ESIs/ISFjs are not inherently more moral.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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?

The way I think about this is that collective (shared by a group) isn't the same as objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, and representing facts). There is definitely such thing as shared/collective morality, but there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is based on people's empathy, opinions, subjective views, beliefs, etc., so by its very definition, it's impossible for it to be objective. Just because they're shared doesn't mean they're factually or objectively right; it only means there is a shared consensus amongst people, which forms a group of collective views. Just think about the trans movement (not trying to drift into that topic, though): regardless of what your personal views are, if you step back and look at it, it's clearly a battle between two (or more) opposing collective views of morality. If there was an objective morality, we probably wouldn't have all the conflicts and debates surrounding it. So, as I said: collective isn't objective, which is why there is so much opposition.

Another example is if you look at the Jewish Holocaust: there were many people who believed they were honestly doing the right thing, because Hit.ler had influenced people so much that he warped people's views. Yet, most people think Hit.ler deserves to be ass-raped by pineapples in hell for the rest of eternity. My point here is that when people aren't healthy (Hit.ler, in this instance), cruelty can seem like justified and morally righteous acts--even what I said about Hit.ler deserving to be ass-raped by pineapples for eternity is an example of that. The justice system exemplifies that, also; death penalty for serial killers, and so forth. There must be balance in this world, so that ability humans have to shift into acts of cruelty being seen as morally good, does have its place and purpose in life...it has its role...without it, the serial killers would be allowed to run free with no consequences. It's just that, every now and then, that ability to shift views that way comes from an unhealthy place, instead (as it did with Hit.ler). I mean, in Hit.ler's mind, he was exacting revenge after feeling injured by the Jews--but obviously, his views came from an extremely imbalanced and unhealthy place.

Now, it could be argued that there is an objective quality based on cause and effect (which, like @Averroes, I also tend to look at life through a lot). Yet, even to this, I would still argue that different qualities, values, and stances, possess value in their own varying roles throughout life. One person who has a difficult time firing people (high agreeableness) might see it as unethical to ENJOY laying those people off--yet, the person who enjoys laying those people off (low agreeableness) could present the perspective that these employees being laid off are dragging those who work hard down and harming them, putting extra workloads on those who actually do their jobs, because these people being laid off are lazy and don't try to contribute anything of value to the team, so laying those employees off is merely giving people what they deserve (both the fired employees, and those employees who work hard and are staying)--so, with that perspective presented, it actually does make sense to come from that angle, and it does seem ethical. So...different values, stances, perspectives, personalities--we all have our different strengths and weaknesses, and such diversity in individuals is actually a good thing, because we can cover each other's backs in our differences and weak points. That variation is the beauty of it all: different individuals have their own wisdom and insights to offer. Different people will notice, comprehend, learn, or understand, different things throughout life. Each of them are useful to varying degrees, relative to the role individuals are in.

Did I make any sense to you at all, or no? I hope I articulated my thoughts clearly and in a way that made some sense, at least.

[anotherperson]

The way I think about this is that collective (shared by a group) isn't the same as objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, and representing facts). There is definitely such thing as shared/collective morality, but there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is based on people's empathy, opinions, subjective views, beliefs, etc., so by its very definition, it's impossible for it to be objective. Just because they're shared doesn't mean they're factually or objectively right; it only means there is a shared consensus amongst people, which forms a group of collective views. Just think about the trans movement (not trying to drift into that topic, though): regardless of what your personal views are, if you step back and look at it, it's clearly a battle between two (or more) opposing collective views of morality. If there was an objective morality, we probably wouldn't have all the conflicts and debates surrounding it. Another example is if you look at the Jewish Holocaust: there were many people who believed they were honestly doing the right thing, because Hit.ler had influenced people so much that he warped people's views. Yet, most people think Hit.ler deserves to be ass-raped by pineapples in hell for the rest of eternity. My point here is that when people aren't healthy (Hit.ler, in this instance), cruelty can seem like justified and morally righteous acts. So, as I said: collective isn't objective, which is why there is so much opposition.

