Fi vs Ni vs Ti and their relationship towards moralism/social justice

[Muddy]

In my opinion there is huge amount of Beta/Delta mistypes amongst members on this forum due to a misunderstanding of this topic and I want to get to the bottom of this. Fi leads often get associated with being social justice warriors on this forum, but now I'm starting to think that the Ghandi/Martin Luther King brand of moralism has got a lot more to do with Ti and Ni then it does Fi. The general consensus for the types of those two is IEI for Ghandi and EIE for MLK. This places them in beta quadra which does not value Fi. How then could Fi be moralism when those two didn't even value Fi? The obvious answer is that Fi is not necessarily about having morals.

I would argue that having "code of morals" is more Ti then it is Fi. If Ti seeks systemic perfection, then it stands to reason that a Ti ego would at some point seek a create or adhere to a perfect systematic code of behavior, just as they would seek to perfect any other theory of concept. This conflicts with Te because Te views it as impractical to try to make everything perfect, that it is better to focus on making sure all the essentials are sufficiently met rather then pouring all that effort towards perfecting one thing. Valuing of Te means valuing of Fi, and thus you can begin to see where Ti and Fi differ.

Ni could also play into this, since Ni is detached from the immediate surroundings are may seek to do things on global level. Being a self-sacrificing agent of moral global change would require some disregard for physical pleasures. Alphas would only be able campaign for social justice for as far as it doesn't limit their pleasures, while Betas will be happy to go all-in.


I really want to see what everybody's opinion on this is.

[Chae]

Yes, I second this. Good post! Social justice fits into Beta because they are the quadra opposed to society as it is (Te), there is a spirit of wanting to turn everything around by 180°. I've read that Beta feels like the rebellious teenage years, struggling to make a change, not accepting, not swallowing everything you're fed because you're so sick of it. That backs up your notions of systemic perfection. What I want to add is, Delta social justice is more about keeping things as they are harmonious, adjusting something efficiently without changing the entirety.

Delta never goes to the core. Beta does, the Malcolm X way (idk about his type). Fi quadras would rather stick to accepted concepts of what is right and wrong, not willing to challenge the status quo. That's why I strongly believe that most feminist/anti-racist/LGBT movements etc with radical ideas (radical comes from the word radix, the root - ditto) are more Beta NF than Delta NF.

[Saoirse]

What OP wrote about Ti morality strongly reminds me of the arguments that my Te valuing friends get into with my LII friend. For example, the LII just started TAing this semester and tried to create a rigid, correct set of grading rules that apply to all students with no exceptions. He felt incredibly dismayed when reasonable exceptions presented themselves and everyone thought he should loosen up (the professor made him do so in the end). He always tries to create some kind of blanket morality that really consternates the rest of us. Well, except his IEI roommate, who listens patiently.

At the same time, he doesn't have the vision/ambition/drive (Ni/Se) to SJW. He likes stability and comfort, as you say. So he is very consistent with OP's theory.

... Delta social justice is more about keeping things as they are harmonious, adjusting something efficiently without changing the entirety.

I think that, on average, it is true that Delta social justice is more likely to work within the system than Beta social justice, but enneagram/instincts affect things such that some individuals may not fit this. My EII sx/so friend is all about the revolution. Also, while it may not sound glamorous, it's quite possible that the average Delta SJW has more of an impact than the average Beta SJW, though the most impactful Beta SJW might have an impact that is an order of magnitude more impactful than the most impactful Delta SJW.

I also want to point out that there is some difference between morality and SJWing. Gandhi is a controversial historical figure, and even MLK had his indiscretions. They did catalyze systemic, vital change at huge personal cost, but whether they were good people is debatable.

Fi is all about understanding other people's perspectives, so Fi leads would be quite hesitant to impose their own views of goodness on others, knowing that others' views of goodness are different and believing that there is no objectively more true view. This form of morality stands in stark contrast with that of an Fe ego--e.g., Gandhi thought that Jews had the moral duty to peacefully accept being killed by Nazis.

