I hate Fe properness

[717495]

When types get offended by some "objective" ethical connotation, it just seems so fake to me. There's no personal relationship being threatened, there's nothing real that's threatening them or coming between us, they just chose to act like there is and jeopardize all the peace and everything we have for the sake of some principle or ridiculous feeling inside them (probably, not that I would know), and shun me or others if we happen to say something wrong or offend some other type who "cares" so much, and at times feel obligated to follow the popular crowd or popular feeling instead of their own bonds. It's like you think you're close with someone, until they get offended by something that has nothing to do with your relationship with them, and then treat you like you're the devil or something. I've never understood , I've never understood how people can be that way. People need to grow up and face the music, and quit making a big deal out of nothing. It's like their ego has to get involved with things they know nothing about. Why get offended by something when it has nothing to do with you?

I call this negative attribute related to because it extinguishes the knowledge and underlying strength of personal relationships, and is my biggest weakness, something I don't give a crap about. It can also seem pretty "cultish" at times if that's the word. Also people who actively use tell me that that's how you really socialize and form "meaningful" relationships with people, as though you have to properly know how to play together and suck up to "objective" connotations, and to me it's just wrong. And I've often seen them really suck at or being afraid of actually talking with someone about their interests and getting to know them, its like they just kind of sit back and ride the social roller coaster and pretend to care and think they know people, yet show them no depth. Sure maybe easily adapt and have some fun...but what's the point? Sometimes just seems waaaayy too distant and over-tactical to me, and not at all real enough. So yeah, rant.

[MatthewZ]

Care to elaborate?

[717495]

I think it has a lot to do with not recognizing your preestablished bond with someone, and taking that into consideration. Like, someone says something offensive, and the person easily gets over it and continues to care about the human himself, the personal bond that is, and also tries to care normally about everyone else and continues to cater and develop what peace has been between them, or whatever stance was had on their preexisting relationships, the depth which isn't stirred about externally, where as the person has to deal with it because its now engrained into the social dynamic, I guess some would call that the "larger picture" ethics (though to me is way too distanced from reality, definitely not seen that way with types), and that person has to be avoided temporarily, or given mean glares, etc. because of their negative contributions. Just one example, and it doesn't always turn out this way...but I have never seen types act that way, not once. seems more individually between... seems more among.

[717495]

Mind you that I'm speaking from an -PoLR perspective, because I highly doubt that egos don't ever use well, just as I know egos can sense well, and I'm definitely not saying I'm the master of . Just that from my perspective s not grasped really what so ever, even when it seems highly logical. I also know that -PoLRs suck in my eyes because of this, because they're incapable of really understanding my emotional perspectives, like beyond principles and doing the proper thing, etc.

[Begoner]

It's like you think you're close with someone, until they get offended by something that has nothing to do with your relationship with them, and then treat you like you're the devil or something.

If a friend were to say to me, "I torture cute kittens in my spare time", such a statement would have nothing to do with our relationship. Nonetheless, I would treat them differently, since I would not wish to be friends with someone who engages in seriously unethical practices. While nothing would have come between us, I think it's important to let people know that such behavior is unacceptable; hopefully, it might induce them to alter their outlook, something which maintaining the status quo cannot achieve. Of course, the decision is seldom a logical consideration; that someone acts immorally is enough for me to find them less likable, whether or not they act immorally towards me or towards other people. Since a relationship with someone is largely based on mutual liking, this can have consequences for a relationship.

[Aiss]

Fe types take everything personally. Live with it.

[EyeSeeCold]

It happens both ways. When says something "offensive" the problem is that a subject is taboo for a reason, to not involve personal attachment to the subject. Thus is offended because now the discussion is focused on how close people are to each other which makes for awkwardness because feelings of hate/dislike may surface.

When says something "offensive", the problem is that the implications on the distance between people was not considered. Thus an valuer may attach a hate or dislike label to the person for offending values.

[717495]

It happens both ways. When says something "offensive" the problem is that a subject is taboo for a reason, to not involve personal attachment to the subject. Thus is offended because now the discussion is focused on how close people are to each other which makes for awkwardness because feelings of hate/dislike may surface.

When says something "offensive", the problem is that the implications on the distance between people was not considered. Thus an valuer may attach a hate or dislike label to the person for offending values.

