They just want their own way.
UPDATE: OR ARE THEY?
They just want their own way.
UPDATE: OR ARE THEY?
Last edited by vesstheastralsilky; 02-06-2019 at 10:07 PM.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Who said they were or any type for that matter? o_O
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It's almost as if they were human beings with strengths and faults. /i
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
There may be wisdom in considering unhealthy characteristics independently of personality type.
Who doesn't want their own way?
If they are conformists, then conforming is their own way...
I agree with ashlesha, types will just try to get their own way with their ego functions so it looks more or less moral. FiSe may stand strong for what they believe right and seem highly moral [key word is seem], while an Si may bail out because confrontation is not what they want, so look like a conformist or a coward. They just don't value the same thing.
Te could to look amoral (or immoral?) because efficiency.
Fi is about preferences but it also manifests as a focus on moral evaluation of people/actions. And of course this doesn't necessarily mean ESIs are more moral.
Not saying you'd necessarily disagree with this point but borrowing your post here to jump off of and play devil's advocate:
Wouldn't a person who spends most of their mental focus on, and evaluates others with something like that, and bases their ego off of it, also typically be more likely to be more moral than average at the very least as well? I'm not saying morally perfect, but when you spend most of your time doing a thing, you tend to be better at it than not. The chances of failure are going to be lower when compared to the average person who doesn't use that skill.
And then to play devil's advocate in the other direction again, I want to point out that often times once a person thinks they're good at something to the point where it's second-nature, they start to become lazy with it. I pretty much think this logic applies to every lead function IE.
Fi is related to something like "morals, conviction". It's not the same as it, but it works as a hint. It has been said before but these are not definitions.
It's because you can't really describe the function itself, so you give "pointers" that guide you closer to the phenomenon.
I know lots of ESIs and I have no problem with this.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Each type has a valued introverted judgement function, so the conformity of people are limited.
There is a lot more to consider, not just functions. Values by upbringing and personal expierence in life, f.i.
Immoral if not properly balanced with an ethical judgement.
If you read Jung he links morals to extroverted types.
If you can't do it yourself so you are left putting pressure onto others.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Only extroverts that value or have as demonstrative function are using force to get something from other people.
Linking morals to extroverted types clearly sounds like bullshit to me.
As a person with 1D Fi and 2D Fe, I have feelings, but I have no idea what to think about them. I don't trust them and I try very hard not to let my feelings affect my actions.
And my morals are pretty situational. However, I'm aware of this and view it as a potential weakness and am therefore looking for input in this area, which I will be happy to consider in the light of rational analysis.
Can 1D Te implement? Therefore can they demand it from others? Therefore they moralize while being amoral themselves.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
If 1D Te is valued, then Te is sought. If 1D Te is not valued, then Te is not trusted. I'm not sure you can extend this to Fi morals.
In any case, I think that Fi is not associated directly with morality. Rather, Fi is purely the assignment of personal value to objects and actions. The assignment of value to an action can be interpreted as being associated with a moral system, but it is not the moral system itself. Nor does it determine the absolute morality of the action, if there even is such a thing.
Who says morals are personal? Jung has interesting views of this in his descriptions.
I think that shaking external balance towards own ends would make things unethical. Which indirectly includes lost of Fi base actions. So if you shoot your own foot constantly you should be clear.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I've looked for an absolute basis for morality for years and I've never found one, outside of "survival of the species".
You can find times and cultures where it is alternately moral and not moral to:
1. Kill people
2. Eat your relatives.
3. Marry your sister.
4. Lie, cheat, and steal,
The list goes on. To assume that your morality is the correct one is to assume that your culture and time and circumstance are the correct ones.
Aside from the subjective feeling that I'm not very assured about how to interpret what I'm feeling, it can be objectively very good. Whether I like someone or don't like them, I tend to treat them the same.
It's like the idea that "All men are created equal". They are not, of course, but they do have equal rights under the law. Ideally, that is.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
"May", "seem", "could look" don't mean "it is".
f.i. = factual information or fucking idiot? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fi
Prolly the latter, I wrote "could to look"...
f.i. = for instance
Morality improves over time, and is therefore objective like any other knowledge and exists independently of any person. To say that morality "comes from" within a person is absurd.
In any culture and any society, morality improves over time. Therefore, everybody's morality will ultimately be wrong and abhorrent. We'd all think people from thousands of years ago were barbaric and abhorrent.
@Adam Strange I just said that because extroverts have more force and extroversion in general, whether or not the morals being enforced are actually good or it's being done effectively or not. That was my impression of what Troll meant too.