I don't think one is better than the other--every sociotype has its role in our world's ecosystem--but I just wanted to provide the Fi viewpoint since we're currently in a bit of a Beta NF glamorizing mode.

[Pookie]

Its kinda a tough topic to really go into because theres alot of variables. As an iei I value ni and ti, and fi demonstrative has a tremendous impact on actions chosen. Untangling that knot of what comes from where is like trying to untangle a knot. You may untangle it, but the form is different than what you analyzed in the first place, the knot.

For what its worth, I think my ethical decisions are heavily geared towards long term benefit. Good actions create good consequences, and even if they dont, the bad consequences are still mitigated, as good actions are defined (to me) by the consequences. This leads to that. Thats good, do this. This leads to that, thats bad, dont do it. Etc... Very in the vein of -ni.
However Ti is involved, as it focuses the Fe from scattershot fuckery to a narrower range that is desired. Consistency in parenting leads to the child developing an internal value system, that is good. If someone doesnt have that, they can have personality disorders as an adult, that isnt what I want for my kid. Regardless of how I feel, I must be consistent. Ti. Rigid code.
Fi still trumps it though. My consistency must be paramount, but them feeling loved and safe is still more important than my consistency. If I waiver I must waiver on consistency. Fi. Logic of weight. Value judgement.

All three can be moral, shit, all 8 can probably be. But I think Fi gets that rap because morality is really an issue of judging weight. Whats most important for *this person in particular*? As most actions involving ethics are done at a micro level, the person to person interactions.

[Muddy]

All three can be moral, shit, all 8 can probably be. But I think Fi gets that rap because morality is really an issue of judging weight. Whats most important for *this person in particular*? As most actions involving ethics are done at a micro level, the person to person interactions.

This is what I think too. Fi's ethical judgments are more of a response towards another's visible and actively occurring behavior, while Ti applies ethical judgments in a more general, universal way.

I think this instinctual attunement towards the behavior of oneself and others in Fi types can be best seen by comparing Fi leads to Fi polrs. Fi leads are hyper-attunded while Fi polrs are blind in this aspect. The creates discomfort between them because to the Fi lead the Fi polr type appears as a wild and crazy monkey with zero self-awareness. ESI in this situation would seek retaliation, while EII would seek a far-away corner.

[Pookie]

This is what I think too. Fi's ethical judgments are more of a response towards another's visible and actively occurring behavior, while Ti applies ethical judgments in a more general, universal way.

That would put them more in the realm of morals, rather than ethics.

[The Exception]

What OP wrote about Ti morality strongly reminds me of the arguments that my Te valuing friends get into with my LII friend. For example, the LII just started TAing this semester and tried to create a rigid, correct set of grading rules that apply to all students with no exceptions. He felt incredibly dismayed when reasonable exceptions presented themselves and everyone thought he should loosen up (the professor made him do so in the end). He always tries to create some kind of blanket morality that really consternates the rest of us. Well, except his IEI roommate, who listens patiently.

I used to TA and I was alot like this. To me it was about fairness. It's not fair when students keep trying to bend the rules at the expense of everyone else. For example, some student had 3 weeks to do an assignment which I think is quite a generous amount of time to begin with and insists they should get an extension. Sometimes the student has a major extenuating circumstance that would justify that, but often it would just be due to their own poor time management skills. If I give that student an extension, I have to give everybody one. Or some student was really upset about their test score- the student claimed she studied very hard and got a poor grade. She demands a retest. Once again, I would have to give everyone the opportunity to do a retest, plus it would be a burden for me to rewrite a whole new test and grade it all over again.

It's hard to know who is being sincere about some extenuating circumstance that causes them to not complete their work or perform poorly and who is just trying to take advantage of me to try to bend the rules in their favor.