Yeah. But it is still subjective, that is they're not going to try and perceive a relationship gone wrong they know nothing about and then hold you in bad regards. That just ruins the whole point of , though obviously the reason why they're our dual is because they expect us to hold some kind of accountability and will help us. And just like with egos, I find the latter happening more with egos than say IDs, as we can often just brush it off and ignore it because we've learned to be pissed off by that fact that we can't deal with it well, I used to care more when young but I felt it gradually move into my subconscious. But it definitely happens to me and it sucks when valuers just don't get it, and don't want to be there for you or come to your aid relationally. They often seem to rather want to either lay down the foundation or principle in a - hybrid, or just decide that you're ruining their full out and pay no heed to your feelings about the relationship or individual loyalty.

[Pa3s]

If that's more or less true what you say, I have another evidence that I don't understand IEs. If you left out the and symbols, I would have arranged them in an opposite way.

I also don't seem to agree. If it's type related at all, I would have assumed the exact opposite, as I said. I just can't imagine that an INFj ignores the behaviour of a person outside of their personal relationship. For instance, if someone treats everyone badly except for the Fi-valuing type (take INFj as example), do you really think they're fine with it?

I personally pay much attention to the overall behaviour of a person for several reasons. What if they try to show you a fake, 'kind' personality just to take advantage of you? I abhor such behaviour and that's why I want no closer contact to those people. Besides that, unethical behaviour in different situations is definitely a reason for me to 'dismiss' a person.

If a friend were to say to me, "I torture cute kittens in my spare time", such a statement would have nothing to do with our relationship. Nonetheless, I would treat them differently, since I would not wish to be friends with someone who engages in seriously unethical practices. While nothing would have come between us, I think it's important to let people know that such behavior is unacceptable; hopefully, it might induce them to alter their outlook, something which maintaining the status quo cannot achieve. Of course, the decision is seldom a logical consideration; that someone acts immorally is enough for me to find them less likable, whether or not they act immorally towards me or towards other people. Since a relationship with someone is largely based on mutual liking, this can have consequences for a relationship.

This example is exaggerated of course, but is that what you mean? I mean I don't invade the private life of anyone, because I hate it if people are doing this with me, but such a behaviour would not be acceptable for me. Well, if people are able to do this, they might be also be able to do much worse things, even to yourself. That's what I always have in mind. It's important for me that the people I trust share more or less the same values and views in certain areas. If those 'standards' are not met, I won't let that person know important things (if they are often lying) for example.

[jessica129]

There's too many shapes in this thread AHHHHHHH

[Begoner]

This example is exaggerated of course, but is that what you mean?

I certainly wouldn't want to be friends with someone I thought was trying to take advantage of me, but even if I knew someone would be a loyal friend, I wouldn't tolerate severe ethical shortcomings. So, for example, if I learned that a friend of mine were prejudiced against group X, but I and all my acquaintances were of group Y, I wouldn't question the sincerity of his friendship; however, the fact that he was prejudiced would make me like him less. Similarly, if I see someone being rude to another person, my reaction is the same as if I were to see him blatantly picking his nose in front of me: I find that person a bit more disgusting than I did before, even though there's no pragmatic reason why it should affect our relationship.

[717495]

If that's more or less true what you say, I have another evidence that I don't understand IEs. If you left out the and symbols, I would have arranged them in an opposite way.

I also don't seem to agree. If it's type related at all, I would have assumed the exact opposite, as I said. I just can't imagine that an INFj ignores the behaviour of a person outside of their personal relationship. For instance, if someone treats everyone badly except for the Fi-valuing type (take INFj as example), do you really think they're fine with it?

I personally pay much attention to the overall behaviour of a person for several reasons. What if they try to show you a fake, 'kind' personality just to take advantage of you? I abhor such behaviour and that's why I want no closer contact to those people. Besides that, unethical behaviour in different situations is definitely a reason for me to 'dismiss' a person.

That's not exactly what I'm saying, I didn't say that EIIs "ignore behavior," but in terms of values I don't see how you're able to confuse ethics with ethics here, especially in supposedly being -PoLR. What should be noted of -PoLR is there is only consciousness in so far that there is weakness, whatever consciousness there is mostly in reflection of s vulnerable affect, with little room for a sense of control or understanding. I don't see any reason that an -PoLR would pay attention and try to judge the behavior of others in terms of ethics. It works in terms of personality categorization, but -PoLRs for instance have a whole other way of viewing personality theory as well.