Now, it could be argued that there is an objective quality based on cause and effect (which, like @Averroes, I also tend to look at life through a lot). Yet, even to this, I would still argue that different qualities, values, and stances, possess value in their own varying roles throughout life. One person who has a difficult time firing people (high agreeableness) might see it as unethical to ENJOY laying those people off--yet, the person who enjoys laying those people off (low agreeableness) could present the perspective that these layoffs are dragging those who work hard down, because they are lazy and don't try to contribute anything of value to the team. So...different values, stances, perspectives, personalities--we all have our different strengths and weaknesses, and such diversity in individuals is actually a good thing, because we can cover each other's backs in our differences and weak points. That variation is the beauty of it all: different individuals have their own wisdom and insights to offer. Different people will notice, comprehend, learn, or understand, different things throughout life. Each of them are useful to varying degrees, relative to the role individuals are in.

Did I make any sense to you at all, or no? I hope I articulated my thoughts clearly and in a way that made some sense, at least.

i get it now. Fi is important bc its what gets us thinking about morality in the first place. w/o Fi, we would not consider relationships/distance to other people in the first place.

[Sisyphean]

Dude, I miss you. I wish you were still around, you were fun. (You knew me as either RGB or Hexcoder, I can't remember which username I had when we talked.)

I think it was Hexcoder back then

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

i get it now. Fi is important bc its what gets us thinking about morality in the first place. w/o Fi, we would not consider relationships/distance to other people in the first place.

While I personally am not fully, 100% persuaded that Fi is involved in the formation of morality in general, my POV is that values do tie in/intersect very closely with relationship dynamics. I perceive Fi as something more along the lines of managing values in the ways they pertain to relationships, than Fi being the source of the creation of all values in everyone--and, in unhealthy states, they can be MISmanaged.

In the case of ESI (because of Se being second, thus the Fi being pushed onto others more with ESI than with EII) I think we like to take the reigns of our relationships in a way that synchronizes the values that are held in our relationships. Thus, it can easily be perceived as us just wanting our way...and, really, if we're brutally honest with ourselves and look at things from a 3rd person POV, we can probably perceive that it's pretty-much true. Not something that is perceived as the prettiest aspect of the ESI, but it's still present, BUT--it does have its uses and purposes, it has its roles in life, it has its positive outcomes and effects on other people.

I think Katniss Everdeen is a good example of that. The ESI can definitely boost morale and inspire others simply by staying true to their values. Their boldness, passion, and firm stances on their ethical views, have the capacity to lead entire movements when others get on board with the ESI. She stood with force against every single thing she viewed as morally wrong, and the sheer force she had behind her ethical views moved people to the point of causing an entire revolution. On a side note, it's pretty comical how she was unable to move others unless it was through authentic ethics-based stances against all that she perceived as wrong.



So...while it might be annoying as fuck sometimes, the same trait or quality definitely has its place as a positive personality trait/quality; its place in society as a beneficial contribution to it. Everything, and everyone, has their own place in life...and the relationship between all of those people, with their diverse strengths coming together, is absolutely beautiful, in my opinion. Our biggest obstacles as a society are the relationships between our own weaknesses, as those interact just like the strengths do. Ego is one of the biggest factors...instead of recognizing the good in others despite all of our differences, people create the concept of "status" and "inferior/superior," and judge/label one another based on it...

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I think it was Hexcoder back then

Holy shit, hey!!! Wtf, did you get an email because I quoted you, or did you just happen to get on here? How've you been?

[Sisyphean]

Holy shit, hey!!! Wtf, did you get an email because I quoted you, or did you just happen to get on here? How've you been?

Yo. Serendipity, I guess. I randomly felt like logging in today and saw the notification and it was a really nice to feeling stumble upon like that. Been okay. Doing the mental health thing. Trying to disentangle where type indicators end and attachment disorders begin. How bout you? Based on the post and blog entry count it looks like you've been busy on here the last few years.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Yo. Serendipity, I guess. I randomly felt like logging in today and saw the notification and it was a really nice to feeling stumble upon like that. Been okay. Doing the mental health thing. Trying to disentangle where type indicators end and attachment disorders begin. How bout you? Based on the post and blog entry count it looks like you've been busy on here the last few years.