Fi is a specific kind of "moral" evaluation though. Specifically it's about how to treat other people in the context of the relationship you have with them. Ti's principles are also a big factor in evaluating morality, just as much as Fi is, one which Fi leads reject. So are Fi leads more likely to treat their close relations with respect, loyalty, devotion, etc.? That's more reasonable to say, but again a big part of it (Fi) is subjective.
I might add that the same thing applies to Ti: Ti egos aren't always more "logical", but they are still focused on logical structure.
Healthy Fi types are inherently more moral in their behavior because that's the way they interpret life. They will fulfill their obligations, be polite with everyone, etc etc just like a healthy Se type will be kinda bossy with everyone but in a way that benefits the whole environment.
Unhealthy Fi types have been nicely described by jung - crazy scheming paraonoids who can justify the worst actions in themselves just because others are'evil'
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
@sbbds, I can see understand your argument. I was objecting to Jung’s association of morals with extroverted types. On a fundamental level, I just can’t see that.
Anyway, @FDG just wrote a definitive post on morals and ESI’s. (As did @consentingadult.)
In retrospect, I am adjusting my model of types among people I know. I think I accidentally started typing SLEs as ESIs. I am going to delete my ESI celeb suggestions to make the correction.
Last edited by vesstheastralsilky; 02-07-2019 at 09:04 AM.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Not really no lole. Leave that to EIIs.
I think this is why sometimes ESIs are pinned as hypocritical. If it's inside the realm of preferences and interests, that's when I can get uppity but that's just me.
It also would depend on the environment one is raised in and abounds no? I wouldn't consider myself as known for being a morally righteous person, nor would I do that for other ESIs. If something, I think duty and overrides morals or at least what people perceive Fi to be.
I feel like despite the transition from MBTI to Socionics (lol that sounded weird), some people still think Fi means being a flowery person who is ultra sensitive.
Calling Fi "ethics" in English Socionics terminology has led people to focus wrongly on a phenomenon that is determined by all the information elements. "Feeling" is actually a better word for Fi and Fe. Its associations are closer to the actual reality of Fi and Fe.
Example:
Te dominant types are often unaware of their personal feelings (Fi) determining their judgment outside of their conscious awareness. They sincerely believe their judgment is the result of an objective process and are unaware of the influence.
Ti dominant types are unaware of how the emotion they receive from the external environment determines their process of logic or perceptions of categories. They think they are acting based on an impetus that is entirely internal and within themselves when in reality the external feedback they receive emotionally from other people determines their thought.
The reason for the mis-association of Fi with morality is the gravity that people attribute to Fi types. People usually associate gravity and severity with morality.
Fi is just personal internal feeling that isn't exposed openly. Fi types can appear serious to Fe types because of the lack of emotional feedback Fi valuers tend to supply when those types have spent a lot of time in egosyntonic environments.
Last edited by Aramas; 02-07-2019 at 09:05 PM.
They look so for Te types, at least. They irrationally inspire higher ethical/moral trust to them and are more restrained from acting "badly" for the taste of Fi/Te types.
Also all F types understand better a morality and hence may behave to look better in this. Fi types try to be more pleasant, Fe to be more respectable - this is linked with morally good behavior. People having differing valued Fi/Fe may to have worse perception of their actions, - it's not objective partly.
I agree. Socionics doesn't treat Fi like how Jung described it. I think Fi and Fe are on a scale of emotional expression, with Fi being emotion that is very strong, but not expressed and Fe being strong emotion that is openly expressed. Fi types don't like to openly express their emotions. Pretty simple concept really that has become "ethics of relations", which really sounds like some Ti bullshit.
There is a scale. That part is correct. The introverted elements have a split with the intensity of information they can handle. Introverted elements can process information in a dual state manner, both passive and active. In the passive state, they process information more slowly than the extroverted counterpart, as in Fi vs. Fe. There are moments, though, when the introverted element switches to an active state and processes information much more quickly than the extroverted element can comprehend, and the introverted element makes a "quantum leap" of understating and exerts force much stronger than the extroverted element would. This active state can only be maintained for a short period of time.
So the emotional aspect of Fi is usually more subdued and subtle in most cases. But, rarely, it can be really really intense and even show itself openly. The introverted elements in themselves can't handle the usual extroverted intensity. They have to withhold and save up, so to speak, before making a large expenditure.
As I've said before, the introverted elements have the nature of yin, and the extroverted of yang.
Last edited by Aramas; 02-08-2019 at 04:17 AM.