[munenori2]

Why can't anyone just talk about what bothers them or what they love without using gotdamn shapes?! Seriously though, explain the phenomena and avoid theoretical attributions until after the fact analysis. Or I will mangle you.

[EyeSeeCold]

Why can't anyone just talk about what bothers them or what they love without using gotdamn shapes?! Seriously though, explain the phenomena and avoid theoretical attributions until after the fact analysis. Or I will mangle you.

There are some people who do not care about the effect of their words in regards to individuals. And then there are people who do not care about the implications of their words in regards to everyone combined. I am of the latter group, and I do not like it when people exhibit the former.

[munenori2]

But is not 'everyone' merely a collective of single persons whom you do not care to mince words for?

[MatthewZ]

If a friend were to say to me, "I torture cute kittens in my spare time", such a statement would have nothing to do with our relationship. Nonetheless, I would treat them differently, since I would not wish to be friends with someone who engages in seriously unethical practices. While nothing would have come between us, I think it's important to let people know that such behavior is unacceptable; hopefully, it might induce them to alter their outlook, something which maintaining the status quo cannot achieve. Of course, the decision is seldom a logical consideration; that someone acts immorally is enough for me to find them less likable, whether or not they act immorally towards me or towards other people. Since a relationship with someone is largely based on mutual liking, this can have consequences for a relationship.

If they could deliver that with a straight face, I'd personally be cracking up.

[Begoner]

If they could deliver that with a straight face, I'd personally be cracking up.

I mean if the person actually loved going Abu Ghraib on kittens, not if he had a deadpan sense of humor; I'd also find it funny if it were a nonchalantly-said joke.

[EyeSeeCold]

But is not 'everyone' merely a collective of single persons whom you do not care to mince words for?

What happens during the judgment process is that when you consider everyone as in individual, you understand that people have their own personal ways and do not seek to impose a fixed standard than is not flexible. When you consider everyone as a collective, you understand that not every single person can be satisfied and so you seek to find the option that suits the most amount of people.

Why I see as BS is because there is no reason to impose a standard. Of course not everyone can be satisfied, but that does not give you the right to act in such a way as to affirm it. If everyone can't be satisfied then don't try! Go for self and be your own person.

[ashlesha]

this thread is confusing to me. but i think i sort of have the gist of it. what feels relevant to me as an EII is something i brought up recently in a different thread: the idea of looking at someone as a "person" versus looking at someone as a "compilation of behaviors and actions," and how i automatically do the former. this is something i've sort of associated with Fi, though it might also have to do with my upbringing (in a way that is traceable, albeit uncomfortable and maybe pointless to go into). and maybe its just something that most people do, at least up to a point.

idk, though, when i think of paying attention to everyone's ethical behavior, what i picture in my mind is this image of a person with a steno pad and a pen, keeping track of others' behavior and tallying it against some kind of checklist of what is preferable or acceptable. and i just absolutely do not have the time and energy to think of people in that way...not to mention, something about that mindset feels kind of inhuman and gross to me (sorry). so if Fi has to do with such traceable and explicit sorts of judgments, than i know i am definitely not Fi ego.

that's not to say i don't see the wisdom in being careful and maintaining some kind of objectivity when it comes to who you associate with. but people are people, and we're all kind of crazy and we all fuck up all the time because it's just the nature of being a person. obviously, things like morality and social codes are pretty complex, there are very few universal rules, so it really comes down to how you feel. which makes a checklist kind of impossible, at least for me. i guess what i'm basically trying to say is that it's complicated.

What happens during the judgment process is that when you consider everyone as in individual, you understand that people have their own personal ways and do not seek to impose a fixed standard than is not flexible. When you consider everyone as a collective, you understand that not every single person can be satisfied and so you seek to find the option that suits the most amount of people.

i like this.

[marooned]

i don't think i really understand this topic without examples. somehow i don't think the torturing kittens example works. i mean if you were really close friends with this person already and then you find out, out of the blue, they torture kittens in their spare time, then it's kind of like figuring out you didn't really know them to begin with... because i mean if you didn't notice this sadistic side to them at all and they never did anything that would hint at it i might feel that they just well might be a very convincing psychopath... and their torturing of kittens raises some interesting questions about how they feel about other things... furthermore if i continue associating with them and don't do anything knowing full well they're torturing kittens it's like i'm an accomplice. i think i would feel that i had to do something (to stop them), so then it would turn into betrayal. anyway my point with this is that the kitten torturing is obviously too extreme an example and as most people don't do this it wouldn't come up in typical relationships obviously. anyway if you were madly in love with the kitten torturer before learning of his/her awful secret i doubt most people could just fall out of love with them at once because of it. and some kind of ultimatum like "i want nothing to do with you! you torture kittens! so either stop or i'm out of your life!!!!" seems really ridiculous especially considering they might not be able to stop because they're sick.

