Please help me nail down my right type! (Video and Questionnaire included for your typing pleasure)

[SSAJacobsen]

If I were to ask you which of the following two statements are more prominent to yourself, could you pick one?





And what exactly do you mean by "negotiated" in the following sentence? Do you not think that the sense of morality is innate in humans?

Right. chosing between the two quotes is almost impossible for me, so I asked my best friend and my sister. My best friend (Who is most likely ILE) said that the first one describes me best, even though the second is also good. My sister (Who may be EIE) also told me the first one was the most precise. So it has to be:

"However, I am good at influencing people by saying the right things the right way. I try to use my knowledge to come up with meaningful solutions to their problems, while changing/manipulating their mood and mentality in the process."


Ugh, did I really say negotiated - Now I am literally starting to sound like the texts I spend most of my day reading.
What I mean by negotiated though, is that they are something that are decided by groups of people in specific cultures, to best fit their needs. Therefore they are relative and definitely not universal. While everyone has a given set of morals that might vary, they stem from a cultural context in which the morals have already been negotiated. So you are not born with them, and they aren't innate. But they are internalised (made personal) from society at a young age when learning to speak and think in a language. Therefore can seem like they are innate to some. However they are very bound (And therefore also limited) upon this language, and our culture and norms.
For instance, all us westernes have a fairly similar definition of freedom. This is because it has ground in a collective cultural understanding. Yet if you discuss freedom in Africa or the Middle East, the word and the concept behind it means something completely different to them (Due to a cultural difference). This leads to misunderstanding as the word (And moral) itself has a different meanings and interpretations, based on their relative cultural values.
So morals, ethics, rules, norms etc. are all constructions of our language. They have no actual objective structure or force behind the. It only seems that way because they are reproduced by society and individuals alike.

[Park]

Right. chosing between the two quotes is almost impossible for me, so I asked my best friend and my sister. My best friend (Who is most likely ILE) said that the first one describes me best, even though the second is also good. My sister (Who may be EIE) also told me the first one was the most precise.

So they both see more Fe than Te valuing in you.

Ugh, did I really say negotiated - Now I am literally starting to sound like the texts I spend most of my day reading.
What I mean by negotiated though, is that they are something that are decided by groups of people in specific cultures, to best fit their needs. Therefore they are relative and definitely not universal. While everyone has a given set of morals that might vary, they stem from a cultural context in which the morals have already been negotiated. So you are not born with them, and they aren't innate. But they are internalised (made personal) from society at a young age when learning to speak and think in a language. Therefore can seem like they are innate to some. However they are very bound (And therefore also limited) upon this language, and our culture and norms.
For instance, all us westernes have a fairly similar definition of freedom. This is because it has ground in a collective cultural understanding. Yet if you discuss freedom in Africa or the Middle East, the word and the concept behind it means something completely different to them (Due to a cultural difference). This leads to misunderstanding as the word (And moral) itself has a different meanings and interpretations, based on their relative cultural values.
So morals, ethics, rules, norms etc. are all constructions of our language. They have no actual objective structure or force behind the. It only seems that way because they are reproduced by society and individuals alike.

Morals should be decided to fit people's needs? That's trippy, dude. And unless you believe in an omnipotent god (which you don't), morals have to be innate in our species. If you grow up in a fucked up community, it doesn't mean you'll inherit it's moral values. And you don't have to have any "collective cultural understanding" to not be a sociopath.

[SSAJacobsen]

So they both see more Fe than Te valuing in you.




Morals should be decided to fit people's needs? That's trippy, dude. And unless you believe in an omnipotent god (which you don't), morals have to be innate in our species. If you grow up in a fucked up community, it doesn't mean you'll inherit it's moral values. And you don't have to have any "collective cultural understanding" to not be a sociopath.

Needs was probably not very specific. I am no utilitarian. But based on the societies relative values. Also, this is not me describing how I think morals should be, but rather how I think they are.

No they don't have to. I believe that they are continiously produced by a dialectic interaction between individuals and their contexts. However, no two individuals have the same premises, and are continiously influenced by their enviroments and likewise able reflect upon them. I'm not talking micro perspectives here, but rather trying to explain how language shapes and determines the settings and frame from which we can create and understand our worlviews and morals.
So I don't deny individual differentation. Not at all. But I don't view this as something we are born with, but rather something we create. Existence precedes essence. So what I argue, is that this differentiation is made from a relational interaction (Relational here constituting not only in relation to other people, but also relation to one self, through introspection), rather than a by biological pre-existing determining factor. A small bit of your personality can be biologically constituted, but it is a generally accepted fact within modern psychology, that over 70% of your behaviour is context dependent. So if you grow up in a fucked up community, you don't have to inherent it's values. But the fucked up community sets the limitations from which you can understand and define your worldview, which means you shape yourself within the frames of your own understanding of that context. So basically I believe that every individual exists within a context, and removing him or her from it, makes every observation that is made about him or her meaningless.

If you are familiar with french philosopher Michel Foucault and his work about ethics, it is largely from him that I draw my opinions and viewpoints on the matter. He has made many historical analyses about how our values, norms and morals are shaped and normalised throughout history.

[JuJu]

By way of your type... Your video, when you talked about hierarchy and stereotypes, brought to mind a consensus reached by some of this forum's betas about five years ago (myself included.)

I might've told you differently back then, but during these intervening years, various obstacles made clear that beta values don't necessarily equal the (indiscriminate) embrace of hierarchies or championing of stereotypes.

Beta values confer an implicit awareness of power hierarchies, and attentiveness to them, (whether that morphs into love, loathing, or disregard for a particular hierarchy fluctuates from person-to-person.) In other words, it's that the Ti + Se was in the front of your mind, on the tip of your tongue - and not deep in the recesses - that reveals you to be (in all likelihood) Beta.

Also, stereotyping -- for betas, this process serves a purpose similar to the shorthand used by the secretaries of our grandparents' generation -- to take quick, incisive notes -- as opposed to the current definition that connotes shallow, sloppy thinking. In other words, you might relate more to beta values when they're written by a beta - most often they're not.

From what you've communicated, your Sociotype: a variant of Ni-INFp. (Even within the subtypes of each type, there are several variants that come up again and again.)

[SSAJacobsen]

By way of your type... Your video, when you talked about hierarchy and stereotypes, brought to mind a consensus reached by some of this forum's betas about five years ago (myself included.)

I might've told you differently back then, but during these intervening years, various obstacles made clear that beta values don't necessarily equal the (indiscriminate) embrace of hierarchies or championing of stereotypes.

Beta values confer an implicit awareness of power hierarchies, and attentiveness to them, (whether that morphs into love, loathing, or disregard for a particular hierarchy fluctuates from person-to-person.) In other words, it's that the Ti + Se was in the front of your mind, on the tip of your tongue - and not deep in the recesses - that reveals you to be (in all likelihood) Beta.

Also, stereotyping -- for betas, this process serves a purpose similar to the shorthand used by the secretaries of our grandparents' generation -- to take quick, incisive notes -- as opposed to the current definition that connotes shallow, sloppy thinking. In other words, you might relate more to beta values when they're written by a beta - most often they're not.

From what you've communicated, your Sociotype: a variant of Ni-INFp. (Even within the subtypes of each type, there are several variants that come up again and again.)

Hmmm, that's an interesting perspective! Especially since it could actually explain some of the more grey areas in my relation to the quadra overall, and it makes perfect sense as well.
I would be very interested in a Betas perspective on their quadra. Think I'm gonna go over to the Beta forums and lurk a bit for now.

[Sumocurse]

Maybe isfj. Introverted. Feeling.