Wtf, that's crazy, lol. You have some 6th sense shit going on there, man.

Yeah, I've been doing the mental health thing myself. I use this place mainly for journaling, writing as a form of critically thinking through my own life, honestly. I've distanced myself from typology a lot in general, even though I still offer my opinions on it every now and then.

As for the disentangling, yeah, I understand how that goes. Ultimately, for me at least, it comes down to prioritizing one or the other. I dig into the origins of a concept from psychology, research its background, look into what kinds of evidences support it, and if it has better research than typology, I just overwrite the typology in my brain. Could it end up being wrong? Sure, it might be proven to be wrong in 40 years...but in life, there are times when we have to make the best choices available to us and keep moving forward in order to avoid stagnation. I think it'd be quite nonsensical to prioritize pseudoscientific information over anything that's fundamentally scientific. Honestly, though...personally, I prioritize virtually any and all information over typology anymore. I don't even think about typology once I close this forum.

I've been through a fuck ton since we spoke last, but things are finally looking up for me at this point.

[Sisyphean]

Wtf, that's crazy, lol. You have some 6th sense shit going on there, man.

Yeah, I've been doing the mental health thing myself. I use this place mainly for journaling, writing as a form of critically thinking through my own life, honestly. I've distanced myself from typology a lot in general, even though I still offer my opinions on it every now and then.

As for the disentangling, yeah, I understand how that goes. Ultimately, for me at least, it comes down to prioritizing one or the other. I dig into the origins of a concept from psychology, research its background, look into what kinds of evidences support it, and if it has better research than typology, I just overwrite the typology in my brain. Could it end up being wrong? Sure, it might be proven to be wrong in 40 years...but in life, there are times when we have to make the best choices available to us and keep moving forward in order to avoid stagnation. I think it'd be quite nonsensical to prioritize pseudoscientific information over anything that's fundamentally scientific. Honestly, though...personally, I prioritize virtually any and all information over typology anymore. I don't even think about typology once I close this forum.

I've been through a fuck ton since we spoke last, but things are finally looking up for me at this point.

Could be. Not the first time a whim has taken me somewhere at the right time. I stopped questioning it and just decided to ride it (to an extent) and see where I end up a long time ago cause doing anything else feels forced, fake, and pigeonholed. Intuition or collective unconscious or moved by the spirit? Who knows, but the more I've listened with some discernment the better several things have gotten.

Journaling with some room for feedback is probably a decent description for how most online output could be characterized regardless of platform. That's basically what I use twitter and discord for the last couple years. Writing down to process and crystalize those thoughts, putting it out somewhere to make it real, and occasionally get an affirmation that you exist from the faceless infinite of the internet but nothing sincere or close enough to potentially hurt. Damn, I hate the internet most times.

I'm largely in a similar boat as far as typology, but I don't put much stock in Psychology's validity vis scientific methodologies. There's a point where there's recognition when these systems exist without any referent to something Real and further elaboration is just recursive self-gratification. Philosophically it's perfectly fine that each of these "types" are essentially defined by each other, since one thing's Is amounts to the negative space of its Is-Not, but it's way too easy to let the map replace the territory and without some anchor to orient it a system can be completely valid and entirely irrelevant. That's generally my outlook on almost all of Psychology these days, even in the court-magician certified varieties where institutional validation or social proof are the measure of its inerrancy. I don't think people are unique enough that they can't be sorted into approximate types (whatever they may be), but it's a rough heuristic for framing things, not some infinitely explicable codex re: people (translation: yourself). It doesn't need to be True to work, and it almost certainly isn't Truth but can help image it.