[Words]

When types get offended by some "objective" ethical connotation, it just seems so fake to me. There's no personal relationship being threatened, there's nothing real that's threatening them or coming between us, they just chose to act like there is and jeopardize all the peace and everything we have for the sake of some principle or ridiculous feeling inside them (probably, not that I would know), and shun me or others if we happen to say something wrong or offend some other type who "cares" so much, and at times feel obligated to follow the popular crowd or popular feeling instead of their own bonds. It's like you think you're close with someone, until they get offended by something that has nothing to do with your relationship with them, and then treat you like you're the devil or something. I've never understood , I've never understood how people can be that way. People need to grow up and face the music, and quit making a big deal out of nothing. It's like their ego has to get involved with things they know nothing about. Why get offended by something when it has nothing to do with you?

I call this negative attribute related to because it extinguishes the knowledge and underlying strength of personal relationships, and is my biggest weakness, something I don't give a crap about. It can also seem pretty "cultish" at times if that's the word. Also people who actively use tell me that that's how you really socialize and form "meaningful" relationships with people, as though you have to properly know how to play together and suck up to "objective" connotations, and to me it's just wrong. And I've often seen them really suck at or being afraid of actually talking with someone about their interests and getting to know them, its like they just kind of sit back and ride the social roller coaster and pretend to care and think they know people, yet show them no depth. Sure maybe easily adapt and have some fun...but what's the point? Sometimes just seems waaaayy too distant and over-tactical to me, and not at all real enough. So yeah, rant.

Well I don't know for sure if it's type related, but your wall of text displays no logical sense or factual examples. As such you might not even be an valuer, and I've no clear idea of why you're posting this or just muttering to yourself.

If anything, types are more likely to forgive social slip ups because it's not so much about forming a static opinion of you, .

But mostly this is depending on the person, and unless you want to be more precise in what you're complaining about-please provide examples, then most people on the thread will struggle.

[717495]

i don't think i really understand this topic without examples. somehow i don't think the torturing kittens example works. i mean if you were really close friends with this person already and then you find out, out of the blue, they torture kittens in their spare time, then it's kind of like figuring out you didn't really know them to begin with... because i mean if you didn't notice this sadistic side to them at all and they never did anything that would hint at it i might feel that they just well might be a very convincing psychopath... and their torturing of kittens raises some interesting questions about how they feel about other things... furthermore if i continue associating with them and don't do anything knowing full well they're torturing kittens it's like i'm an accomplice. i think i would feel that i had to do something (to stop them), so then it would turn into betrayal. anyway my point with this is that the kitten torturing is obviously too extreme an example and as most people don't do this it wouldn't come up in typical relationships obviously. anyway if you were madly in love with the kitten torturer before learning of his/her awful secret i doubt most people could just fall out of love with them at once because of it. and some kind of ultimatum like "i want nothing to do with you! you torture kittens! so either stop or i'm out of your life!!!!" seems really ridiculous especially considering they might not be able to stop because they're sick.

Yeah, this viewpoint just seems rather to me. I mean it is a bit incomplete and also kind of extreme to make a serious decision about, but its still valid in my experience after experience with types and how they would judge the situation.

Well I don't know for sure if it's type related, but your wall of text displays no logical sense or factual examples. As such you might not even be an valuer, and I've no clear idea of why you're posting this or just muttering to yourself.

If anything, types are more likely to forgive social slip ups because it's not so much about forming a static opinion of you, .

But mostly this is depending on the person, and unless you want to be more precise in what you're complaining about-please provide examples, then most people on the thread will struggle.