Even when exceptions are made, which I am willing to do if there is a good reason, there is still some voice in my head that wonders how the exceptions themselves can truly be fair. If someone asks to take an exam later than the scheduled date, then they could have an unfair advantage over other students by having more time to study or hearing through the grapevine about other students taking the test, getting a 'sneak preview' of the questions. I could write a whole new test for that student, but that's very time-consuming and how do I know it would be the exact same level of difficulty as the other one.

At the same time, he doesn't have the vision/ambition/drive (Ni/Se) to SJW. He likes stability and comfort, as you say. So he is very consistent with OP's theory.

I could SJW, but it would have to be something I felt very strongly about and be reasonably confident I could get people on my side, to listen to my message. Overall, I tend to let my needs to stability comfort, and harmony with others override that.

I think that, on average, it is true that Delta social justice is more likely to work within the system than Beta social justice, but enneagram/instincts affect things such that some individuals may not fit this. My EII sx/so friend is all about the revolution. Also, while it may not sound glamorous, it's quite possible that the average Delta SJW has more of an impact than the average Beta SJW, though the most impactful Beta SJW might have an impact that is an order of magnitude more impactful than the most impactful Delta SJW.

I think delta SJW are more likely to within the system than betas are. Regarding impact, I'm not sure. Beta Fe/Se valuing might bring the element of charisma in, which is certainly a help in being impactful. But Deltas because they are more within the accepted system and not as 'shocking' might be more acceptable at first and make more impact earlier on. But I'm not sure about this, it would depend on the context of the situation, I think.

I also want to point out that there is some difference between morality and SJWing. Gandhi is a controversial historical figure, and even MLK had his indiscretions. They did catalyze systemic, vital change at huge personal cost, but whether they were good people is debatable.

Can you elaborate more on the indiscretions of these people? I may sound ignorant here and I'm not much of a history buff, but all I've heard about these people were good things they've done, not the dark side.

Fi is all about understanding other people's perspectives, so Fi leads would be quite hesitant to impose their own views of goodness on others, knowing that others' views of goodness are different and believing that there is no objectively more true view. This form of morality stands in stark contrast with that of an Fe ego--e.g., Gandhi thought that Jews had the moral duty to peacefully accept being killed by Nazis.

I think this might be true more for delta Fi than for gamma Fi. Delta Fi- Fi+Ne sees the different possible viewpoints, how they can all be potentially good. Also because delta doesn't value Se, they are not so 'imposing' with their views and more live-and-let-live. Gamma Fi on the other hand is more likely to be rather harsh and imposing with their Fi. They are more likely to see 'right is right' and impose their view and less likely to see or consider other ways of being 'good.' This is because of valued Se and unvalued Ne.

When you say that Gandhi thought that Jews had the moral duty to peacefully 'accept' being killed by Nazis, how is this Fe related? I don't quite understand. Why would anyone have the duty to accept being killed? People have a self-preservation instinct and most of us will try to survive if we can. I can understand people dying for their ideals or what they believe in if they choose to do so, but I don't think people should be under any obligation to die if they don't want to. I am anti-violence but maybe I'm not the total pacifist that Gandhi is made out to be because I think violence is justified as a last-resort, in the case of self-defense.

Okay, maybe this is the 'dark side' of Gandhi, you were mentioning. When someone says a group has the 'moral duty' to accept being killed, well that does sound very cold and unfeeling towards the Jews. They have a right to believe what they want to believe *and* survive just like everyone else.

I don't think one is better than the other--every sociotype has its role in our world's ecosystem--but I just wanted to provide the Fi viewpoint since we're currently in a bit of a Beta NF glamorizing mode.

Yes, exactly.

[Grendel]

"Social Justice Warrior" is a tongue-in-cheek term used to describe hypocritical and/or self-righteous behaviors supposedly done in the name of social justice. It applies to things like Facebook slacktivism, absorption with identity politics, attempts to narrow serious intellectual discourse to avoid offending anyone's sensibilities, protesting political actions that have no official record of having ever happened, etc. It does not refer to legitimate movements or individuals that have actually expanded social justice or civil liberties.