So "type indicators" are just short-hand for "aspects of (my) personality that don't belie some maladaptation or other dysfunction" vs actual issues that would be beneficial to try and work on or remain conscious of to compensate for. Eg. If "Fi" gets defined as an affinity for information regarding relations and personal evaluations between people and things, is there a dividing line for definition between that affinity and a preoccupation resulting from insecure attachment styles, other than competence which nobody is able to properly self-assess? Conditional? Bi-conditional? Prompted by the very sad realization that most of the people closest to me had/have an enormous misunderstanding of me (attributing things to pride instead of fear), partly due to my own enormous misunderstanding of me and a wish-fulfillment representation of myself socially. The first correction for this is to renovate my mental model for myself, and deal with the rot under the floorboards, rather than label it and call it a personality. I'll cut that off before it becomes trauma-dumping.

Dunno if "a fuck ton" is good or bad in your eyes, but if you're still going and looking up then that's enough to celebrate. We must imagine Sisyphus happy, after all.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

i get it now. Fi is important bc its what gets us thinking about morality in the first place. w/o Fi, we would not consider relationships/distance to other people in the first place.

My socionics theory is a bit rusty from disuse, so apologies if I can't defend this very well at the moment, but I would argue that and are both the "values guardians" of each quadra (depending on which is valued). My LSI stepfather and I both have our own concepts of morality and will choose to associate with others who share those deeply-held values. We will also call out people/things that go against our stubbornly-held ideas of "what should be".

[anotherperson]

My socionics theory is a bit rusty from disuse, so apologies if I can't defend this very well at the moment, but I would argue that and are both the "values guardians" of each quadra (depending on which is valued). My LSI stepfather and I both have our own concepts of morality and will choose to associate with others who share those deeply-held values. We will also call out people/things that go against our stubbornly-held ideas of "what should be".

i think actually. Ti is more moral than Fi. in the sense that Ti is mroe absolute than Fi. i could see LII or LSI handling court cases better than ESI or EII.

the morality in Fi i think is a leftover from MBTI for the most part.

[Muira]

i think actually. Ti is more moral than Fi. in the sense that Ti is mroe absolute than Fi. i could see LII or LSI handling court cases better than ESI or EII.

the morality in Fi i think is a leftover from MBTI for the most part.

Any type can be moral, but Ti can to be more consistent than Fi in terms of judgement as it acts according to a code, however a Fi user can just as easily be desensitized like how a Ti user can throw away their principles for a code that is less moral. Ti and Fi are both sources of internal and personal judgement, and sometimes they can even overlap, but neither actually dictate if someone is moral or not. But arguably some socio types are more susceptible to becoming corrupt.

[anotherperson]

Any type can be moral, but Ti can to be more consistent than Fi in terms of judgement as it acts according to a code, however a Fi user can just as easily be desensitized like how a Ti user can throw away their principles for a code that is less moral. Ti and Fi are both sources of internal and personal judgement, and sometimes they can even overlap, but neither actually dictate if someone is moral or not. But arguably some socio types are more susceptible to becoming corrupt.

agree. i just meant i think Ti types are more concerned with thinking about morality in the first place. i mean, youre a "big bad" SLE, and even you do it, frequently too.

[Muira]

agree. i just meant i think Ti types are more concerned with thinking about morality in the first place. i mean, youre a "big bad" SLE, and even you do it, frequently too.

You are right, I try to make consistent principles that are both logical and ethical, I'd even take the suggestions of other people on what is right. I also tend to try to isolate myself for a hour or too when I feel like I am boiling or feel overwhelmed by personal criticism of myself, I rather do small amounts at a time when it comes to reflection.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

i think actually. Ti is more moral than Fi. in the sense that Ti is mroe absolute than Fi. i could see LII or LSI handling court cases better than ESI or EII.

the morality in Fi i think is a leftover from MBTI for the most part.

It's all relative to numerous variables. Bias is always one of the variables that threaten morality no matter what type.

I don't view Fi as an MBTI leftover - and, actually, they were both created around pretty much the same time, just in different parts of the world. Instead, I view Fi as something that manages/navigates morals, not something that determines how moral or immoral someone is.

I suppose that's still vague, since everyone manages morals and everyone navigates life through morals. Well...I don't feel like explaining the differences in nuances.

[Muira]

It's all relative to numerous variables. Bias is always one of the variables that threaten morality no matter what type.

