.
.
Last edited by Skepsis; 02-16-2019 at 12:18 PM. Reason: changed my level of certainty because it has changed
The only type that is inherently moral is the INTp, and only because we're sane tryhard perfectionists. I'll stop meming now. Also, that's if you ignore the prostitution.
Last edited by Alomoes; 02-16-2019 at 08:40 PM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
I think as an argument the concept of moral-licensing or self-licensing would be interesting. https://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/mo...-make-you-bad/
This is only objective insofar as I'm using myself as a barometer and I think type is bs anyway...but in this thread I keep seeing Fi described as quiet/unexpressed feelings and I think that's not quite right if said feelings are happiness, sadness etc. for any reason. I don't think Fi types have stronger feelings than other people in general that just aren't expressed, that seems crazy. I think Fi does associate itself with things like preferences. Attitudes. Consistent feeling-based inclinations. Aversions. Values, even if they're personal and idiosyncratic or inconsistent or situation-dependent, leading to hypocrisy. How do I feel about X over time, what's my attitude towards X when I see it again? Not just how do I feel right now. Which would make Fi base types more predictable, I guess, if the particular inclination you've discovered in them holds across spheres as much as you think? Lol, but not more moral because the inclination could be to eat babies or something. Maybe only on Tuesdays though.
No type has cornered the market on morality. Now, Fi-types do tend to act in a moralistic way even when what they're doing is far from moral. All types usually want it their own way but most are willing to compromise, including ESIs. Most Ij-types (and Eps) tend to think that they hold the high ground with respect to their rationalization whereas Ejs and Ips tend to think that they 'know' best - it's all about ego. I've seen copies of all types with high moral fibre and other copies, the scum of the earth.......
a.k.a. I/O
Yeah, I think if we're talking about healthy types, Fi egos have the ingrained sensitivity to take in an emotional understanding of other people and have a lot more potential to form positive relations from this. Good Fi is awesome. And that in itself leads to a kind of charm and consideration of other people that becomes its own kind of ethic - something that Ti ego types can't really logic their way through.
To everyone else,
IMO anyway; I don't really get the hardcore Fi bashing as some kind of self-indulgent narcissistic mental process. In my experience anyway, if an Fi ego lashes out, it's usually because they feel hurt or victimized or something like that (whether it's even true or not which aligns with Jung's idea of paranoia and such), which is a far cry from selfishly following emotional whims and desires that just disregard other people. Maybe that applies more to weak Fi valuing types and unvalued Fi types.
But I just don't think that's specifically Fi cause some of the cruelest most self-indulgent people I've known in my life have been Fe egos anyway.
the interesting example of possible ESI
Grace Slick
The topic of morality is mostly a parlor game of philosophers, jurists, and theologians. Anybody talking at length about it probably isn't Fi ego.
Some are (speaking of my aunt); they are more about relations (maintaining their close relationships)
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
ESI's are so sexy. Gotta love that morality
Fi types are not more moral in the sense that they are automatically "Better" people. The main difference between Fi and others is that they just think about it more. Ti types also think about justice and laws and etc. but they are more concerned about general laws. Fi is more nuanced. A Ti type is more fit for drier legal system that deal only in absolute equality. an Fi type is more fit for nuances like friendships or therapy or the "warm fuzzies" of morals. but any type can be morally upright or askance, but Fi/Ti types consider their own views moreso then the other 12.
“I just received this email. I’m gonna fudge that beeatch up when she gets home. I told her she’s a reflection of me when she’s out in the world and don’t make me look bad. These are not the kind of morals I want them to show to others. These behaviors are not ok. We’ve already talked about her messing up. When they are out there they better behave.”
The aggression, the type of parenting; the lack of expression in the soft kind of love is just beyond me.
Also tough love is not in my own books
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
The image orientation bit is what sounds disturbed to me. I wonder where you're from if no one has joked with you like this, either. Hell, coworkers and I even joke this way, it's not uncommon whatsoever. It's common to jokingly call someone derogatory slurs--slut, skank, bitch, etc. Some words can't be used lightheartedly (such as dumbass--well, it can, but I don't personally do it), but there are some that can. When we are playing games together, my friends and I greet each other by making our characters slap each other repeatedly. "Fuck you, hoe" is our way of saying "I love you."
The ESI morality is basically karma, but they're not usually big on empathy.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
Ehh, I don't subscribe to that theory, but you're entitled to what you want to believe.
I used to have a coworker that--whenever he got pissed off, he got on everyone else's nerves, and then I would get annoyed from having to listen to everyone bitch and complain about him. I used to play with him roughly like that all the time, and it got him in a better mood. Then I wouldn't have to hear everyone's griping and complaining all night, lol. (I hate listening to constant negativity.) It'd be such dumb shit, though...like he goes to set a tray down and I act like I'm offended and wanna fight him about it, lmao. So stupid. I know no one took it seriously because we were both obviously smiling during it, but I'd probably think it was funny if someone had.