Significant historical figures like Ghandi and MLK are not SJWs. Utter lack of any serious individual impact on society in the long run, positive or negative, is part of what defines an SJW.



Personally, I was always convinced that strong Ti (broad scope, maximizing positive outcome in the long term, regardless of short-term collateral damage) lent itself to more of a Consequentialist mindset, with strong Fi (links individuals innately to "good" or "evil," resulting in a focus on the intent of an action rather than the outcome) being more Deontological.

[Shazaam]

Alioth: well SJW is a reclaimed phrase. It started out pejoratively, but people have wore the badge as a state of honor. It has not been effective recently because of backlash- and too much, too soon. First black president, all anti-sodomy laws vanquished, marriage equality across all 50 states. Anti-bullying legislation in schools, safe spaces in college campuses. Transgenders getting recognition about their issues in the media. The new Ghostbusters movie having on all female cast. This royally pissed off the average redneck str8 white bully dickwad. It has been a big 'fuck you breeders' bunch of 8 years. And now the ******'s reign is coming to a close and the str8 man shall rise again.

And it was all so quite forceful, awkward and in your face. We had already won most of the social wars, but we had to keep rubbing it in people's faces about it. Which made the moderates cringe, and then they chose not to get in on the SJW bandwagon. The hatred/backslash started on the internet and spread like wildfire- and thus Clinton playing the SJW card during one of her speeches during the debates was absolutely the worst card she could have played. And she stupidly played it anyway. The redneck str8 man fought back.

I realized that- as much as some of my friends will hate/disapprove me for it, I am a SJW. It's part of being called a ******, effeminate, sucking at sports- all being insulted by the mainstream and just well owning it. And choosing dignity over cruelty.

Though I am a SJW to blacks and gays mostly.

[Simo]

I think Fe tries to align other people's behaviors to Ti code of ethics, so you get the "social justice warriors"
whereas, Te tries manifest Fi values through art or whatever media they use, so you get the "rebels"

So as you can see external judgment (Fe/Te) is what try to impact the external world and since Te doesn't focus on people, it doesn't care if they share its Fi values but will fight if someone tries to prevent it from expressing Fi

As for Ni I think it only gives a vision of the better future if Ti code of ethics were globally applied which make Fe fight harder to make that vision a reality

[Muddy]

Alioth: well SJW is a reclaimed phrase. It started out pejoratively, but people have wore the badge as a state of honor. It has not been effective recently because of backlash- and too much, too soon. First black president, all anti-sodomy laws vanquished, marriage equality across all 50 states. Anti-bullying legislation in schools, safe spaces in college campuses. Transgenders getting recognition about their issues in the media. The new Ghostbusters movie having on all female cast. This royally pissed off the average redneck str8 white bully dickwad. It has been a big 'fuck you breeders' bunch of 8 years. And now the ******'s reign is coming to a close and the str8 man shall rise again.

And it was all so quite forceful, awkward and in your face. We had already won most of the social wars, but we had to keep rubbing it in people's faces about it. Which made the moderates cringe, and then they chose not to get in on the SJW bandwagon. The hatred/backslash started on the internet and spread like wildfire- and thus Clinton playing the SJW card during one of her speeches during the debates was absolutely the worst card she could have played. And she stupidly played it anyway. The redneck str8 man fought back.

I realized that- as much as some of my friends will hate/disapprove me for it, I am a SJW. It's part of being called a ******, effeminate, sucking at sports- all being insulted by the mainstream and just well owning it. And choosing dignity over cruelty.

Though I am a SJW to blacks and gays mostly.

I really got to say this post really hit the nail the on the head when it comes to explaining the trend this country has been on for the past 8 years. Your post does a super good job of demonstrating a Beta NF's sense of global awareness and concern for the paths we are taking.