Contrasting Fe and Fi reactions to the same thing

[Park]

Here are two segments covering the same story. One is Fe, the other is Fi. Can you guess which one is which?





One focuses heavily on the laughs and the hilarity aspect of it (), mildly mocking the person as if they were part of a candid camera prank. The other one brings attention to the ethics of the deed and the doer (morality, benevolence, doing the right thing, etc.) and how that's something to be commended (). The latter also delivers a much more comprehensive, informative, and dispassionate presentation of the facts and events that took place ().

Feel free to comment and/or showcase other examples.

[Park]

P.S. Adrienne Bankert can have my babies any time.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah I see what you mean definitely but the second video also had more people so it isn't quite a fair comparison. I think if you had the rational dual Beta couple (EIE and LSI) they would add a bit more of that other stuff that was in the second video. And first video had a ESE weatherwoman at the end but she just kinda followed along with the Betas which is natural tho as Beta "Improves" Alphas.

But it was just the irrational dual couple (SLE man and IEI woman IMNSHO). It makes Fe sound more douchey than it really is - when that is just how SLE and IEI is together - and we always act that way when we're together and laugh at people falling for things like that.

This makes me think of how in general- not like this incident but other things I've noticed in life, that Fi types are more prone to step in and play hero even if it's not real or 'there's no skin in the game' - because the Ne/Fi valuing of 'omg but it could be real' is too strong in them. It's also why they don't value language that is too out there or exaggerated etc- because Fi sensitivity takes it all as to be a real serious concern even when it isn't, and people are just doing things for fun.

I'm sure many people will say the guy that helped- his race was irrelevant, but I don't think so. This is part of why there is less and less white people and more women sleep with black males - not just because of the 'thug appeal' and 'big black ****' thing, but also it has to do with ethics and survival of the human race as a whole and how they are more likely to do things like this. But in contrast they can sometimes go to unhealthy enneagram 1 territory and try to 'Help" when helping isn't appropriate or needed etc. Anyways though my point is that people want offspring that they think will be protected by the real dangers in the world- and I feel like a lot of white men would sadistically let that man fall to his death if he was real or just be coldly indifferent, or be cowardly/selfish - based on how other white males have treated me and others I cared about growing up. I did know a white man once that wasn't like this- but he also was bisexual and got fucked by a lot of black dudes so the black empathy energy was most likely just transferred to him via gay sex.

What's interesting about this it's based on survival of the fittest real Te and Se dangers. I mean- black straight males and some black women can still be homophobic as hell and be close minded in other ways ((Iyanla vanzant called it the 'nice nasty' effect)) - it's not really about my own sensitives or putting any race on a pedestal, but the fact they are more likely to jump in and be Superman when it counts. Women objectively need that, and the world needs that - not some white coward that will run away from real dangers.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I'm confused by what you wrote in your first post, because they both talked about the morality of what he did, but you said only one of them did. The "Fe" video also didn't seem to be picking at him in a malicious "you're an idiot" way (they seemed like they were trying not to), but they thought it was funny.

Imagine yourself at work in this scenario: you're a reporter. Someone submits this story. Do you want to air "haha, what an idiot," (and offend the guy who was trying to do something nice and get sued for defamation, plus piss off viewers because his heart was in the right place and he did a kind thing), or do you want to air it in a positive light?

This is why public recordings such as these cannot be trusted. They're expected to abide by certain rules and guidelines, both in ethical ways and for the informative broadcasting. There are things they do because it's their jobs...things they're hired to do. How they present themselves is not necessarily the same as what their personality is like.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

wtf I hate Fe now

[Park]

I'm confused by what you wrote in your first post, because they both talked about the morality of what he did, but you said only one of them did.

No, I didn't say that. But I wouldn't have been too far off if I did. The only instance of them addressing the morality of it was by reporting the home owners reaction and how they said "his heart was in the right place."

The "Fe" video also didn't seem to be picking at him in a malicious "you're an idiot" way (they seemed like they were trying not to), but they thought it was funny.

I don't disagree.

Imagine yourself at work in this scenario: you're a reporter. Someone submits this story. Do you want to air "haha, what an idiot," (and offend the guy who was trying to do something nice and get sued for defamation, plus piss off viewers because his heart was in the right place and he did a kind thing), or do you want to air it in a positive light?

I don't reason like that. And I didn't think the guy was an idiot, nor do I think any of the reporters did, as none of them expressed that.

If I was a reporter or a journalist, I would seek to be independent and present facts together with my own perspective and opinions, as accurately and authentically as possible.

This is why public recordings such as these cannot be trusted. They're expected to abide by certain rules and guidelines, both in ethical ways and for the informative broadcasting. There are things they do because it's their jobs...things they're hired to do. How they present themselves is not necessarily the same as what their personality is like.

Sure, but I disagree with that last assertion. I think personality plays a huge role in how individuals appear and present themselves, as their jobs are shaped by their motivations, values, perspectives, etc., and their public personas reflect which political or socio-economical circle(s) or network(s) they represent. And you can often clearly distinguish between different leanings, biases, sets of values, agendas, etc.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

No, I didn't say that. But I wouldn't have been too far off if I did. The only instance of them addressing the morality of it was by reporting the home owners reaction and how they said "his heart was in the right place."

If you didn't, this comparison which implies there is contrast here makes no sense:
One focuses heavily on the laughs and the hilarity aspect of it (), mildly mocking the person as if they were part of a candid camera prank. The other one brings attention to the ethics of the deed and the doer (morality, benevolence, doing the right thing, etc.) and how that's something to be commended ().
You basically may as well have said they both did the "Fi" thing.

Anyway, I'm not in the mood to further debate it currently.

Sure, but I disagree with that last assertion. I think personality plays a huge role in how individuals appear and present themselves, which is also shaped by their motivations, values, perspectives, etc., and sometimes reflects which political or socio-economical circle(s) or network(s) they represent. And you can often clearly distinguish between different leanings, biases, sets of values, etc.

People do act.

[Park]

I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you, but there is no reason to put words in my mouth or try to read between the lines of what I said. In the vast majority of cases, I say exactly what I mean and there is nothing more to it.

People do act.

Your point being?