I guess you didn't understand the context I was using? I was speaking of being about relationships, not objective ethics. I don't know what's so hard to understand. I'll let people give their own experiences about it.

this thread is confusing to me. but i think i sort of have the gist of it. what feels relevant to me as an EII is something i brought up recently in a different thread: the idea of looking at someone as a "person" versus looking at someone as a "compilation of behaviors and actions," and how i automatically do the former. this is something i've sort of associated with Fi, though it might also have to do with my upbringing (in a way that is traceable, albeit uncomfortable and maybe pointless to go into). and maybe its just something that most people do, at least up to a point.

idk, though, when i think of paying attention to everyone's ethical behavior, what i picture in my mind is this image of a person with a steno pad and a pen, keeping track of others' behavior and tallying it against some kind of checklist of what is preferable or acceptable. and i just absolutely do not have the time and energy to think of people in that way...not to mention, something about that mindset feels kind of inhuman and gross to me (sorry). so if Fi has to do with such traceable and explicit sorts of judgments, than i know i am definitely not Fi ego.

that's not to say i don't see the wisdom in being careful and maintaining some kind of objectivity when it comes to who you associate with. but people are people, and we're all kind of crazy and we all fuck up all the time because it's just the nature of being a person. obviously, things like morality and social codes are pretty complex, there are very few universal rules, so it really comes down to how you feel. which makes a checklist kind of impossible, at least for me. i guess what i'm basically trying to say is that it's complicated.

I definitely know and appreciate where you're coming from. Thanks for the info. I've found that oftentimes after the cloud of perspective fades and is cleared up, people in general are left with a better sense of what the originally was or is. Just because I'm an valuer, to me always has to add some kind of twist on things, and isn't objective in the sense that it's true, all objective means is that it aims towards an objective judgment. What you described seems easily like a take on things and what I like to hear.

[marooned]

Yeah, this viewpoint just seems rather to me. I mean it is a bit incomplete and also kind of extreme to make a serious decision about, but its still valid in my experience after experience with types and how they would judge the situation.

out of curiosity what would you see as more ?

[717495]

out of curiosity what would you see as more ?

The person I already knew before I found out something that doesn't really matter anyway. If I didn't know him I wouldn't necessarily seek out to befriend some torcherer, nor would I think badly towards him because I don't really know him (which is what I was originally trying to explain)...wouldn't fully befriend him unless I felt the development of an internal/personal connection with him, like our personalities meld in a way that isn't explainable, we just have the connection and it could definitely be due to the work we put into it, but in other words it's a subjective preference, nothing that strives for an objective judgment. Since I already have a relationship with this person, it's going to be hard for some objective factor to change that. I don't think would see a factor like that as mattering, because it doesn't effect the relationship, maybe they have a few learned expectations? (which I find rare of -PoLRs) is the judgment of objectifying the ethics of the situation, that I think will try to alter whatever perceived relationships, instead of the opposite. But to me feels a lot more disconnected from truly understanding the status of relationships, instead of just "what I like about this certain person and why," which an type might not know enough about because we don't try to objectify it to a large extent, which could thus reduce the relationship to mere terminology and principle, in other words an emotional sort of idea, and we wouldn't be honoring the reality of our personal relations.

[marooned]

Since I already have a relationship with this person, it's going to be hard for some objective factor to change that. I don't think an type would see a factor like that as mattering, because it doesn't effect the relationship.

although i didn't say i would end the relationship because of it (i mean if someone's important to me, they can be a murderer and they'll still be important to me). i do see it as mattering though because i like kittens and they're helpless creatures and this person is torturing them and i can't not do something about that. i mean i guess for this to work i'd have to know just how close this person is and the specifics... i am prone to regularly being unsure of relationships with most people and so a factor like this can tip the balance rather significantly especially since it would probably send all of my previous doubts screaming to the surface as one causing me to mull it over for a very long time... i mean often with torturing animals, it evolves to torturing people (although this too would depend on my feelings, as i might feel that in their case maybe not), so to me this would be a serious concern and also a question regarding my personal safety (although i mean this really is hypothetical because i probably wouldn't have ended up near this person to begin with because i probably would have gotten some feeling early on that it wasn't safe and went the other way, but anyway). it would largely depend on which doubts i've already had regarding the relationship and what realizations hit due to the new info about the person changing my conception of who they are and therefore also about how they may actually feel about me (were they using me? is there any genuine feeling of friendship? is anything between us a figment of my imagination?) i guess it just also depends on the stage of the relationship... for instance i don't doubt things about my immediate family members as i know who they are and what our relationship is... but anyone i met who is more in the friend category, i mean it would already have to be a certain kind of relationship for me to have not detected this. the main problem is that they are hurting others (it's an actually act, not simply a view). and to me torturing animals is basically as bad as torturing people (as i certainly wouldn't want to be a torture victim and i would hope that someone would stop the person doing it if they knew).

