) and the real type - which is disappointingly calm and easy-going considering the general prejudice of some depictions.

There was an SLE man who wanted me, he lived in Sacramento, took an overnight flight, despite my resistance, showed up on my door step and started indirectly pressuring me to be with him.

My dual would not act so impulsivily to fly from Sacramento after having spoken to me for just a few weeks, and then, let alone, show up at my door step, appealing me to be with him...

SLE in pursuit of a goal wastes no time at all...that's a good rhyme to remember.

[Brilliand]

Yes, perfectly said. Because INFj's seek not only for morals but to give long lasting advise or ideal. Not here and the now of what it will mean but it's overall future of, very encompusing kind of advise (idealistic). The Ni part is for our dual's weak Ni-polr...what will happen, they wonder?

I think and differ on this, though, in a way that places you on the side: Ni says what will actually happen in the future, and the judgment of that comes after you know what will happen (perhaps via - "will this future event be good or bad in an immediate way?"), whereas judges the potential building up, and realizes that it must eventually overflow into life, even if the results aren't directly obvious - "lying now will have a bad effect on the rest of my life, even if I never notice a particular bad experience that results from it."

Hmm...

/ - "I make sacrifices now that will pay off in the end."
/ - "The world is working against me, but I am able to keep ahead of it."

The happiest person would be an / making the switch to / - the best of both worlds, for a little while ("My sacrifices are paying off, and I am actively reaping the benefits"). Switching from / to / ("The world is working against me, and I am making sacrifices") would be miserable indeed. (This paragraph only makes sense under the assumption of type change... it has some interesting consequences for quadra progression, though.)

Rational/Irrational (that is, whether the Irrational function is base or creative) would likely also affect this, though I'm not sure how.

EDIT: Looking back, this contradicts something that I've said in the past... so I doubt the value of this post now.

[Beautiful sky]

I think and differ on this, though, in a way that places you on the side: Ni says what will actually happen in the future, and the judgment of that comes after you know what will happen (perhaps via - "will this future event be good or bad in an immediate way?"), whereas judges the potential building up, and realizes that it must eventually overflow into life, even if the results aren't directly obvious - "lying now will have a bad effect on the rest of my life, even if I never notice a particular bad experience that results from it."

Hmm...

/ - "I make sacrifices now that will pay off in the end."
/ - "The world is working against me, but I am able to keep ahead of it."

The happiest person would be an / making the switch to / - the best of both worlds, for a little while ("My sacrifices are paying off, and I am actively reaping the benefits"). Switching from / to / ("The world is working against me, and I am making sacrifices") would be miserable indeed.

Rational/Irrational (that is, whether the Irrational function is base or creative) would likely also affect this, though I'm not sure how.

Ok, I have no idea of what you're thinking. This must be Te kind of thinking?

[Brilliand]

When I sent a typing request to Rick, I remember telling him a story about the past, which he took to mean Ni primary, which wan't true, I was reliving a story in the past out of frustration for Se...polr. That I was trying to buy a home and no one would help me and I couldn't "force" "request" people's financial assistance; it frustrated me and I was trying to convey this information to him but he didn't get my type right...I don't know how he determine Fe as creative function, I don't remember being any such reference to Fe in my letter to him.

I'd guess he identified you as a Feeler in general, and typed you IEI because IEI is the only base Feeler.

[Beautiful sky]

I'd guess he identified you as a Feeler in general, and typed you IEI because IEI is the only base Feeler.

Well, he didn't read all the coulds, would, will be's in my letter to him.

[Brilliand]

Ok, I have no idea of what you're thinking. This must be Te kind of thinking?

I think it's . Yes, I still consider myself LII. That's just the sort of theoretical meandering that Alpha NTs are prone to - too complex to be a description of current practical knowledge, not complete enough to be a practical new technology (though it has potential, if investigated further).

*Practical may not be the best word... I can't think of anything better right now, though.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

I only read the OP and some of the first page of comments, so sorry if is seems out of place. I liked that you brought up this topic, and I am in general agreement with the idea. I've had my own thoughts on and I disliked how some people took to equal morality. I was hoping you'd extend this to past interacting with people, like how it would apply outside of "morality." Since Socionics is more about information/perception rather than personality traits themselves, the IM elements can be applied to other areas of reality not directly involving other people.

Can you provide some examples? This would be an interesting direction to go into, but I don't really know where I'd start with it.

[Mattie]

I've done this previously, if you're interested in some of my posts I can look for them. Basically, the point is that Ethics are merely an internal function like Intuition, just that it does different things (usually decision-making).

I wouldn't mind a brief summary of your ideas to see if it's along the same thought bubble as mine, or if it'll be distracting from what I'm trying to convey

Can you provide some examples? This would be an interesting direction to go into, but I don't really know where I'd start with it.