I don't view Fi as an MBTI leftover - and, actually, they were both created around pretty much the same time, just in different parts of the world. Instead, I view Fi as something that manages/navigates morals, not something that determines how moral or immoral someone is.

I suppose that's still vague, since everyone manages morals and everyone navigates life through morals. Well...I don't feel like explaining the differences in nuances.

*to add for @anotherperson to read, you probably know this.

Fi is a mega function that keeps to themselves, they care more about intentions, how the person actually feels under their fake mask. They judge people for their face value of their decisions like Ti, but don't categorize them into boxes, thus they are much more inclined to actually know the person like the back of their hand.

Fi base, EII and ESI judge the consistency of moral decisions and and character of a person, then that knowledge or inner mental profile that they have of people helps them decide who to befriend, trust, etc. They also are hyper aware of where they stand with people(lucky), the way they dissect people and their motives is really interesting.
Fi (SEE IEE) creative tend to be very good at understanding the sentiment of others, learning about other people, etc, and with Fi creative comes Fe demo, so they can be very good at eliciting a desirable reaction out of the other person

SEE sounds more like the person who would sell you out after you trusted them, unless they are genuine, etc. ESI seems more predictable, but more intimidating and closed despite probably being much less of a threat as they live by their judgement than acquiring power or privilege (Fi > Se). IEE is like a more scattered and confused SEE, but both have manipulation as a tool ready to use. EII and ESI can't help manipulating sometimes as an ethical thing, but ESI and EII are much less manipulative than types like SLE, ILE, or even LIE at times. However their quantity of manipulation goes far beyond just Fi/Fe, such as Se mobilizing, wanting to get ahead, Se base, acquiring power or status, Fe mobilizing, etc.

Heck, LSI seems to be just as manipulative as ESI most of the time, that's what Se creative does, it brings a better understanding of dynamics after all. But both of them seem to use that understanding of dynamics to enforce their ideals, which those ideals can be reasoned in different manners (Ti vs Fi).

So, Fi is a function of judgement, but the judge doesn't always have to be moral, etc. Personally, I think the morality and likableness of a Fi base is equal to the sensitivity of their judgement, which emotional sensitivity is a blade that can be dulled.

[anotherperson]

*to add for @anotherperson to read, you probably know this.

Fi is a mega function that keeps to themselves, they care more about intentions, how the person actually feels under their fake mask. They judge people for their face value of their decisions like Ti, but don't categorize them into boxes, thus they are much more inclined to actually know the person like the back of their hand.

Fi base, EII and ESI judge the consistency of moral decisions and and character of a person, then that knowledge or inner mental profile that they have of people helps them decide who to befriend, trust, etc. They also are hyper aware of where they stand with people(lucky), the way they dissect people and their motives is really interesting.
Fi (SEE IEE) creative tend to be very good at understanding the sentiment of others, learning about other people, etc, and with Fi creative comes Fe demo, so they can be very good at eliciting a desirable reaction out of the other person

SEE sounds more like the person who would sell you out after you trusted them, unless they are genuine, etc. ESI seems more predictable, but more intimidating and closed despite probably being much less of a threat as they live by their judgement than acquiring power or privilege (Fi > Se). IEE is like a more scattered and confused SEE, but both have manipulation as a tool ready to use. EII and ESI can't help manipulating sometimes as an ethical thing, but ESI and EII are much less manipulative than types like SLE, ILE, or even LIE at times. However their quantity of manipulation goes far beyond just Fi/Fe, such as Se mobilizing, wanting to get ahead, Se base, acquiring power or status, Fe mobilizing, etc.

Heck, LSI seems to be just as manipulative as ESI most of the time, that's what Se creative does, it brings a better understanding of dynamics after all. But both of them seem to use that understanding of dynamics to enforce their ideals, which those ideals can be reasoned in different manners (Ti vs Fi).

So, Fi is a function of judgement, but the judge doesn't always have to be moral, etc. Personally, I think the morality and likableness of a Fi base is equal to the sensitivity of their judgement, which emotional sensitivity is a blade that can be dulled.

so Fi "morals" is more about whether the person is a "good investment". to be someone worthy of your time. the connection to morals is mostly whether or not the values coincide with society.

while Ti is the one codifying morals, (like law, court, gavel.)