this sounds like more hah

[717495]

Yeah obviously safety is another issue, but I don't think that's incredibly type related. Because when I think of animal torcherer, I do think about what other implications that might form and happen to me to that effect, but I can't say it has much to do with or because there is literally no ethical judgment being made on my behalf. It has easily been a different thought process in similar situations for types I've known, as I see them attach a whole lot of personal judgment to those sorts of things, and as -PoLR that can get pretty annoying fast. types think I'm being insensitive, they have no idea what I think about them really, and their attempt to know what's right or wrong. They're just two different mind frames. I find that will also assume a lot more ethically about a situation than what I see there, just as does with intuition, etc. I hate when people get the two information elements confused though, it's so frustrating having to explain why... I just don't .

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

When Fe types get offended by some "objective" ethical connotation, it just seems so fake to me.

It's not fake. =( We really are offended sometimes.

There's no personal relationship being threatened, there's nothing real that's threatening them or coming between us, they just chose to act like there is and jeopardize all the peace and everything we have for the sake of some principle or ridiculous feeling inside them (probably, not that I would know), and shun me or others if we happen to say something wrong or offend some other type who "cares" so much, and at times feel obligated to follow the popular crowd or popular feeling instead of their own bonds.

You're being weird, distant and introverted moody middle class like. =( Can't you just love other people and be loved in return. What the hell is wrong with you people.

It's like you think you're close with someone, until they get offended by something that has nothing to do with your relationship with them, and then treat you like you're the devil or something. I've never understood , I've never understood how people can be that way. People need to grow up and face the music, and quit making a big deal out of nothing. It's like their ego has to get involved with things they know nothing about. Why get offended by something when it has nothing to do with you?

Because people selflessly care about others.... and why do you want people to face the music? It sorta sounds like you're being unnecessarily mean to the only people on the planet that give a shit about you, which is kind of retarded. It's like 'you're the one that's being a spoiled brat, not us.'

we only do it cuz we love you.

[717495]

I guess simply saying I appreciate your really doesn't prove it for you, does it? Well it's true! Thanks for watching our backs. We will send you chocolates and an expensive christmas present.

[marooned]

...

yeah well this has cleared up nothing for me, but that wasn't the point of this topic anyway. i can usually relate to a lot of Fe complaints but it doesn't necessarily mean anything (as i think that Fe types can as well). also with this topic another of my points with my sort of sarcastic quote in exclamation marks about the ultimatum is that i really think that most people aren't going to just ditch someone that's important to them (or even someone not important to them, depending... for instance someone one is starting to get to know) because they discover something disturbing about them (whether Fe or Fi valuing). in this way i can basically reduce all of this back to being relative without having any actual specific examples that make something clearly not relative. of course in my own thoughts i can often make everything relative as well.

[717495]

The Lenore Thompson wiki describes what you're saying as something related to :

Great perspective I find the 2nd and 3rd paragraph the most valid. "Inner essence," which is a great reference to how "relationships" are formed.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

But Fe types do that as well. Everybody is like, paying attention to how their environments naturally clash with them or not. Stop acting like you're these pristine beautiful unique snowflakes with a 'higher moral purpose' or something and that only you as a Beautiful and Magestic Fi type can understand the truest most pure form of love. It's making me vomit. Can't you guys be clearer on what you really want from somebody, in a physical context? Jeesh. That's why I like estps. They are so direct and so clear on what they want. It seems like all fi types do is hold out for some 'deep and meaningful' thing THAT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. I mean jesus christ, what do you really want to do? Do you want to play video games together, do you want me to get a real job? Do you want to be nicer? Do you want others to be nicer? Do you want to go to the park and throw a ball around.

I'm only being like argumentative because it's like what you guys want. It's how you can relate to people. It brings out the fight in me.

[Words]

I guess you didn't understand the context I was using? I was speaking of being about relationships, not objective ethics. I don't know what's so hard to understand. I'll let people give their own experiences about it.

Yeah but you made the thread and I want to know what you mean by and examples pertaining to your life, because surely things must have happened to you to have formed an opinion.

[ashlesha]

@ashton: thanks for that quote, it matches my experience with Fi quite well. and, lol, the intangible things, ya

@poli: i think we have a similar view of the Fe/Fi difference, though i have a hard time following your wording (i'm going off the basic gist and feel i get from what youre saying). what is mostly confusing me is that i largely agree with what loki wrote, maybe not every detail, but nothing she said stood out to me as particularly egregious, idk. so i'm having trouble seeing where the Fe/Fi line is here.

