What do ethical functions feel like?

[Myst]

This prolly isn't relevant to you since you type me logical but it's a cool idea for a thread that should have more responses (:

Fi: A relatable example is when you look at a painting and develop a feeling either in favor of it or against it. You could do it immediately, viscerally and primitively. Or you could take into account how much work went into it or how creative it is and stuff like that, which might take time and research. But in the end, do you like it or hate it? Having it as a base function is like having that emotionally based discernment with respect to everything (and everyone! that's what gets the focus, even if it could be towards ideas, which is kinda important.) And being constantly aware of that and tending to act based upon it.

Fe: Jeez, I dunno, and it's been one way that I've thought you have a point, you know, that it's 1D for me or something. But I think i feel it in terms of being attuned to this emotional energy and being able to tap into it (or deflate it, lol). (Sometimes, depending on the people around me and how close they are, fi blah blah.) There's a vibe, you know, everywhere, all the time, a flavor, and you might wanna make it taste like mango, if that's your thing, or like dill pickles if you think the situation calls for it (it might. Gross.). Im sure you taste it too, even if Fe is a weak element so it's just kinda out there like sun or rain. (Sometimes its like that for me.)

Weird. You know I don't try to categorise feelings, emotions or anything as IEs, so no Fe and Fi for me but... this was interesting descriptions if I discount the "Fi/Fe" "labels". I would say for the second description (that you called "Fe") I would say that's just alien to me in the sense I don't ever see it much to the degree you described it. Especially about making stuff taste good or sour based on the situation's needs, like you describe it .... Especially averse to the idea of making such things too conscious in my attention. The first ("Fi") description, that was something that I would say seems totally normal for people to do. Tho' no, being constantly aware of it, that sounds like overkill to me personally lol. Especially having attitudes like this about ideas, no, I think I get a knee-jerk reaction there about how that's just wrong. You could say that now I expressed a subjective like or dislike though and yes it's sorta there in the background, bc when I say it's wrong it does *feel* also *viscerally* wrong, but I would never want to base my opinion about an idea based on this like/dislike, it will be more like it follows the uh, more detached reasoning I willl want to be able to create about it first. I would say I try very hard to exclude such types of biases and it can delay making a conclusion sometimes if I sense the emotional investment is strong in the background. Anyway, having the subjective like/dislike about people, I'm a bit better with accepting that but I don't really care to have those much either about people. I don't know if that sounds strange to you or to anyone but yeah, I don't care, it weirds me out in a way to try and take such feelings too seriously. I just can't make real conclusions or especially, real decisions based on these about people. I would feel actually really wrong and even sortof guilty if I tried to. Bc I'd feel like I'm being too biased lol. But then sometimes I DO blurt out stuff based on such feelings somehow becoming strong if under certain stresses and then I regret losing my head. This doesn't happen often tho'...

And sure much of that is supposed to go in line with socionics blah blah blah... "low unconscious Fe", standard "2D Fi role" and whatever lol. But eventually that just doesn't explain enough for me.

F types have more emotions in the consciousness.
They more decide by emotional reasons. For example, to choose a product which they emotionally liked more instead by better specs.
They also tend to adopt thoughts to emotions in more degree, - are more selective on what they think and facts they notice to fit to emotions they've got before.

Everyone will be selective a lot on what facts and thoughts they pick out/think of, it's a lot of mental labour to remove all bias, and when e.g. you try to do this by trying to make sure you don't mistype anyone as EII when they are in fact not EII, you do end up at nowhere with it.

Emotional bias is inherent in decision-making eventually. The role of objective logic imo is just to have an untainted process for calculation when that's needed, to maximise efficiency/logistics/optimisation/accuracy/preciseness of things/conclusions. The stronger your inclination is for such objectivity, the more refined and untainted the process will be but emotional bias will eventually be required to interface that process with actual life/the world. Think of a (computer's) command line waiting for input. Without that input (emotion) it will not produce anything.

I don't know what person doesn't do this. It's arguably that everyone has a certain feeling first, then makes a decision based on that feeling, no matter how he thinks he has rationally arrived at a decision.

I don't really agree that the feeling/emotion is the only determinant in the decision. It will be necessary to have emotional bias to lean in a specific way for the decision but you need rationality too to make calculations in the process. So, let's not start claiming the opposite of "only logic matters" bc that's just the other extreme.

Also it's not true that everyone just has a feeling first. I personally do not necessarily have a feeling reaction originally. I have to collect data, details, organise them based on unemotional criteria, and if this is for a decision then I can also eliminate options based on purely unemotional logic, and yes so far all this is just "maths" calculations, and then at one point if I can't eliminate anymore options logically, or enough time passed so that I can finally have some emotional reactions too where I originally did not, and then I classified and organised those reactions enough too, then at that point I can get impatient (emotion!), and then I'll be able to quickly decide the final choice based on all the rational calculations up until then plus the organised emotional reactions. Happens quickly because I already see a system so I can "look through" it fast and also because that impatient emotion makes me more in touch with real desires and simplifies the process of decision-making further by my being able to organise the emotions even better (since they get more visible). So yeah... both play a role.

But originally I do not often have a feeling/emotional reaction. I look at stuff as a more "two-dimensional", not colourful (not emotional) thing/"picture". It's detached, and it'd feel really clinical to you I think.