Idk, personally, I'm empathetic to a fault...until you get on my bad side, and then you get the exact opposite. Most people would just say that cliche, "I can either be your best friend or your worst nightmare." I think it applies to me more than most people in the sense that I'm more willing to go to greater extremes on both ends of the spectrum. Risked my life to help someone I knew for 2 weeks, can't watch gore/horror (I over-empathize), or shows like "Squid Game" without having a complete meltdown (crying my eyes out, etc) about how fucked up it was that it was the most popular show at the time, and that people could actually watch it and enjoy it...but if some twat molests a child or surgically adds a USB port into a cat's back, I can easily be sadistic toward that motherfucker in defense of them myself. Don't fuck with the innocent/defenseless.
I don't believe Fi = empathy. (Empathy is where morality comes from.)
EDIT:
I will say, though, I've never just deliberately fucked someone over without provocation. The ways I've harmed others have always been either A) Accidental due to the fact that I have human faults/errors, or B) Deliberate in response to something horrible the person did...usually me defending/seeking vengeance for someone else, rather than seeking revenge for something done against myself.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-01-2023 at 03:10 AM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Just to chip in and say I've never joked like this with anyone either nor have almost all the friends I've had throughout life done this.
I've had people make rougher jokes like this with me but it always made me uncomfortable. It makes me feel as if they might hurt me or they mean the things they said.
Chronic "grass is always greener" syndrome
Now that tornadoes have passed...
I tend to feel people out, get to know their sensitivities first, etc. I dont joke this way when first meeting someone. If I joke with them in that way, it's a sign of being close and /or familiar.
I'm uncomfortable with anyone I can't be sort of rough with. I feel like I can't relax and let my guard down with them, and like they might easily get offended by something I accidentally say.
Guilty
I mean, I know that has been true of me in the past, but I hate generalizations about types. Personally, these days, I've matured enough to not get like this in my personal relationships. It's just toxic and unacceptable to be like that regardless of who you are. I'm honestly even cleaning my act up on the forums, and that is where I've been the worst behaved.
Everyone has their own personal values, maturity levels, and standards. I would hate for someone to assume someone is like this just because they get the Gamma SF label slapped onto them.
I don’t think I have any rigid ones beyond not inflicting unnecessary emotional/physical harm. I think more in terms of consequences and self-preservation than morality
Last edited by Averroes; 06-26-2023 at 10:11 PM.
Everyone on this thread is overlooking one key detail: morality is subjective. So, do ESI's just want our own way? In a sense, yes--but that's because our values (just as anyone's) are completely subjective. Our values (just like anyone's) can also change throughout time by way of experiences, perspectives, insights, thoughts, and feelings. Those things may cause the morality to either evolve, or DEvolve.
In theory, when an ESI becomes corrupted, it's probably because they feel morally justified to do what they're doing, based on warped worldviews, etc. For instance, they may see themselves as punishers exacting vengeance upon those who are corrupt, unjust, and so on (which is why ESI's can be E8's).
Just because you view them as immoral, doesn't mean they aren't adhering to their own individualistic set of morals. That's part of what Fi even is, it goes its own path more, instead of synchronizing emotionally with others by way of a shared emotional atmosphere. It's kind of like this story about a tiger who began hunting humans out of vengeance for what humans had done to her, as tigers are one of the few animals that will actually seek revenge.
Skip to 14:31 for the story I'm referring to. She killed more than 400 people, and she was referred to her as "The Devil of India." When they finally captured and killed her, the wounds on her body made it clear she was more of a victim than a villain. While she was probably just acting upon pure fear-based aggression as her reason for targeting humans, for the sake of the morality comparison I'll say this as though she was acting upon moral conscience: in the tiger's mind (if she had motives based on morality), her actions were completely morally justified. Transfer that to ESI--you get...an ESI who is in an unhealthy state and thus acting in ways others consider immoral.
Sooooo...in answer to this question, it's not one or the other. It's both--except, there's an underlying false premise there, which is in the words, "inherently more moral." Define more moral? This phrasing suggests there is some kind of comparison to a baseline, but said baseline is merely predicated upon what society considers okay or acceptable--that which is broadly agreed upon or looked on favorably by society. So, really, there's no objective criteria to which the ESI's morality is able to be compared. It's just their own ideas of what seems moral to them at that point in their lives.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 06-26-2023 at 10:12 PM.
if Fi moral is completely subjective, then how do we relate it back to the society? every function has a use. so what is the use of Fi? it does help the individual, but Aushra was saying how ethical TIMs help logical TIMs connect to huamn society. the descriptions say Fi types are useful for being there for other people, and defending "what is right". but if theres so much variation, where is the intrinsic value of the function?
Morals are not always subjetive. ESI morals might be, but ESE or EII morals (which are more appropiate probably to be labeled 'ethics' — they're fundamented on empathy) have an objetive flair to it.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"