@bnd: do you honestly not see any parallel between describing Fi as something all mystical or whatever when compared to the way you talk about Ni? i dont blame you for being annoyed, cos that annoys me too

i also feel like its probably important to clarify that its not as though im completely blind to behaviors...i have instinctual reactions to behaviors as well as to people, its that when it comes to putting the two together there isnt any kind of direct line or anything. its not like there is zero correlation between the person and what they do, just that they are very far from being one and the same. bleh, hard to explain.

[Words]

I don't think I've read a specific example of and behaviour in this thread, it seems like grey areas of both.

I've known Fe and Fi types to judge on both behaviour and intent. I thought it was called getting to know someone.

I sure wish you guys would make it easier for me.

[Sir Knight]

I had an experience with this once. I was listening to NPR and there was an interview with an author on his new book. They were talking about a specific set of side characters- Israel-born Jews who had emigrated to Britain and were very outraged at the actions Israel was taking. The author was very critical of these characters, saying that he found their outrage "arrogant" since they had removed themselves from that situation and, in doing that, given away any ability to change it.

And while I can understand that idea, it still completely bowls me over. How can one not get outraged at legitimate ethical violations happening in the world? When I read about stuff like that I, without any direct control over it, am immediately moved to rage, to sadness, to despair... The whole spectrum of emotions that man's inhumanity to man can cause in a person. It puzzles me that a person could see that as arrogant, when it's just my most natural response to something like that.

But I can see where that perception of "fakeness" comes in. I can be shaken to the core by an issue but, really, what can I do about it? When it gets right down to "So I'm angry, what am I going to do about it?" the answer is almost always, "Shit. Nothing I guess."

I mean, could I legitimately do something to change a situation? Not with my piss-poor resources. Then, if I had the resources could I change something? Well, certainly, but with all the effort involved in changing something far beyond your countries borders, couldn't those hard-earned resources be better spent on my own domain or on more immediate concerns?

It seems like the reason Fe could be perceived as fake is that I can get really god damned angry about something and, realistically, be able to do nothing about it. So what was the point of that anger in the first place? Just hollow ethical pride? I don't know.

/ types do seem to operate by much more explicit standards when evaluating others and their behavior. It's as if they have some amassed database compiled in their minds which correlate X behaviors with Y intentions. And because of that, can often readily explain how and why they deduced something about a given person.

I can definitely relate to this. I watched this video about Jeremy Irons decrying the death penalty. And while I can certainly agree that the death penalty should be abolished or at least significantly narrowed in the scope and scale of crimes for which it is applied, the reasons he gives for doing so make me want to scream, "BUT THAT'S WRONG!"

He talks about how, though they have tortured and murdered, the people we put on to death row are still human beings, and still deserve the same human rights that are given to all human beings. I would argue that, because they have tortured and murdered, they have demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the rights of other human beings, which is why it is perfectly ok for us to do the same for them. They've killed other people and, so, why should they be able to turn around and expect fair treatment in the context of innocent, law-abiding citizens, when "fair treatment" at this point would be karmatic retribution via electric chair?

[Sir Knight]

The video, by the way:

[717495]

Which I've seen frustrate / types, as it gives them the impression of something entirely baseless, arbitrary, or disconnected from reality (as B&D criticized).

Yeah this is quite true. I feel the same way when those same types give me logical input. I kind of feel inside "on what basis are you saying this"? It seems a lot more intuitive to them, I guess. But I don't feel compelled to question it, I just kind of nod my head and forget all about what they were talking about lol.

Yeah, I find most of his reasoning annoying. While I personally don't agree with the death penalty on grounds that I dislike the State having legal authority to kill, and while he's right to say it isn't an effective deterrent against crime… to say we shouldn't do it because "they're human beings!" undercuts the value of human life; killing those who dishonor it seems perfectly justifiable. If a man kills someone who murdered his family, is he wrong?

Hah, my valuing friend talked to me about the same thing months back, and we had this big disagreement, the same opinion difference which felt to me rather type-related in that instance.

[Santa Claus]

i like kittens

That's wonderful Loki! You've been such a very good girl this year! I have some extra special presents for your stocking, ho ho ho!

[marooned]

die santa!

[Santa Claus]

!!

Urk!!

BLEHHHHHHHHHHHH