Morality, Equality, Consistency, and Fairness: Ti vs Fi

[mikesilb]

I would imagine that both and dominant types (I..j temperament) would have a lot to say in terms of the role of morality, equality, consistency, and fairness, as a philosophy of interacting with others properly and ethically in the world.

How might what they say differ amongst dom. types vs. dom. types?

[mikesilb]

Well I think all humans have some level of comparing these 4 things.

Specifically for Ti versus Fi - I think both view equality & fairness pretty similarly.

However, Ti egos seem much more concentrated on consistency - making sure the logic found within a system is maintained, or designing a better system which would be more consistent. They see how things are interrelated - they see things systematically and don't consider how others feel. Their views tend to stem from what makes the most sense, not how others feel about things.

Fi egos are more concerned about morality - unlike Ti egos, they don't necessarily see things in system, or weighing good versus bad for net effect or comparison, but rather focus on how others feel about things, whether that's good or bad. They're in-tuned to the intrinsic, complicated, varying emotions that others feel, on a level a bit more detailed than simply 'good' or 'bad'. Their views tend to stem from how others may feel about things, not what makes the most sense.

Everything that you are saying here makes sense to me (and was part of what I was looking for).

How might the role (#3) functions manifest themselves differently for types () vs. types ()?
(Try not to reference wikisocion in this answer if possible).

[Beautiful sky]

my morality is highly evolutionary

Generally, if you kill someone it's wrong and bad and punishable by jail.

My morality is adaptive to individual circumstances...

Joe killed someone by accident robbing a bank to feed his family. Joe was trying to do something out of love in one regard but in the heat of the moment lost it and killed someone; I would forgive Joe and figure out a way to establish his life in such a way where he could feed his family.

[mikesilb]

However, Ti egos seem much more concentrated on consistency - making sure the logic found within a system is maintained, or designing a better system which would be more consistent. They see how things are interrelated - they see things systematically and don't consider how others feel. Their views tend to stem from what makes the most sense, not how others feel about things.

To me, this sounds almost mutually exclusive, which runs counter to the way that I operate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, I am trying to determine which one relates to me ( or ego). Here is my dillema:

I am massively interested in abstract, conceptual, theoretical knowledge (just like an Alpha NT). I can see how analytical I am in general, and it really shows up whenever I am analyzing or learning a concept. When I am immersed in this analysis (like when I am in Socionics mode, or in a mode when I am trying to grok a theory), everything remains highly impersonal, and I am much more interested in what makes objective, consistent, logical sense. In other words, my cognitive activity is akin completely to an alpha NT, and even more so, like an LII.

However, when people enter the picture and I am interacting with them, considering their feelings/values (and being sensitive to that) is something that I do as well. I have been known to be compassionate, friendly, sensitive, affirming to others, etc. I feel like a Delta NF (either IEE or EII) at those moments.

In other words, I have an on-off switch that takes place whether or not people are (or even a single other person is) around me. When no one is around, the 'Analyst' side of me shows up and I am all about getting into the juicy, theoretical material so that I can understand and master it. However, when I have to consider another person with me, I switch modes to the 'Nice Guy' side to me (which is more caring and interpersonally sensitive).

I care about being fair, kind, and virtuous in both of those situations. I feel that I need to be consistent and fair to others as I wish others would treat me. In fact, when I see others treating me in a way that is inequitable, I can get sensitive to such slights. I believe in consistent treatment of others, and that consistency is something that I genuinely value (as I value consistency in logical statements, words and deeds).

Based on what I wrote, does this lean more towards LII or more towards EII/IEE?

[some chair]

I suspect Aushra placed too much of standard high logical intelligence into her understanding of Ne and Ti. There also seems to be a meme in this community--though I can't sauce it--that being a nerd makes you an Alpha NT.

The other issue with Socionics is it's excessively bound to its own arbitrary internal logic. An unfortunate side effect of this is a great deal of contradictions depending on how you apply the system, as you're currently encountering, and as evidenced by the inability of anyone to agree on what type someone is, or how to go about typing them.

Your question is also a difficult one:

I care about being fair, kind, and virtuous in both of those situations. I feel that I need to be consistent and fair to others as I wish others would treat me. In fact, when I see others treating me in a way that is inequitable, I can get sensitive to such slights. I believe in consistent treatment of others, and that consistency is something that I genuinely value (as I value consistency in logical statements, words and deeds).

Were you ever abused or bullied as a child? Sensitivity to power can be a learned pattern of anger in children who had excessive power exerted on them by groups of peers, parents, or teachers.

This is a difficult question because nobody can agree on what a "type" is in the concrete. Is it signals in the brain? (It can't be, because then you have to include diseases of signalling like the schizophrenic spectrum). Is it relationship success probability? (It's unknowable, because types can't be identified beforehand in order to test predictions of relationship success). Is it temperament? (It can be interpreted as such, since socionics is not personality, and personality changes over time). Is it learned behaviour?