Ti is more likely to say stealing is always bad, Fi might make a robin hood argument (for example).

but why is Se manipulation. is it contextual? how is Fe manipulation different from Se manipulation?

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

This might not be Fi, maybe just street smarts or common sense or something, but sometimes I feel like I see through to what people's moral stance is no matter what they try to tell me. Sometimes that means I'm seeing through the ways they're consciously attempting to deceive me, and other times it means I'm seeing through their own self-delusion (cognitive dissonance). Recently, my dad shared how he had somewhat recently gotten to the point where he was wanting to torture people by eg. first going after their pets (cutting out the tongues of their cats, etc). I expressed extreme disapproval of this obviously, but he tried getting me to understand how he got to that point. I held him accountable and straight up said it's unacceptable regardless, but I also called him out on how the fact that he was sitting there trying to get me to sympathize with his POV on it only shows he hasn't genuinely had a change of heart and that it's insincere (not that I expected anything else, I knew better anyway, he's a malignant narcissist). If he had been sincere, he would've demonstrated a number of possible things: shame/guilt when sharing it (not boasting like he did), disbelief ("I can't believe I even let myself go that far in my heart"), all kinds of other possible things. He clearly had no regrets, no humility about it, nothing. I called him out on the fact that he hadn't changed and he was lying to me. (That ended with him becoming abusive/volatile and then rejecting me because he can't manipulate me, btw, but only after I rejected him for his stance on animal cruelty...his narcissism couldn't handle the rejection, so he tried to spin things around so that he was the one rejecting me...which is fine, it's whatever. He's just ill. He's been named "Toxzilla" in my phone all this time for a reason.) I know when someone is being authentic/sincere, and I know when they're not. There are many other things I didn't add here that led me to that conclusion, but point being, the math wasn't mathing.

[Muira]

so Fi "morals" is more about whether the person is a "good investment". to be someone worthy of your time. the connection to morals is mostly whether or not the values coincide with society.

while Ti is the one codifying morals, (like law, court, gavel.)

Ti is more likely to say stealing is always bad, Fi might make a robin hood argument (for example).

Yeah, Fi is less concerned about laws unless they actually, but abiding by their own sense of justice on what feels right. Fi base will be much more consistent than Fi creative, hence Ti role. But, ESI is ery different from SEE as SEE weaponizes Fi + Fe, and ESI weaponizes Se to enforce or uphold their Fi/personal sense of justice/ideals.

Hence why ESI is associated with sx1, sp1, sp4, and even sx6 in some sense. Perhaps so8(sp8 is too hedonistic and detached +invulnerable, least likable e8, so 8 is the only e8 that has some emphasis on a personal sense of justice). Then there is SEE which is more sx2, so8/sx8, sp7, sx7, and even so3.

Ti users would base their morals on a set of general principles, while a Fi users on what feels right(gut feeling, repulsion, how it makes one feel).

but why is Se manipulation. is it contextual? how is Fe manipulation different from Se manipulation?

Se is not just sensory, but volition-being present minded-grounded-and the better understanding of this world in a more 'primitive' world view as well as understanding of external world dynamics-being orientated to gather resources, etc.

Se base seeks to gain status, influence, resources, etc. They deeply understand aggression and territorial behavior targeted towards them, and as well utilize this behavior to get what they want. They can be opportunists, and impatient/impulsive. Se is the drive to gain, so a SEE will be much more manipulative than a SEI for example in terms of quantity, because they have that sense and drive to constantly get more and seek more.

Se creative is a more serious use, and honestly better use of Se. They work seriously on their own goals, which be it reformation, etc. They have a 3-d sense of aggression, how to act when confronted, how to utilize aggression and volatility to serve their Fi/Ti. They expect the same from others, but also they don't actively seek confrontation but they are not afraid of it.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I don't relate to some of the generalizations in @Judas posts, but that's okay. Carry on, mates.