I find that there's this imbalance between / and /; Does it really seem "balanced" for a set of information to only pertain to people and another for everything else? Relationships and emotions are rather limited in scope when they are compared against "facts" and "logic." In my thread in Delta, I proposed a more equal relationship: that & pertain to qualitative data, while & relate to quantitative data.

So, basically, I want to see how you personally would apply if you were alone and had no contact with other people. If this was so, according to colloquial definitions of and , you wouldn't be using either of them, since there aren't people around. But since they are aspects of reality, and information, they should apply to other things outside of people and relationships, so I'd like to see your thoughts on that.

[Beautiful sky]

I wouldn't mind a brief summary of your ideas to see if it's along the same thought bubble as mine, or if it'll be distracting from what I'm trying to convey



I find that there's this imbalance between / and /; Does it really seem "balanced" for a set of information to only pertain to people and another for everything else? Relationships and emotions are rather limited in scope when they are compared against "facts" and "logic." In my thread in Delta, I proposed a more equal relationship: that & pertain to qualitative data, while & relate to quantitative data.

So, basically, I want to see how you personally would apply if you were alone and had no contact with other people. If this was so, according to colloquial definitions of and , you wouldn't be using either of them, since there aren't people around. But since they are aspects of reality, and information, they should apply to other things outside of people and relationships, so I'd like to see your thoughts on that.

People, in their application of their functions, will apply them in their daydreaming, in absense of people and relationships in the case of Fi and Fe.

[Mattie]

People, in their application of their functions, will apply them in their daydreaming, in absense of people and relationships in the case of Fi and Fe.

I think that's really reaching, that's more trying to find an excuse for how someone can be thinking of people so the functions are in use rather than achieving a balance in weight between the IEs. My point is, all IEs should apply outside of information between people because they are aspects of reality, not aspects of human relationships.

[Aiss]

Thank you for this thread, silverchris. I see a lot of Fi-valuing like that in myself, especially when it comes to obligations - while I don't demand it or understand the bonds as Fi-types do, it's natural that I pay my debts and expect others to pay theirs. It's not so much that they lose my respect when they don't, more that I don't give them credit anymore, so I'm not taken advantage of (Te >> Fi). I may have reconsider typing of some people I know in this context, too.

Actually Fi types are the ones most likely to make these sort of mistakes, and either they will do something such as assuming two contradictory positions because they cannot let go of one or the other.

The problem of logic is that everyone uses it regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Take your propositions here...

Just because something is logically sound, does not mean that it is actually accurate (this is how I feel about the forum).

Because x, then y and this sort of thinking is inescapable for anyone. But by devaluing and not understanding logic one will constantly use logic in ignorance and blindness and result in inconsistent and contradictory positions.

Paraconsistent logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That sounds apparently as a typical ILI <-> SLE interaction. SLEs make use of all sort of mementos for their theories which appear hasted and poorly thought to ILIs. ILIs can even cut the enthusiasm of ILEs as well sometimes, perceiving them as some sort of surprising dilettantes.

I don't know if Vero is/could be ILI, but I agree the other guy sounds SLE. Either that, or what I understand from the description is not what actually happened. What you say here about ILIs is very true.

/ - "I make sacrifices now that will pay off in the end."
/ - "The world is working against me, but I am able to keep ahead of it."

This.

[Mattie]

i believe Fi would be sorting through the info you've already accumulated (just like Ti would, but very different focus). It's not as if you're in the void when you're not with people, after all. But would you care to explain what specific situation you had in mind? Or at least give an example?

It's not really the situation that matters to me... Maybe I'm chasing off into something that is a false worry. There seems, to me, to be something uneven about logic vs ethics or facts vs emotions. I don't know if this is just something personal or this is off balance.

[Mattie]

do you maybe mean uneven in the sense of not being equally important in processing information?

Yes, like they aren't really really yin and yang. Like, it seems right because there's an ever-present dichotomy of "thinkers vs feelers" in pop psychology, especially theories for between the sexes, and it doesn't really work out information-wise for Socionics.

[Mattie]

why do you think it doesn't work info-wise? They aren't opposites, but the systems they create are based on different foundations all together...

Because Socionics sets up a binary between "logic" and "ethics" along with one between "facts" and "emotions." Or whatever another person would want to substitute for those terms. When you have one, you reject/don't have the other, when you're an -ego type, you don't value and are not proficient at . Some people feel satisfied in saying "Yeah, I can't logically put things together" or "I can't manage any sort of relationship with my own knowledge" (understandably, these are exaggerations, but you know what I'm getting at) so they can embody their type, but that doesn't sit well with me.