Ultimately a type is just a subjective ontological glob. On the other hand, a fact can be measured by the number of people in agreement on a piece of knowledge, who are also capable of making a judgement. As such I can give you two answers: you will develop a series of factual types based on the number of people from different schools who agree on your type, or you will arrive at a type, begint typing others, and start using the system in whatever way you see fit.

Why do you want a type? Is it for the sake of solving a puzzle? Do you want to use it? Is it force of habit in typing yourself? I'm going to sound like a very stereotypically nihilistic Five here, I suppose, but I don't consider Socionics to be a source of knowledge. The system is too messy, too arbitrary, too distorted a map of reality to fit to anything but itself.

To the incensed crowd: I'm not attacking your system. There is a sense of mathematical beauty and symmetry to its constructs and its analogies. Internally it has a kind of a simple aesthetic pleasantness. It is still a mess--but by my subjective reckoning. You are free to quietly disagree, but I'm unwilling to get into a fight of opinions and feelings.

[Saberstorm]

The role function is the area of fears. It emerges when strangers are present. It fades when you find something that is complementary to your program function (lead function) - with the other person. So if you are Ti program then what is complementary to the program is Fe which is somebody being interested in your thoughts, at which case you switch from Fi role to Ti lead.

That sounds like you!

[mikesilb]

Why do you want a type? Is it for the sake of solving a puzzle? Do you want to use it? Is it force of habit in typing yourself? I'm going to sound like a very stereotypically nihilistic Five here, I suppose, but I don't consider Socionics to be a source of knowledge. The system is too messy, too arbitrary, too distorted a map of reality to fit to anything but itself.



To the incensed crowd: I'm not attacking your system. There is a sense of mathematical beauty and symmetry to its constructs and its analogies. Internally it has a kind of a simple aesthetic pleasantness. It is still a mess--but by my subjective reckoning. You are free to quietly disagree, but I'm unwilling to get into a fight of opinions and feelings.

I find a contradiction in what your saying. First you actively question my subjective/internal motivation to figure out where I fit in the Socionics system (irrespective of whether or not I am leading myself down a dark alley due to your assertion that the logic inherent in the system is screwy) and what that motivation to find my type would be.

Then, one or two paragraphs later, you state your unwillingness to get into a fight of opinions and feelings.

If you are so unwilling to get into such a fight/debate/argument, why would you openly question my motivation to type myself? By doing that, you certainly did not make a tolerant, peaceful statement. Rather, I should be questioned for doing something that is by default, a natural activity on this board (i.e., type determination)? How could you claim your unwillingness to argue, when you actually fired the first shot?

I do think that it is very easy for someone to fall into logical wormholes if he/she is not careful with understanding the IM Elements, functions, and applications (cognitive?, behavioral?) of the typology. It can be a highly slippery slope, and can easily be misused or mishandled. However, I also see a route that if taken with some degree of caution and critical thinking, can actually be productive towards making this typology work. It is this route that interests me, and makes me want to delve further into this system.

You have the right to say Socionics sucks, and you could start a new thread explaining how it does (if that is how you feel)...But in the middle of a pre-existing thread where I am asking a very basic informational question (relating to vs in functions #1 and #3) in terms of elucidating how my general style fits in terms of this question, I don't see how your opinion fits nor directly answers my specific inquiry.

I value your opinion about Socionics and actually see the worth of your statement...but perhaps placing it elsewhere might be a more effective way to show a real unwillingness to fight that you claim to have.

P.S. I find it ironic that only a month ago, you created a 'type me' thread based on a video of yours. Now why is 'that' ok in light of what you wrote directly above?

[mikesilb]

The role function is the area of fears. It emerges when strangers are present. It fades when you find something that is complementary to your program function (lead function) - with the other person. So if you are Ti program then what is complementary to the program is Fe which is somebody being interested in your thoughts, at which case you switch from Fi role to Ti lead.

That sounds like you!

Thanks for your feedback in this regard! Very illuminating actually!

I wonder if the -role for a type is actually sort of a forced properness/political-correctness/stiffness that belies the -doms desire to speak and act in a more 'real'/authentic kind of way (which might involve more of a direct communicating style, where one is ideally not afraid to let the truth come to the forefront).

I think that when -doms go into an -role, they are somewhat removed from a pursuit of truth and conceptual understanding, in order to have a type of niceness and properness replace it temporarily. Their -PoLR makes them despise using forcefulness to artificially prod or convince someone to do something against their will. In combination with this PoLR, the -role makes them want to look cordial and friendly as a way to let others know that they have innocent (non-malevolent) intentions. However, this act of being overly proper/cordial slightly removes the type of authentically honest communication that they aspire to have with people in general. It takes them out of their natural state (for the sake of being nice) and actually makes them worry as to whether they are offending others (which often they are NOT doing).

I agree that might be the key towards releasing that -role. In this case, allows the -dom to feel more unconditionally welcome (rather than -role making -doms feel that they need to strain themselves to be fully accepted). By welcoming the into a laid-back, open, and welcoming environment, allows to authentically be themselves and to communicate in a genuinely authentic/spontanteous manner that allows them to enjoy the moment and to make them feel comfortable in their investigative and explorational skin.