[FDG]

Fi dominance also has something about "the people I know and that I can trust". It's not conoscious but it's kind of obvious that they gravitate towards that. I know it because I don't really have it as much, I spend a lot of time with business connections or more superficial relationships (not romantic, just people whatever, acquaintances, random people i meet around while I'm doing something else).

[Muira]

so Fi "morals" is more about whether the person is a "good investment". to be someone worthy of your time. the connection to morals is mostly whether or not the values coincide with society.

while Ti is the one codifying morals, (like law, court, gavel.)

Ti is more likely to say stealing is always bad, Fi might make a robin hood argument (for example).

but why is Se manipulation. is it contextual? how is Fe manipulation different from Se manipulation?

A better example of Ti is " If A and B are correct, then C follows."

So for example, "If we all have the right to have free speech, and make jokes, then we have the right to make offensive jokes."

"If killing without the reason of self defense is wrong, and the lives of the innocent are more precious than any other life, then harming kids would be an extremely illegal and evil thing to do."

But Fi is more aware of social norms, and doesn't need all that bs to know something is wrong.

"Killing kids is wrong, simple."

"Making offensive jokes is one's right, but you also have to take into consideration that you are making a joke in a situation where jokes are not appropriate."

________________

While for example, LSI seems to be more well mannered than SLE, SLE is better at eliciting better reactions as SLE has Fe mobilizing (Fe mobilizing is 2D, Fe suggestive is 1D).
So generally the SLE is better at adapting when it comes to the casual emotional atmosphere, while LSI has a better understanding of the psychological atmosphere and what is appropriate.

________________

Se is more of a drive for manipulation, especially for Se base. People who live to get a higher status and tend to be very bold and force full tend to be se base, then make them good with people, they become SEE. Se is also a better understanding of dynamics, one's own volition, and what they want. So with Se base users, they find themselves using almost any tools to get to their goals, including manipulation. But a SEE is going to be much better at manipulation than a SLE. But also being Se base comes with Ne role, which can make them seem more like Charlemagnes when they use or accept alternatives (Ne) to get to their end point when needed.

ESI is like LSI, they seek to define their ideals, but ESI is more orientated towards people and their personal relations. ESI uses Se like LSI to enforce their ideals, and they won't compensate with anything less (Ne polar) as they see their ideals as absolute. ESI feels what is right, LSI is like ESI but uses a set of principles, but ESI has Ti role in that their ideals are much more consistent than SEE. So ESI does have consistency in believes, just they pay more attention to the gut feeling they have(Fi > Ti).

[Cuddly McFluffles]

He's been named "Toxzilla" in my phone all this time for a reason.

Apparently, my mother went through my SLE little brother's phone and found that he had saved his father's (my stepfather's) number under "Asshole". I remember at least one of my stepbrothers being super pissed over it. Personally, I was just like, "Dude, how stupid are you to get caught???"

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Apparently, my mother went through my SLE little brother's phone and found that he had saved his father's (my stepfather's) number under "Asshole". I remember at least one of my stepbrothers being super pissed over it. Personally, I was just like, "Dude, how stupid are you to get caught???"

Oh, I give all of my family members silly names in my phone. It's almost a sport at this point. Some of them are fucked up...my mom is Red Riding Hood because she's a redhead who, ever since divorcing my father, turned out to have some sort of black guy fetish and every guy she dated was black, and when I had a black boyfriend as a teen she used to flirt with him too (yes, a minor...she's like a hoe riding the entire hood)...then she got remarried to a black guy from the NY ghetto and decided to try to reshape everything about herself to be more like black culture. It's actually super hilarious because she doesn't do a good job at blending herself into the culture, so the results are something more like a preppy girl saying "off da chain" in a valley girl way and also painting her walls to look like yellow cheese.

Like you said - just don't get caught. LOL.