Another area besides the decision-making about choices... would be say, in an argument I'm told facts that may feel uncomfortable. But if they are presented as direct objective facts, I can't ignore them, I just can't, I often don't actually feel uncomfortable even. If during an argument or while doing some task or just in general I previously had emotional investment a bit in some view I've always had before, even if simply because it all seemed so neat and working well logically - yes that on its own can create investment, a feeling of liking the reasoning - then the new fact could feel uncomfortable even if only due to my having to do more work to integrate it or due to cognitive dissonance, but I just easily step past that, bc I guess it's not a strong feeling. I do feel good that way overall though because objectivity does tend to be rewarding to me. So in this type of situation... emotion barely plays a direct role in my accepting a fact or not. You could claim that my valuing of objectivity leads to a good feeling and that determines it but not really. It's more like I just have to accept the objective data. I have no choice, no matter how I feel about it. It eventually is rewarding so that is where emotion may still play a role but it is not a direct role.

And here's a difference I observed with different people. You said in another thread that you don't believe people differ in degree of objectivity. I really strongly disagree on that. I've observed that with some people in an argument I'm more easily able to pass objective facts to them even if they got emotional. They'll calm down at that point and try to process the new fact. Then with some other people, they are just incapable of doing so. You can't claim that this does not lead to a difference in degree of objectivity/logical rationality between these people.

Damasio's famous patient did get very out of touch with emotions as the social emotion processing areas in both of his prefrontal lobes were destroyed. He was like that computer command line receiving too random inputs for picking up which calculations to perform.

Btw you can see very logical-detached people stalling on decisions actually. Part of some psychiatric disorder stuff is pretty much overdone logic, with connection lost to feelings.


EDIT: I looked at the article you linked. I lol'd at the last lines: "But in general, if you can get the other party to reveal their problems, pain, and unmet objectives, then you can build a vision for them of their problem, with you and your proposal as the solution. They won’t make their decision because it is logical. They’ll make their decision because you have helped them feel that it’s to their advantage to do so."

No one's gonna help me *feel* that it's to my advantage to do a decision I decide that myself, thank-you. It's gonna have to make logical sense and gonna have to be in my *actual* interest, good luck giving me emotional visions about your proposal, random stranger.

[Singu]

And here's a difference I observed with different people. You said in another thread that you don't believe people differ in degree of objectivity. I really strongly disagree on that. I've observed that with some people in an argument I'm more easily able to pass objective facts to them even if they got emotional. They'll calm down at that point and try to process the new fact. Then with some other people, they are just incapable of doing so. You can't claim that this does not lead to a difference in degree of objectivity/logical rationality between these people.

Well I said people's ability to be objective is the same. Some people may be very un-objective, but that has to do with the way they think about things. And we don't *truly* know what makes something *truly* objective, as people make new arguments about what is considered to be objective or not, and they move onto that if that's a better way to be objective.

How to be objective in a scientific way is a relatively new concept that was only introduced after the Enlightenment. And that has to do with the new philosophies that people came up with, or the way they think about things. I'm sure that people were very un-objective thousands of years ago, or during pre-historic eras, as they believed in myths and superstitions. Yet our brains then and now are still practically the same. Basically, we know how to be objective because we go to school and we get educated and we have a whole culture and social context on how to be objective and what makes something objective.

People don't really have an inherent way of being objective, especially as Socionics claims. You can't say that one is a Te type, therefore he is automatically objective. Because that doesn't explain how he's being objective. Besides objectivity is made by an argument, not who's making the argument.

[Myst]

Well I said people's ability to be objective is the same.

Well, and people's ability to feel is also the same, then.

Obviously though, both statements are incorrect.

Even though both emotion and objectivity are indispensable parts of life, it doesn't follow that everyone does or can do any of these to the same degree.

Some people may be very un-objective, but that has to do with the way they think about things. And we don't *truly* know what makes something *truly* objective, as people make new arguments about what is considered to be objective or not, and they move onto that if that's a better way to be objective.

No need to overcomplicate this. Google dictionary says "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.".

That's all it means.

How to be objective in a scientific way is a relatively new concept that was only introduced after the Enlightenment. And that has to do with the new philosophies that people came up with, or the way they think about things. I'm sure that people were very un-objective thousands of years ago, or during pre-historic eras, as they believed in myths and superstitions. Yet our brains then and now are still practically the same. Basically, we know how to be objective because we go to school and we get educated and we have a whole culture and social context on how to be objective and what makes something objective.

Sure the scientific method imo is the most refined way of being objective. But people had objectivity before that too.

People don't really have an inherent way of being objective, especially as Socionics claims. You can't say that one is a Te type, therefore he is automatically objective. Because that doesn't explain how he's being objective. Besides objectivity is made by an argument, not who's making the argument.

When you thought @Adam Strange 's way of looking at wife material was distasteful, that was him being objective with feelings being controlled by it / feelings not being as determining as objectivity. Even though yes feelings are still there and are very important.

No, not everyone can or even wants to be objective to that degree, sounds like you don't either.

And. Not to get me wrong. I did not use Adam as some "bad example". I am actually more like him (I just use different "ideologies" for my logic, but I am like him otherwise a lot.) I used Adam as the example because you already showed in that thread that you do not do objectivity to that degree, you instantly cut in with feelings of "it's distasteful".


PS: And note how I used a disclaimer that I did not use Adam as a bad example. I wanted to avoid feely connotations mucking up things here. See, that is where some people are more feely and will have more of such connotations and see, that is where some people will just have fewer of them. Even though even "more objectively logical people" can have them sometimes. And what would replace the focus on such connotations if not the factual viewpoint? If you are unable to see this, then let's just not continue this "discussion".