I like this explanation!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Morals are tricky. You're not going to realistically force how other people are allowed to treat other people... doing that will probably just invoke more bullying.

American society seems to have this mentality (I'm not sure if this is 'right' or 'wrong') that anything goes as long as you don't kill people or.... target them too much. You can be competitive and rough but as long as you don't kill other people like a campy Charmed demon then everything is okay. This really annoys me, because it's basically... people just do whatever they want as long as they don't kill you. They can think you're a weak little nothing and bully you emotionally but as long as they don't outright kill you then it's okay. Expecting anything more from people is being too 'idealistic' or namby pamby ish.

And I guess overall I agree because anything else just isn't realistic. It's not like you're going to make somebody respect or treat politely when they don't really want to, some of the drama on this board has been a perfect example of that lmao. So with morals if you want a nice person I guess you just have to be the change you want to see in the world. Blah I'm putting a pretty bow on things again, help me not do that social workers.

[wacey]

I believe the similarities lie most noticeably along the lines of the similar super-ego; the evaluatory function.

In a given conversation, the two types super-egoic motives, in other words, "shoulds":

ISTj / LII: "What you think doesn't really matter to me, but I have to pretend to myself and to you that it does". introverted ethics - role function.

INFj / EII: "What you think does really matter to me, but I have to pretend to myself and to you that it does not". introverted thinking - role function.

[Amber]

my morality is highly evolutionary

Generally, if you kill someone it's wrong and bad and punishable by jail.

My morality is adaptive to individual circumstances...

Joe killed someone by accident robbing a bank to feed his family. Joe was trying to do something out of love in one regard but in the heat of the moment lost it and killed someone; I would forgive Joe and figure out a way to establish his life in such a way where he could feed his family.

I'd be curious to hear if a Delta Fi base who identifies as a humanist considers Fi to be intrinsic morality independent of the person ...

[chemical]

Note that both Ti and Fi ego types have Ti or Fi in superego. So in a manner of speaking, both of these IE inform the individual about such matters.

The difference then comes down less to which one the person employs but rather where they'll attempt to solve the problem. The one contained in superego block will more make demands on the individual, where by the theory of dimensionality the person's experiential knowledge and knowledge of societal norms weighs upon them. At the very basic level, this means a lot of a Fi ego's Ti superego demands come from plain personal experience telling them something or another about the Ti factor.

They then will use Fi/Ne or Fi/Se to create new knowledge to address whatever the issue is.

Viewing the superego as a realm of fears could be one way of seeing it, sure. I'd still say potentially-uncomfortable demands is the most general way of seeing it, hence my preferred one, but these psychological demands could show up through fears.

The point is the person isn't going to solve specific, situational problems using the Ti point of view if Fi ego, and vice versa.

[yeves]

i've seen this dicussed as Fe=fairness, Fi=justice

[Amber]

i've seen this dicussed as Fe=fairness, Fi=justice

I would say Ti = justice and Fi = this feels right/beautiful/congruent with me ...

[PussyInASarcophagus]

my morality is highly evolutionary

Generally, if you kill someone it's wrong and bad and punishable by jail.

My morality is adaptive to individual circumstances...

Joe killed someone by accident robbing a bank to feed his family. Joe was trying to do something out of love in one regard but in the heat of the moment lost it and killed someone; I would forgive Joe and figure out a way to establish his life in such a way where he could feed his family.

This is a contradiction. Should i say it in Russian to you?

[Alomoes]

Well, the guy who I say is Fi actually is planning revenge on someone and told me. It'll probably go viral if he does it and it works. I don't know if it will work.

[Alomoes]

This is a contradiction. Should i say it in Russian to you?

He's saying he would forgive a crime of passion vs a regular crime of cold blood. Someone killing vs someone getting angry and killing. Famous case involves a man who shot a man he saw kissing his wife.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crim...%20two%20years.

Personally, I think the theory behind it is dumb, as all crimes deal in passion to some degree.

[ashlesha]

Lol I don't plan revenge because I'm tactical. A mood may strike

Edit: relates to the crime of passion thing. Got me to thinking about how I feel a little more innocent because I don't plan anything but am I really more innocent? Lol no

[Alomoes]

That's a good point, crime of passion ought to be relatable by specific types. I would probably never. It crosses a boundary set to do so.

[ashlesha]

I always thought crime of passion was lighter because obviously nobody is immune from doing it. Was I projecting? Lol

[Alomoes]

You are not wrong, but if I put you in the right place you'd commit a conventional murder all the same. The difference is nothing. Anyone can commit crimes of passion, anyone can suddenly up an murder their friend.

Part of the knowledge of this, is what makes sociopaths pathological liars. They actually feel inclined to lie or refuse to share information out of fear it might be used against them. I believe, it is because it is what they would do, but that's conjecture.

[Zyan]

Fi is more personalized but also more innate while an LSI for example might feel nothing for the framework he's following and instead just sees it as a way of life.