EDIT:
I'm afraid of someone misunderstanding my intentions with this one, so just to clarify, the joke isn't racist, it's just making fun of my mother's obsessiveness and the unskillful cultural appropriation that turns her into a meme.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Oh, I give all of my family members silly names in my phone. It's almost a sport at this point. Some of them are fucked up...my mom is Red Riding Hood because she's a redhead who, ever since divorcing my father, turned out to have some sort of black guy fetish and every guy she dated was black, and when I had a black boyfriend as a teen she used to flirt with him too (yes, a minor...she's like a hoe riding the entire hood)...then she got remarried to a black guy from the NY ghetto and decided to try to reshape everything about herself to be more like black culture. It's actually super hilarious because she doesn't do a good job at blending herself into the culture, so the results are something more like a preppy girl saying "off da chain" in a valley girl way and also painting her walls to look like yellow cheese.

Like you said - just don't get caught. LOL.

EDIT:
I'm afraid of someone misunderstanding my intentions with this one, so just to clarify, the joke isn't racist, it's just making fun of my mother's obsessiveness and the unskillful cultural appropriation that turns her into a meme.

I knew someone like that. She was a hardcore snow bunny who felt comfortable enough to refer to one of my black friends as a hoodrat. Needless to say, my friend was not amused. She didn't want to bring it up to management (we were living in a transitional home), but I did end up saying something about it quite a while after she left.

[FDG]

It's gonna feel a bit blunt also but a distinction for me as LIE compared to ESI, my non-chosen family members (meaning my parents, brothers, cousins etc) don't have any special meaning for me unless we also have a specific mental connection or overlapping interests or friendships. It will sound abysmal to many people but I consider some of my friends and my wife to be much more close to me than my parents, they are fine but I didn't choose them. I think most ESIs feel a deeper connection to "blood" family.

(My wife's mother is also LIE and as I understood she also feels the same way, maybe with some regret, but whatever. We both get scolded from my wife but you know, you are who you are, you can't change it)

[anotherperson]

It's gonna feel a bit blunt also but a distinction for me as LIE compared to ESI, my non-chosen family members (meaning my parents, brothers, cousins etc) don't have any special meaning for me unless we also have a specific mental connection or overlapping interests or friendships. It will sound abysmal to many people but I consider some of my friends and my wife to be much more close to me than my parents, they are fine but I didn't choose them. I think most ESIs feel a deeper connection to "blood" family.

(My wife's mother is also LIE and as I understood she also feels the same way, maybe with some regret, but whatever. We both get scolded from my wife but you know, you are who you are, you can't change it)

as ESI. i more relate to you. i do not think your family has to be just the people youre DNA matches. part of how i ended up at odds with the descriptions, felt pretty detached from bloodline.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I've cut off most of my biological family (immediate and extended) over bullshit they decided to pull. Found family is largely all I have.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

It's gonna feel a bit blunt also but a distinction for me as LIE compared to ESI, my non-chosen family members (meaning my parents, brothers, cousins etc) don't have any special meaning for me unless we also have a specific mental connection or overlapping interests or friendships. It will sound abysmal to many people but I consider some of my friends and my wife to be much more close to me than my parents, they are fine but I didn't choose them. I think most ESIs feel a deeper connection to "blood" family.

(My wife's mother is also LIE and as I understood she also feels the same way, maybe with some regret, but whatever. We both get scolded from my wife but you know, you are who you are, you can't change it)

My hubby (LIE) would probably relate to this.

I do also, despite being ESI, but that's because I grew up with all of my family being abusive.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think for the Big Five factor of Agreeableness, Fe types (i.e. more extroverted types) probably score higher on Trust, Tender-mindedness, and Altruism than Fi types, and Fi types (i.e. more introverted types) probably score higher than the Fe types on Straightforwardness, Compliance, and Modesty (this is based somewhat on matrices that see how the 30 facets (there's six per fatcor) correlate with each of the Big Five factors). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreea...#NEO_PI_facets

[Rusal]

I think ESIs can merge with the prevailing ways of society. So in a society that's lenient on social trespasses, they could easily think about how to bribe the traffic control officer if that's how their society generally rolls.

There's a documentary on Netflix right now called Victim/Suspect and the detective carrying out the interrogation could be ESI from what I gather from the cameras in the interrogation room. He is accused of sweeping sexual assault allegations under the rug and turning the table on the victims.